THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
I
\
UJ
CD
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
W.
o
JANUARY 1973
i.i««
U S Environmental Protection
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-------
EHVIROMENTAi PR0TECTXOK
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. Ihe 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,, fic'cepted "agency aciipn£ aS,b?iflg -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 ba 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 been 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 for 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, Win. 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 use 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 materials 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.
VII
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
Thvtely, any l.la, l.lb, 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 section 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
etseq. (1970).
1.3 Pollution of the Sea by Oil, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.
0966).
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),59Stat. 1219 (1944).
E.G. 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).
-------
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 (i) (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.O. 11613.
All 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.O. 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
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h) (1970).
Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
Airport and Airway Development
Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c)(4),
(e) (1970).
Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
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
lie 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
lie River and Harbor Act of 1899, March 3, 1899, P.L. 55-425,
§§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,
41322^1323, 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.
§1151 et seq. (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 Sess. (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 1951, 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 Senate
and agreed to, pp. 12565-12567. 528
1.2h The Water Quality Act of 1965, October 2, 1985, 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, H.R. 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
1.2j The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1986, 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-
tior r-o^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) Congressional 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).' 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
1 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. 935-939. 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 aid 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)]
l.lla 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. 14631.1 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 (1966), 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, 1958, 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,
20U.S.C. §1141 (1970). 2625
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1169(1) (B) ]
1.16a Higher Education Act of 1935, 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,
et seq. (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, 42513^2514; 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) Ssnate 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. 4039.* 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 Ssss.
(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, Fish 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 Sass. (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 1965,
August 26, 1965, P.L. 89-135, §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.]
1.30a. 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) Congres:ional 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
1.30b 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
l.SOc 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
l.SOd 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 passed 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
l.Sla 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 Sess. (1972). 3062
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1129,
92d Cong., 2d Sees. (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). 3D69
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 Sets. (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 Sess. (1972). 3099
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-1049, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(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: Senate 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, 38
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, September
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 579
ing to such order as the Secretary shall prescribe shall act as Secretary
during the absence or disability of the Secretary or in the event of
a vacancy in the office of Secretary.
SECTION 303(d)(17) OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARY
ACT OF 1964
SEC. 303. (a) * * *
* * * H= * * *
(d) Level IV of the Federal executive salary schedule shall apply
to the following offices and positions, for which the annual rate of
basic compensation shall be $27,000:
*******
(17) Assistant Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare
[(2)] (3).
[p.29]
1.2h(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 10, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1965
JANUARY 27, 1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase
grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to
authorize the establishments of standards of water quality to aid in
preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters,
-------
580 LEGAL COMPILATION — WATER
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon, with amendments, and recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendments are indicated in the bill as reported and are
shown by linetype and italic.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 4, is to —
(1) Express the act's purpose to enhance the quality and
value of our water resource and to establish a national policy for
the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution;
(2) Provide for an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare to supervise and direct the administration of all
functions of the Department related to water pollution, together
with such other functions as may be assigned to him by the
Secretary, and to establish a Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare whose head shall be appointed by the Secretary and
who shall administer sections 3, 4, 10, and 11 of this act and
other provisions as the Secretary may prescribe;
(3) Authorize research and development grants in the
amount of 50 percent of the estimated reasonable cost of projects
which will demonstrate new or improved methods of controlling
the discharge 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. Author-
ize appropriations of $20 million for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1965, and for each of the next 3 succeeding fiscal years
for the purpose of making demonstration grants. A grant for
any single project shall not exceed 5 percent of the total amount
authorized for any one fiscal year;
(4) Increase the individual dollar ceiling limitations on grants
for construction of waste treatment works from $600,000 to $1
million for a single project and from $2,400,000 to $4 million for
a joint project involving two or more communities;
(5) Authorize an additional 10 percent in the amount of a
grant for construction of waste treatment works in the case of a
project which is certified as conforming with a comprehensive
plan developed or in process of development for a metropolitan
area;
(6) Authorize and direct the application of enforcement
measures to abate pollution when any person is prevented from
marketing shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 581
as a result of such pollution and action of Federal, State, or local
authorities;
(7) Authorize the Secretary to prepare and to encourage the
development of regulations establishing standards of water qual-
ity to be applicable to interstate waters. The standards shall
be in accord with the act's purpose to protect the public health
or welfare and to enhance the quality and value of such waters
for appropriate uses. The regulations setting forth standards
would be formulated after reasonable notice and public hearing
and consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and with
other Federal agencies, with State and interstate water pollution
control agencies, and with municipalities and industries
involved. The Secretary is directed to promulgate the standards
if, following his request, the appropriate States and interstate
agencies have not developed standards which he finds consistent
with the provisions of this act. The Secretary shall also call a
public hearing after reasonable notice on his own motion or
when petitioned to do so by the Governor of any State subject to
or affected by the water quality standards promulgated pursuant
to this subsection for the purpose of considering a revision in
such standards. The Secretary may, after reasonable notice and
public hearing and consultation with the Secretary of the Inte-
rior and with other Federal agencies, with State and interstate
water pollution control agencies, and with municipalities and
industries involved, prepare revised regulations setting forth
standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters
or portions thereof. The discharge of matter into interstate
waters, which reduces their quality below the promulgated
standards or State or interstate standards established consistent
[P. 2]
with the Act, is subject to abatement under the enforcement
procedures presently provided in the act; and
(8) Provide for accountability for financial assistance fur-
nished under the act to accord with acceptable audit and exam-
ination practices; and make the authority and functions of the
Secretary of Labor with respect to labor standards appropriately
applicable to the act's provisions.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Public hearings on S. 649 were held by the committee on June 17,
18, 19, 20, 25, and 26, 1963. Officials of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and other departments and agencies, and
representatives of State and local governments, interstate water pol-
-------
582 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lution control agencies, conservation organizations, the public health
and medical profession, and industry testified at these hearings or
presented their views for the record.
On October 4, 1963, the committee favorably reported S. 649, as
amended, and it passed the Senate on October 16, 1963, by a sub-
stantial majority. The Senate vote was 69 yeas and 11 nays.
The House of Representatives, in its own counsel, did not act on
S. 649 before final adjournment. The bill remained with the House
committee until September 4, 1964, when it was reported in an
amended version.
The bill (S. 4) now reported is identical with the measure pre-
viously passed by the Senate with the exception of the deletion of the
Federal installations section and the detergent control section.
Recent developments and information have caused the committee
to conclude that, because of the interrelationship of both air and
water pollution control from Federal installations it would be more
appropriate to have legislative proposals for these purposes combined
and separate from the bill herewith reported. These proposals are
presented in S. 560.
In reporting S. 649 of the 88th Congress the committee made no
proposal for the immediate elimination of hard detergents from
introduction into interstate commerce. While the committee felt
that legislation prohibiting the production and sale of hard deter-
gents was not necessary at that time, it did feel that some procedural
legislation might be advisable in order to insure an expeditious solu-
tion to the detergent problem. As a result the committee provided
for industry and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
to undertake a cooperative venture in order to solve this problem.
In the meantime more than a year has passed and the soap and
detergent industry has announced June 30, 1965, as the new target
date for completing the changeover to production of the more readily
degradable detergents which is 6 months earlier than it had formerly
announced.
In view of the action by the soap and detergent industry, the
committee feels that a review of the problem of eliminating hard
detergents is in order before adopting control or regulating
legislation.
Although extensive public hearings were held in June of 1963 on
S. 649, which is identical to S. 4, except for the deletion of the above-
mentioned provisions relating to Federal installations and soap and
detergents, additional public hearings were held on January 18, 1965.
[p. 3]
Officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 583
representatives of State and local governments, interstate water
pollution control agencies, conservation organizations, the public
health and medical profession, and industry testified at these
hearings or presented their views for the record.
It is the view of the committee that the bill as reported provides
for necessary strengthening of existing authority and furnishes
required new provisions for the purpose of assuring effective
prevention and control of water pollution.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF BILL
NATIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY
The national water pollution control program has for its primary
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 directed to
the achievement of the important national water quality goal. The
bill provides for specific expression of the act's purpose to establish
a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water
pollution through effective administration of its comprehensive
authorities.
ADMINISTRATION
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
The committee believes that the program of water pollution con-
trol, which relates not only to the health of the people but also has a
substantial effect on our economic vitality and the natural beauty of
our Nation, must have strong administrative leadership. Pollution is
a serious national water resources problem. The injurious effects of
water pollution have adverse implications for the development and
preservation of our water resources. The individual citizen, indus-
try, agricultural, and commerce are all affected and through them
the Nation's health and its economy. In providing authorities for
Federal technical and financial assistance, and for enforcement to
abate pollution of interstate or navigable water, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act defines the Federal role and responsibility in
preventing and controlling water pollution. Its authorized programs
for the protection of our water supplies are vital to our Nation.
The 1961 amendments (Public Law 87-88) directed to transfer to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare of the responsibility
for the act's administration formerly vested in the Surgeon General
-------
584 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the Public Health Service. Through delegations of the Secretary's
authority, the operating programs have continued to be administered
in the Public Health Service.
In the field of water pollution the Public Health Service has made
a major contribution to our understanding of the nature of water
pollution, its effect on individuals, and appropriate measures of pol-
lution control. The basic orientation of the Public Health Service,
however, is toward cooperative health programs with the States.
[p.4]
The Public Health Service is not oriented toward the broader
problems associated with the conservation of waters for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recre-
ational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other uses.
The public Health Service should be free to concentrate on its
primary concern with health, in the water pollution field, as it is in
other areas. At the same time, the administration of the water pollu-
tion control program should not be subordinated to considerations
which are important to the Public Health Service but are not directly
related to the sound application of this act.
The committee therefore endorses the establishment of a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration which would have specific
responsibility for comprehensive programs; interstate cooperation
and uniform laws; enforcement measures to abate pollution and to
establish and obtain compliance with standards of water quality; and
to control pollution from Federal installations. Other functions
relating to water pollution are retained within the Secretary's dis-
cretion who may additionally assign them to the new Administration
or to other sectors in the Department. The committee is confident
that the Secretary will permit no duplication or overlapping in the
water pollution control program.
However, the committee believes that the Administration should
not be limited to those elements of the program which make it pos-
sible to achieve enforcement, but should have operational aspects
that encourage compliance as well. Enforcement powers should be
used but compliance should be sought.
Cooperative assignment of commissioned officer staff of the Public
Health Service to performance of duties with other Federal agencies,
as for example, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Bureau of Employees' Compensation, and many other agencies is a
traditional Public Health Service function, of which it is justifiably
proud. The temporary assignment of commissioned corps personnel
to accompany the transfer or responsibilities to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration is in full accord with this long-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 585
standing practice. It will provide as well for continuing utilization
of their developed technical competencies in water pollution control.
Additional Assistant Secretary
The committee also recognizes the need for additional assistance
to the Secretary in administering the act and accordingly recom-
mends the creation of an additional position of Assistant Secretary
in the Department to oversee this important sphere of activities.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, although the
newest in the family of Cabinet-rank agencies, is second only to the
Department of Defense in the complexity of its program responsibili-
ties and fifth in size in number of personnel. The emergence of the
Department as a major water resources agency as a result of its
responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has
substantially increased the burdens imposed on its central adminis-
tration.
The new post of Assistant Secretary will have the same status in
all respects as those now existing. It will be left to the Secretary
whether to vest the administration functions under this bill in the
occupant of the new position or to assign them to an existing Assist-
ant Secretary. The Secretary may, as he sees fit, distribute, or
redistribute the func-
[p. 5]
tions of the Assistant Secretaries provided that a single Assistant
Secretary supervises and directs both the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration and the administration of all functions within
the Department related to water pollution.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT—COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
The magnitude of the problem of pollution caused by combined
sewers impressed the committee with the necessity for action in
reducing this source of pollution. Combined storm and sanitary
sewers in many of the Nation's older municipalities seriously aggra-
vate the national pollution situation. The use of combined and
sanitary sewers is an outgrowth of the provision initially for disposal
of storm water within urban areas. As more and more homes and
business establishments were provided with water connections and
water was used for conveyance and disposal of water it was con-
cluded that sewer lines could serve a multiple purpose and sanitary
waste disposal connections were made to these systems. This
arrangement actually produced considerable detrimental effect.
During periods of storm water runoff, even in small amounts, the
sewers discharge flows of storm water and sanitary sewage in excess
of the capacity of treatment plants. Thus, it is impossible to treat
-------
586 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
all effluent and much untreated waste is bypassed into receiving
waters creating a situation that is worse than discharging all storm
water runoff into receiving waters in an untreated state.
It has been determined that there are 1,131 communities whose
entire waste collection systems are of the combined sewer type serv-
ing a population of 20.9 million and that another 810 cities of 37.8
million population have systems which partially consist of combined
sewers.
In a selected sample of 95 communities with combined sewer
systems, either total or partial, 45 communities indicate some degree
of plan preparation for proceeding to take measures to deal with
their individual problems. The research and development grants
herein authorized are needed to assist these and other municipalities
in pointing out practical, efficient, and economic methods for
resolving this problem.
Complete separation of the combined storm and sanitary sewers
would entail estimated expenditures of up to $30 billion. Alternative
measures, some of which were discussed by witnesses during the
public hearings, would appear to present a feasible and in some
instances a preferable answer. Accordingly, the committee recom-
mends an authorization for research and development grants to
demonstrate new or improved methods to eradicate this problem in
the amount of $20 million annually for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1965, and for the next 3 succeeding fiscal years. The amount of any
single grant is limited to 5 percent of the total amount authorized
for any one fiscal year.
The committee expects these funds to be used for the purpose of
assisting communities in devising and carrying forward projects
which would illustrate or demonstrate improved means, including
separation of combined sewers, whereby the discharge of effluents
from combined sewer systems can be controlled and disposed of
without deleterious effects to our water resources. Research as
such is needed to suggest pollution abatement procedures and
practices. However, there is no
[p. 6]
substitute for full-scale demonstrations to point the way for eliminat-
ing these intermittent slugs of excessive pollution.
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The present program of grants for construction of municipal waste
treatment plants provides for a Federal grant of 30 percent of esti-
mated cost of construction but not to exceed $600,000 for a single
project and $2,400,000 for a joint multimunicipal project. This pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 587
gram has been markedly successful in stimulating action on the part
of the smaller communities.
Larger municipalities, whose needed facilities are of necessarily
greater size, encounter appreciably greater expenditures. The rising
costs of sewage treatment plant construction have placed additional
burdens on the larger communities. The share of assistance pro-
vided under existing dollar ceiling limitations falls proportionately
short of being an effective incentive in view of their correspondingly
larger expenses.
Approximately 45 percent of the population, whose waste treat-
ment facilities needs are still unmet, is found in these larger com-
munities. The committee recognizes the need to increase these
allowances to meet higher costs, to furnish a more adequate incentive
and more equitable share of assistance for the larger municipalities
and recommends that they be increased to $1 million for individual
projects and to $4 million for joint projects.
It has been urged that the individual and joint project authoriza-
tion increases provided in this bill do not represent a fair share of
the overwhelming cost burdens imposed on our larger cities. The
committee is also aware of the fiscal burdens being imposed on
smaller communities whose pollution abatement programs require
the construction of collection sewers, which are not eligible for finan-
cial assistance under the Water Pollution Control Act, as well as
interceptor sewers and sewage treatment plants. However, the com-
mittee did not feel it could provide additional authorizations within
the program unless it approved substantial increases in the total
sewage treatment grant authorizations.
It is the intention of the committee to give early and thorough
attention to the financial and technological problems confronting
communities, large and small, as they endeavor to control and abate
municipal sewage. The committee is confident that out of the expe-
rience we have gained under the present act and from information
derived from hearings and technical studies it will be able to develop
a sound and expanded program of pollution control and abatement
grants designed to meet realistic goals of water quality enhancement.
URBAN PLANNING
Comprehensive metropolitan planning assumes increasing signifi-
cance and has become essential in view of our rapid urbanization.
Desirable patterns of orderly development of municipal areas must
be planned and followed to eliminate factors which lead to the breed-
ing of slum and blight-impacted areas and to effect those sizeable
economies and efficiencies ordinarily made possible through the coor-
dination of common interests and needs. The committee considers
-------
588 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that it is appropriate to allow a 10-percent increase in the grants
authorized for treatment plant construction where such planning is
carried forward.
[p. 7]
Enforcement where interstate commerce is affected
The committee feels that, because of the serious health and eco-
nomic effects of pollution on shellfish, the Secretary should be
authorized and directed to institute enforcement proceedings on his
own initiative to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters
which prevents such products from being entered into interstate
commerce.
Under the cooperative program for certification of interstate shell-
fish shippers, the Public Health Service, in cooperation with State
and local governments and shellfish industry, has developed an
effective barrier to the transportation and sale in interstate com-
merce of shellfish, such as clams, oysters, and mussels, not meeting
approved sanitary standards. State governments certify interstate
shippers who obtain shellfish from areas meeting the sanitary stand-
ards of the Public Health Service. The Public Health Service main-
tains and publishes a list of approved certificated shippers. In order
to keep its shippers on the Public Health Service approved list,
States must close and patrol harvesting areas found unsatisfactory
by the Public Health Service.
In such circumstances, the Federal responsibility to enforce the
abatement of the pollution is clearly recognizable. The necessary
ban on introduction of such pollution-affected products in interstate
commerce and the foreclosure of gathering and harvesting operations
in these waters effectively denies the means of livelihood and gain-
ful employment to the concerned party. The injured person, who
must sustain untoward economic losses through no fault of his own,
has no direct recourse against the polluters. Measures to restore the
harvesting of shellfish in such waters are hampered and rendered
ineffective by the continuance of the pollution. Federal enforcement
powers would be made available to provide that pollution sources
are abated and restorative measures allowed to proceed more
promptly and effectively.
The existing act authorizes enforcement measures to abate pollu-
tion which endangers the health or welfare of any persons. It spe-
cifically directs the application of enforcement measures on Federal
responsibility and initiative when pollution of an interstate nature;
i.e., originating in one State and endangering the health and welfare
of persons in another State or States, is occurring. Extension of this
authority to require enforcement action when any person is pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 589
vented from marketing shellfish or shellfish products in interstate
commerce because of pollution and action of Federal, State, or local
authorities is equally necessary.
STANDARDS OP WATER QUALITY
Increasing population and expanding industrialization are placing
growing demands on our limited sources of water. It will be neces-
sary for us to use many rivers for multiple purposes, including indus-
trial, agricultural, recreational, public water supply, and fish and
wildlife uses. In other cases, the uses on a given river or portion of
a river will be more limited, depending upon the nature of the water-
way, the intensity and history of use, and alternative sources of
water in the area. Economic, health, esthetic, and conservation
values which contribute to the social and economic welfare of an area
must be taken into account in determining the most appropriate use
or uses of a
[p. 8]
stream. There ought to be a constant effort to improve the quality
of the water supply, it being recognized that the improvement of the
quality of water makes it available for more uses.
The correction of damaging pollution after it has built up is vastly
more complex and costly than prevention of such buildups. Stand-
ards of water quality to provide reliable and sound guidelines and
effective measuring devices are an important and necessary part of
any program of water pollution prevention, abatement, and control.
The bill herewith reported would provide a basis for preventive
action and a clear understanding of pollution abatement and control
requirements by authorizing the establishment of water quality
standards.
Water quality standards would provide an engineering base for
design of treatment works by municipalities and industries. Such
standards would enable municipalities and industries to develop
realistic plans for new plants or expanded facilities, without
uncertainties about waste disposal requirements on interstate waters.
While this would be a new provision in Federal legislation, it is by
no means a new concept. Water quality standards have been utilized
successfully by individual States for streams within their boundaries,
and in a few interstate situations.
Accordingly, the bill provides authority for the Secretary to estab-
lish standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters
or portions thereof. The standards are to be formulated in accord-
ance with accepted administrative procedures calling for notice and
public hearing and consultation with affected Federal, State, inter-
-------
590 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
state, and local interests and are to be such as to protect the public
health or welfare and to enhance the quality and value of interstate
waters. Standards would also be subject to revision either by the
Secretary on his own or when petitioned to do so by the Governor
of any affected State. The same procedure for hearing and consulta-
tion would be followed in revisions as when standards were being
formulated.
The Secretary is directed to promulgate the standards only if
following his request the appropriate State and interstate agencies
have not developed standards which he finds consistent with the bill's
provisions. Once the Secretary has promulgated water quality
standards, or if there are standards established by State or interstate
agencies consistent with the act, any discharge of matter which
reduces the quality of the waters below the established standards is
made subject to abatement under the present enforcement proce-
dures provided in the act; i.e., conference, public hearing, and court
action. The court, in receiving evidence, shall give due considera-
tion to the practicability of complying with the applicable standards.
During the course of the hearings on S. 649, 88th Congress, and
again in the hearing on S. 4, certain industrial representatives raised
questions about the effect of standards on enforcement proceedings
and the power of the enforcement conference and hearing board to
review the standards established by the Secretary. The committee
wishes to make its position on this question perfectly clear.
Water quality standards are not designed for use primarily as an
enforcement device; they are intended to provide the Secretary and
State and local agencies with additional tools for objective and clear
public policy statements on the use or uses to which specific seg-
ments of interstate waters may be put. Their principal objective is
the orderly development and improvement of our water resources
without
[p. 9]
the necessity of adversary proceedings which inevitably develop in
enforcement cases.
The authority given the Secretary is not arbitrary. He is con-
strained from arbitrary action by the public hearing and consultation
requirements of the standards section and by the knowledge that, if
he promulgates standards, compliance with such standard must ulti-
mately meet the test of "practicability" in the courts, as provided
in section 5 (d) of the bill, should violation of such standards trigger
an enforcement action. It is clear, also, that the enforcement con-
ference and the hearing board must, in the light of the authority
given the court, consider the "practicability" of compliance with the
standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 591
It is not the province of the conference, the hearing board, or the
court to revise the standards in the course of an enforcement pro-
ceeding, since it is not the standards but abatement orders consistent
with such standards which are enforceable. It is the intent of the
committee that in the event the conference, the hearing board or the
court finds compliance with the standards impracticable the
Secretary should take steps to consider revision of the standards.
The committee must reemphasize its intent that water quality
standards are not designed to "lock in" present uses of water or to
exclude other uses, not now possible. The standards are not a device
to insure the lowest common denominator of water quality but to
enhance the quality and productivity of our water resources.
The committee is convinced that water quality standards can
contribute to an orderly development of water supplies and the judi-
cious use of such supplies. The committee recognizes that the estab-
lishment of water quality standards is not a simple task and that it
will require close coordination between Federal, State, interstate,
and local agencies having responsibility in this field. It is anticipated
that the establishment of standards will tend to reduce the need for
abatement enforcement proceedings since full knowledge would be
available as to the standards of water quality.
The committee expects that a determination would be made of
present quantities of water available and the condition of such water
on a case-by-case basis. The determinations should be made by
areas and subareas.
The committee intends that water quality standards should be
applied on the basis of the water quality requirements of present and
future uses of a stream or section of stream, after due consideration
of all factors and variables involved.
The committee also intends that the present law should continue to
be operative with respect to actions authorized to be taken where the
health or welfare or persons is endangered by pollution. It is not
intended that current water pollution abatement procedures or
actions should be held in abeyance pending the establishment of
standards. In addition, the bill clearly states that the authority to
establish standards does not extend the jurisdiction of the Secretary
over waters not covered in the basic act.
Where the Congress has established multistate compacts such as
the Delaware River Basin compact with authority to establish stand-
ards of water quality it is not the intent of the committee that the
Secretary's authority supplant that of the compact commission.
Rather the authority in this measure to set standards should be held
in reserve, for use only if the commission fails in its responsibilities.
[p. 10]
-------
592 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
In view of the proposed increases in grant programs, the commit-
tee believes that it would be appropriate that a system of audits be
provided to assure that grant funds are used for the purpose intended.
Accordingly, provisions to accomplish this have been included.
LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
The existing Water Pollution Control Act provides that all of the
provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act shall be met in connection with
the construction of waste treatment works for which Federal grants
are made. However, the committee is of the opinion that in order
to carry out the full effect of such law, it is desirable that the Secre-
tary of Labor carry out the procedures set forth in Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950. This plan provides that in order to insure coor-
dination of administration and consistency of enforcement of labor
standards the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe appropriate stand-
ards, regulations, and procedures, which shall be observed by other
Federal agencies responsible for construction.
[P. 11]
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF SENATOR
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER
At the outset, I would like to say that the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, under the
chairmanship of Senator Muskie of Maine and the minority leader-
ship of Senator Boggs, of Delaware, has performed a valuable service
in demonstrating the necessity of more effective water pollution poli-
cies and programs, and in presenting legislation with the objective of
strengthening the control and abatement of water pollution. The
bill presented to the Senate provides a new concept as far as legis-
lative action is concerned for the prevention of water pollution. It
is the establishment by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare of "water quality standards" for interstate waters and por-
tions thereof. Although many witnesses testified that it would be
very difficult to establish such standards, I find no reason to oppose
this new concept if States, municipalities, interstate water agencies
acting under compact, industries and other interested parties are
assured by proper procedures the right to adequately present their
views and to appeal to the courts if necessary for a determination as
to whether the standards fixed by the Secretary meet the criteria
established in the pending bill.
Criteria under which the Secretary is directed to establish water
quality standards are as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 593
SEC. 10 (c) (3) Such standards of quality shall be such as to
protect the public health and welfare and serve the purposes
of this Act. In establishing standards designed to enhance the
quality of such waters, the Secretary shall take into considera-
tion their use and value for public water supplies, propagation
of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural,
industrial, and other legitimate uses.
In 1963, I opposed S. 649, passed by the Senate, a bill almost iden-
tical with S. 4, because it did not provide an effective voice to the
states and other parties affected in the consideration and development
of water quality and standards.
S. 4, as reported, does provide that the Secretary shall consult with
Federal agencies, State and interstate water pollution control agen-
cies, and with municipalities and interested parties involved, before
preparing water quality regulations. It also provides that public
hearings shall be held thereafter upon petition of the Governor of
any State affected to consider revision of such standards. It also pro-
vides that the States shall be given an opportunity to develop stand-
ards before the Secretary promulgates standards. But I make the
essential point, that even with these procedures, ultimate authority
is fixed in the Secretary and the Secretary alone to promulgate water
quality standards. The only limitations provided by the committee
bill are those of consultation with the States and other interested
parties, the
[p.12]
opportunity to present views in public hearings, and the choice pro-
vided the States of developing water quality standards, but only
standards consistent with, if not identical wiih, the standards the
Secretary has prescribed.
In considering the broad powers given to the Secretary, it is neces-
sary to keep in mind that S. 4 authorizes him to promulgate stand-
ards under section 10 (c) (3) requiring the zoning of interstate waters
or portions thereof for agricultural, industrial, recreational, and
other legitimate uses. The Secretary's authority to zone was recog-
nized and testified to by Senator Muskie, the manager of the bill, in
our hearings in July 1963.
It is my view that such broad powers given to an official of the
Federal Government are broader powers, in my opinion, than those
given to any agency or individual other than the President of the
United States. I hold that the States and other interested parties
should be provided the right to appeal to the courts if the Secretary
abuses his vast power. This is not a question of States rights—it is a
question of justice and the right of interested parties to be heard
-------
594 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and to receive the protection of the courts.
For this purpose, I proposed an amendment in the committee to
assure (1) adequate publication and notice to the States of the regu-
lations which the Secretary made available. This is important be-
cause it is impossible for the States and interested parties to propose
any rational revisions without knowing the exact standards devel-
oped by the Secretary. (2) After publication of the proposed stand-
ards the States and interested parties would upon application be
assured a public hearing. It is important to note that, unlike the
stage of consultation prior to the issuance of the proposed regula-
tions, the interested parties have before them a definite regulation
in specific detail. We must bear in mind that it is one thing to be
consulted in the formulation of a regulation, but it is quite another
matter to be afforded a full opportunity to be heard after the regu-
lations have been crystallized. After the interested parties have
been given a full opportunity to be heard, the Secretary is required
to make a report of his findings of fact and his conclusions with
respect to the issues involved. In reviewing the record and his
report, the Secretary may then affirm, rescind or modify, in whole or
in part, his proposed regulations. (3) The right of appeal to a U.S.
circuit court. The language of this section is taken verbatim from
section 5 (g) (2) of the present law which affords any State or inter-
state agency the right to a court review of the Secretary's decision
of approving or disapproving a plan for the prevention and control
of water pollution submitted by any of these agencies. (4) My
amendment requires the Secretary to postpone the effective date of
his regulations so as to allow the appropriate State and interstate
agencies adequate time to adopt standards consistent with those
prescribed by the Secretary.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides in several sec-
tions that, "it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to rec-
ognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities of the States
in preventing and controlling water pollution." The task of construc-
tion of pollution control facilities—Federal, State, municipal, and
private—is immense. The Public Health Service has estimated that
the annual cost of collecting and treating municipal sewage in the
continental United States would increase from $476.5 million in
[p. 13]
1954 to $817.6 million in 1980. The majority report in 1963 stated that
the separation of storm and sanitary sewers would entail an expendi-
ture of $8 billion. Considering the expressed policy of the act that the
States' primary responsibility for water pollution control be pre-
served, the necessity of the full cooperation of the Federal Govern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 595
ment, States, municipalities, and private persons in constructing the
vast facilities that will be needed for pollution control, and considering
further that the bill before us would provide to the Secretary au-
thority to zone rivers and to determine their further use, I argue
strongly that the minimum procedures which my amendment would
secure—the provision of adequate hearings before and after promulga-
tion of standards, a minimum review by the U.S. courts of appeal,
which could only be directed to an abuse of the Secretary's authority,
are required.
It will be argued, as it was in the committee, that the enforcement
procedures of the present act enumerated in section 8 provide this
protection. I am sure that it does not do so. Section 10 prescribes
enforcement procedures, directed only to the abatement of pollution.
If this legislation is enacted, the hearing board provided for by section
8 would be limited to considering whether any discharge in interstate
water or reaching interstate water had lowered the quality standards
prescribed by the Secretary, and whether the measures proposed by
the Secretary for its correction were practical and feasible. The re-
view by the court under this section could only apply to the record
made by the hearing board and to the Secretary's findings. My
amendment is distinguishable because it would provide for a court
review of the quality standards themselves.
During the hearings conducted by the Senate Public Works Sub-
committee in 1963 in which 6 days of hearings were held, no Gover-
nors were heard, and the majority of representatives of State agencies
who testified opposed the water quality standards section of the bill.
They are as follows:
(1) State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administra-
tors.
(2) Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission.
(3) Interstate Sanitation Commission (New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut).
(4) Conservation and Management of Natural Resources Com-
mittee, National Association of Manufacturers.
(5) Michigan Water Resources Commission.
(6) Mayor, city of Detroit.
(7) Mississippi Valley Association.
(8) American Farm Bureau Federation.
(9) Interstate Conference on Water Problems and Council of
State Governments.
(10) Missouri Water Pollution Board.
(11) New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Com-
mission.
The Senate passed the bill by a large vote. When it went to the
-------
596 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
House of Representatives much more extensive hearings were held by
a larger committee—the House Committee on Public Works on De-
cember 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, 1963, and February 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, and
19, 1964. When full opportunity was given by the House committee
to the Governors and State water pollution control agencies to testify,
[p. 14]
they were practically unanimous in opposing the water quality stand-
ards in S. 649, now retained in S. 4 before the Senate. The following
Governors and representatives of State and interstate agencies and
some local business organizations either testified of filed statements
in opposition to the standards section of the bill:
(1) Delaware Water Pollution Commission.
(2) Texas Water Pollution Control Board.
(3) Alabama Water Improvement Commission.
(4) Water Pollution Control Federation.
(5) Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board, Nashville, Tenn.
(6) American Association of Professors of Sanitary Engineering.
(7) Florida State Board of Health.
(8) Kansas Department of Health.
(9) State of New York Water Resources Commission.
(10) Izaak Walton League of America.
(11) Kentucky State Water Pollution Control Commission.
(12) Kentucky Department of Health.
(13) Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.
(14) North Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee.
(15) Pennsylvania State Health Department.
(16) Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Council of State
Governments.
(17) American Society of Civil Engineers.
(18) Wisconsin attorney general.
(19) Governor of Maryland.
(20) Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission.
(21) Associated Industries of New York State, Inc.
(22) Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrations.
(23) California Water Pollution Control Association.
(24) Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Chicago, resolu-
tion IV.
(25) Kansas Engineering Society.
(26) Maine Water Improvement Commission.
(27) Middlesex County (New Jersey) Sewerage Authority.
(28) Governor of Maine.
(29) Nebraska State Department of Health.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 597
(30) New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Com-
mission.
(31) New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission.
(32) New York State Water Resources Commission.
(33) Oklahoma State Department of Health.
(34) Oregon State Board of Health.
(35) Texas State Board of Health.
(36) Temporary State Commission on Water Resources (New
York).
(37) Missouri Water Pollution Board.
(38) Rhode Island Department of Health.
(39) Texas Water Pollution Control Board.
(40) Utah Public Health Association.
(41) Virginia State Water Control Board.
(42) Governor of Oregon.
(43) Mayor of Kansas City, Mo.
(44) South Dakota State Department of Health.
[p. 15]
When the committee made its report, it amended the Senate bill
and refused to accept the Senate version, in the following terms:
Recommended standards of water quality
The desirability of having water quality standards is rec-
ognized by the committee, but the committee is also conscious
of the fact that any attempt to authorize the promulgation of
such standards by an agency of the Federal Government
might do damage to the cooperative Federal-State relation-
ships. For that reason, the committee has modified the pro-
vision of section 5 of the bill as passed by the Senate to
provide that the Secretary instead of promulgating standards
may recommend standards. The committee considers this
to be a major change to assure the States, the various water
pollution control organizations and private industry that the
Federal Government does not desire to have an arbitrary
establishment of such standards. The bill as amended now
provides sufficient guarantees to all those concerned that the
adoption of the recommendations of the Secretary will be at
the option of the States. The committee is of the opinion that
the amended language in the bill is a definite improvement
to existing legislation and will furnish a better framework to
carry out the purposes of the program.
*******
Fourth, the new subsection (c) of section 10 of the Federal
-------
598 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Water Pollution Control Act which is proposed to be added
by the bill has been amended to remove from the Secretary
authority to promulgate standards of water quality and in
place thereof the Secretary has been granted authority to
make recommendations for these water quality standards
with the further limitation that no such standard may be
enforced under the act unless it has been adopted by the
Governor or State water pollution control agency of each
affected State.
The new subsection (c) of section 10 proposed by the House com-
mittee is as follows:
(c) (1) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the
Secretary may, after consultation with officials of the State
and interstate water pollution control agencies and other
Federal agencies involved and with due regard for their
proposals, prepare recommendations for standards of water
quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof. The Secretary's recommendations shall be made
available to any conference which may be called pursuant to
subsection (d) (1) of this section, and to any Hearing Board
appointed pursuant to subsection (f) of this section; and all
or any part of such standards may be included in the report
of said conference or in the recommendations of said Hear-
ing Board.
(2) The Secretary shall, when petitioned to do so by the
Governor of any State subject to or affected by the water
quality standards recommendations, or when in his judg-
ment it is appropriate, consult with the parties enumerated
in
[p. 16]
paragraph (1) of this subsection concerning a revision in
such recommended standards.
(3) Such recommended standards of quality shall be such
as to protect the public health and welfare and serve the
purposes of this Act. In establishing recommended stand-
ards designed to enhance the quality of such waters, the
Secretary 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) The Secretary shall recommend standards pursuant
to this subsection with respect to any waters only if, within a
reasonable time after being requested by the Secretary to do
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 599
so, the appropriate States and interstate agencies have not
developed standards found by the Secretary to be consistent
with paragraph (3) of this subsection and applicable to such
interstate waters or portions thereof.
(5) No standard of water quality recommended by the
Secretary under this subsection shall be enforced under this
Act unless such standard shall have been adopted by the
Governor or the State water pollution control agency of each
affected State.
The House did not take action on S. 649. The recommendations
of the House Committee on Public Works are much more stringent
than the amendment that I propose. The House denied to the Sec-
retary the authority to promulgate water quality standards, giving
him the authority only to recommend standards to the States and no
standards could be enforced unless adopted first by the Governor
or State agency. As I have stated, my amendment would not deny
him the authority to formulate standards but would assure to the
States and interested parties that their views would be heard, and
that they would have recourse to the Circuit Court of Appeals against
any abuses of his power. I submit this is the minimum that should be
done.
[p.17]
[NOTE: p. 18 is blank.]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, 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) :
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
[33 U.S.C. 466-466k]
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.
[ (a) ] (b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the
waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting
-------
600 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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
recognize, 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 aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in
connection with the prevention and control of water pollution. [To
this end, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter
in this Act called the "Secretary") shall administer this Act.] The
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called the "Secretary") shall administer this Act and, with the
assistance of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
designated by him, shall supervise and direct the head of the Water
Pollution Control Administration created by section 2 and the ad-
ministration of all other functions of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare related to water pollution. Such Assistant
Secretary shall perform such additional functions as the Secretary
may prescribe.
[(b)] (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
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Administration"). The
head of the Administra-
[p-19]
tion shall be appointed, and his compensation fixed, by the Secretary,
and shall, through the Administration, administer sections 3, 4,10, and
11 of this Act and such other provisions of this Act as the Secretary
may prescribe. The head of the Administration may, in addition to
regular staff of the Administration, which shall be initially provided
from personnel of the Department, obtain, from within the Depart-
ment or otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, technical,
and clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the Ad-
ministration's functions and may for that purpose use funds available
for carrying out such functions.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
[SEC. 2.] SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investiga-
tion, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 601
water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and with
the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop com-
prehensive 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 programs due regard shall be given to the im-
provements 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 legiti-
mate 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, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulations of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that any
such storage and water releases shall not bs provided 33 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 presen-
tation 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 provision 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.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
[SEC. 3.] 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 prac-
ticable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control of
[p. 20]
-------
602 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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
obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been
approved by the Congress.
[SEC. 4.] 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 pro-
mote 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
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;
(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 promis-
ing research fellowships:
Provided, That the Secretary shall report annually to the appro-
priate committees of Congress on his operations under this para-
graph; and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 603
(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,
[p. 21]
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) (1) 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 mea-
sure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pol-
lutants created by new technological developments; and
(C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to control
water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(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 midwestern
area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific Northwest, 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 prac-
ticable, each such facility shall be located near institutions of higher
-------
604 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 practices 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.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State,
municipality., or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the purpose
of assisting in the development of any project which will demonstrate
a new or improved method of controlling the discharge into any waters
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from
sewers which
[p. 22]
carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other wastes,
and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
Federal grants under 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 an ap-
propriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and by the
Secretary; (2) no grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof as
determined by the Secretary; (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 of a new or improved
method of controlling the discharge into any water of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers which carry
storm water or both storm water and sewage or other wastes.
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1965, and for each of the next three succeeding fiscal
years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making
grants under this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain available
until expended. No grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized by this section
in any one fiscal year.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 605
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
[SEC. 5.] SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated 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, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000, for grants to States and
to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establish-
ing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control
of water pollution.
(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,
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
[p. 23]
cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations
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-
-------
606 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 bs 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
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 [6 (b) (4)] 8(b) (4).
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving rea-
sonable 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 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 607
the Secretary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall
[p. 24]
be conclusive; 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 than 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 Vs 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. Such promulgation shall be conclusive for each of the
two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next succeeding such
promulgation: Provided, That the Federal shares promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to section 4 of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1956, shall be conclusive for the period beginning
July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
(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
-------
608 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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
subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such
period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the
interstate 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
[p. 25]
which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such subsection
was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to
such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such sub-
section. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facili-
ties of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the Secretary
may determine.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
[SEC. 6.] 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 specifica-
tions 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) except as otherwise
provided in this clause, 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, or in an amount exceeding
[$600,000,] $1,000,000, whichever is the smaller: Provided, That the
grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Provided further, That, in
the case of a project which will serve more than one municipality (A)
the Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines to be reasonable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 609
and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served by such
project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such project, and
shall then apply the limitations provided in this clause (2) to each
such share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made under this section with
respect to each such share, and the total of all the amounts so deter-
mined or [$2,400,000,J $4,000,000, whichever is the smaller, shall be
the maximum amount of the grant which may be made under this
section on account of such project, and (B) for the purpose of the
limitation in the last sentence of subsection (d), the share of each
municipality so determined shall be regarded as a grant for the con-
struction of treatment works; (3) no grant shall be made for any proj-
ect under this section until the applicant has made provision satis-
factory to the Secretary for assuring proper and efficient operation
and maintenance of the treatment works after completion of the con-
struction thereof; (4) 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
5] section 7 and has been certified by the 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; and (5) no grant
shall be made under this section for any project in any State in an
amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant has been made thereunder
for each project in such State (A) for which an application was filed
with the appropriate State water pollution control agency prior to
one year after the date of enactment of this clause and (B) which the
Secretary determines met the requirements of this section and regula-
[p. 26]
tions thereunder as in effect prior to the date of enactment of this
clause.
(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
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 appropriated
pursuant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be allotted by
the Secretary from time to time, in accordance with regulations, as
follows: (1) 50 per ceentum of such sums in the ratio that the popula-
-------
610 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion 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. Sums allotted to a State under the preceding sen-
tence 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 con-
trol 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 accordance with regulations promul-
gated by him, to States having projects approved under this section
for which grants have not been made because of lack of funds: Pro-
vided, however, That whenever a State has funds subject to realloca-
tion 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 judg-
ment 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 and third 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. 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 Com-
merce, 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
[p.27]
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, $100,000,-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 611
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $100,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 percent of the
funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be used for grants
for the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities of
125,000 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 by 10 per centum for any
project which has been certified to him by an official State, metropoli-
tan, 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 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 or by the Bureau of
the Budget 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 distribu-
tion of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institutional,
and other activities, which in the opinion of the President or the
Bureau of the Budget lends itself as being appropriate for the pur-
poses hereof.
[ (f) ] (d) 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
-------
612 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 subsection, the authority and functions set forth in
Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Slat.
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. 276 (c)).
[p. 28]
[SEC. 7.] SEC. 9. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board, composed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall
be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President, none of
whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, 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-
tary, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and while
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 613
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.
(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 Health, Education, and Welfare.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OF
NAVIGABLE WATERS
[SEC. 8.] SEC. 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable
waters in or adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter
causing or contributing 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.
[p. 29]
(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 (g)J subsection (7i), be
displaced by Federal enforcement action.
(c) (1) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary
may, after reasonable notice and public hearing and consultation with
the Secretary of the Interior and with other Federal agencies, with
State and interstate water pollution control agencies, and with
municipalities and industries involved, prepare regulations setting
forth standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters
or portions thereof.
(2) Such standards of quality shall be such as to protect the public
health or welfare and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing
standards designed to enhance the quality of such waters, the Secre-
tary 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.
(3) The Secretary shall promulgate standards pursuant to para-
graphs (1) and (4) of this subsection with respect to any waters only
if, within a reasonable time after being requested by the Secretary to
do so, the appropriate States and interstate agencies have not devel-
oped standards found by the Secretary to be consistent with paragraph
-------
614 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(2) of this subsection and applicable to such interstate waters or
portions thereof.
(4) The Secretary shall also call a public hearing after reasonable
notice on his own motion or when petitioned to do so by the Governor
of any State subject to or affected by the water quality standards
promulgated pursuant to this subsection for the purpose of consider-
ing a revision in such standards. The Secretary may after reasonable
notice and public hearing and consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior and with other Federal agencies, with State and Interstate
water pollution control agencies, and with municipalities and indus-
tries involved, prepare revised regulations setting forth standards of
water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof.
(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters, which
reduces the quality of such waters below the water quality standards
promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (3) of this sub-
section or established by the appropriate State or interstate agencies
consistent with paragraph (2) of 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
provisions of this section.
(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.
[ (c) ] (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 pollu-
tion 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 inter-
state 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
[p.30]
any, of the State or States, if any, which may be adversely af-
fected by such pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor
of any State, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pol-
lution of interstate or navigable waters which is endangering the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 615
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 con-
trol 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 legiti-
mate 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 substantial economic injury
results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in
interstate commerce because of pollution referred to in subsection (a)
and action of Federal, State, or local authorities.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
(3) 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 and 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.
[ (d) ] (e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the con-
ference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution 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.
[(e)] (/) 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
pollution 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
-------
616 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the Hearing Board and at least one membsr 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
[p- 31]
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. On
the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, including the prac-
ticability of complying with such standards as may be applicable, 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 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 recommendations to the person or persons
discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, to-
gether 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.
[ (f) ] (0) ^ 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
pollution) 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
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) 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 recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as
the court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 617
sideration to the practicability of complying with such standards as
may be applicable 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.
[(h)] (i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to
[subsection (e) ] subsection (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 authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently.
[p.32]
[ (i) 1 G) 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.
COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
[SEC. 9.] 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 of con-
trolling the pollution of such waters. In his summary of any con-
ference pursuant to [section 8 (c) (3)] 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 8(e)] section 10 (f) involving any pollu-
tion 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 conduct-
ing such hearings shall also include references to any such discharges
which are contributing to the pollution found by such Hearing Board.
ADMINISTRATION
[SEC. 10.] SEC. 12. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe
-------
618 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 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 rec-
ords 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
connection with which such assistance is given or used, and the
amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking sup-
plied 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.
[p. 33]
DEFINITIONS
[SEC. 11.] 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 abate-
ment 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
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, 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 619
(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.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
[SEC. 12.] SEC. 14. This Act shall not be construed as (1) super-
seding 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) affect-
ing or impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sec-
tions 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. 13.] SEC. 15. 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.
SHORT TITLE
[SEC. 14.] SEC. 16. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water
Pollution Control Act."
[p. 34]
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 1 OF 1953
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives in Congress assembled, March 12, 1953, pursuant to the provisions
of the Reorganization Act of 1949, approved June 20, 1949, as amended
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
SECTION 1. Creation of Department; Secretary.—There is hereby
established an executive department, which shall be known as the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereafter in this
reorganization plan referred to as the Department). There shall be
at the head of the Department a Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare (hereafter in this reorganization plan referred to as the
-------
620 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Secretary), who shall be appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall receive compensation
at the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law for the heads of
executive departments. The Department shall be administered under
the supervision and direction of the Secretary.
SEC. 2. Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries.—There shall be
in the Department an Under Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare and [two] three Assistant Secretaries of Health, Education,
and Welfare, each of whom shall be appointed by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall perform such func-
tions as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall receive compensation
at the rate now or hereafter provided by law for under secretaries and
assistant secretaries, respectively, of executive departments. The
Under Secretary (or, during the absence or disability of the Under
Secretary or in the event of a vacancy in the office of Under Secretary,
an Assistant Secretary determined according to such order as the
Secretary shall prescribe) shall act as Secretary during the absence
or disability of the Secretary or in the event of a vacancy in the office
of Secretary.
SEC. 3. Special Assistant.—There shall be in the Department a
Special Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs) who
shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate from among persons who are recognized leaders
in the medical field with wide nongovernmental experience, shall
review the health and medical programs of the Department and advise
the Secretary with respect to the improvement of such programs and
with respect to necessary legislation in the health and medical fields,
and shall receive compensation at the rate now or hereafter provided
by law for assistant secretaries of executive departments.
SEC. 4. Commissioner of Social Security.—There shall be in the
Department a Commissioner of Social Security who shall be ap-
pointed by the President by and with,the advice and consent of the
Senate, shall perform such functions concerning social security and
public welfare as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall receive
compensation at the rate now or hereafter fixed by law for grade
GS-18 of the general schedule established by the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended.
SEC. 5. Transfers to the Department.—All functions of the Federal
Security Administrator are hereby transferred to the Secretary. All
agencies of the Federal Security Agency, together with their respec-
tive functions, personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances
of appropriations, allocations, and other funds (available or to be made
[p. 35]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 621
available), and all other functions, personnel, property, records, and
unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other funds
(available or to be made available) of the Federal Security Agency
are hereby transferred to the Department.
SEC. 6. Performance of functions of the Secretary.—The Secretary
may from time to time make such provisions as the Secretary deems
appropriate authorizing the performance of any of the functions of
the Secretary by any other officer, or by an agency or employee, of
the Department.
SEC. 7. Administrative services.—In the interest of economy and
efficiency the Secretary may from time to time establish central
administrative services in the fields of procurement, budgeting,
accounting, personnel, library, legal, and other services and activities
common to the several agencies of the Department; and the Secretary
may effect such transfers within the Department of the personnel
employed, the property and records used or held, and the funds
available for use in connection with such administrative-service
activities as the Secretary may deem necessary for the conduct of
any services so established: Provided, That no professional or sub-
stantive function vested by law in any officer shall be removed from
the jurisdiction of such officer under this section.
SEC. 8. Abolitions.—The Federal Security Agency (exclusive of the
agencies thereof transferred by sec. 5 of this reorganization plan), the
offices of Federal Security Administrator and Assistant Federal
Security Administrator created by Reorganization Plan No. 1 (53
Stat. 1423), the two offices of assistant heads of the Federal Security
Agency created by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1946 (60 Stat. 1095),
and the office of Commissioner for Social Security created by section
701 of the Social Security Act, as amended (64 Stat. 558), are hereby
abolished. The Secretary shall make such provisions as may be
necessary in order to wind up any outstanding affairs of the Agency
and offices abolished by this section which are not otherwise provided
for in this reorganization plan.
SEC. 9. Interim provisions.—The President may authorize the per-
sons who immediately prior to the time this reorganization plan takes
effect occupy the offices of Federal Security Administrator, Assistant
Federal Security Administrator, assistant heads of the Federal
Security Agency, and Commissioner for Social Security to act as
Secretary, Under Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries of Health,
Education, and Welfare and as Commissioner of Social Security,
respectively, until those offices are filled by appointment in the
manner provided by sections 1, 2, and 4 of this reorganization plan,
but not for a period of more than 60 days. While so acting, such
persons shall receive compensation at the rates provided by this
-------
622 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
reorganization plan for the offices the functions of which they
perform.
[p. 36]
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARY ACT OF 1964
[78 Stat. 400]
AN ACT To adjust the rates of basic compensation of certain officers and
employees in the Federal Government, and for other purposes
SEC. 303. * * *
*******
(d) Level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule shall
apply to the following offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $27,000:
*******
(17) Assistant Secretaries of Health, Education, and Wei-
fare [(2)] (3).
#*#**#*
[p. 37]
1.2h(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 1022, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
SEPTEMBER 17,1965.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 4]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 4) to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to establish
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 623
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants
for research and development, to increase grants for construction of
municipal sewage treatment works, to authorize the establishment of
standards of water quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and
abating pollution of interstate waters, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following: That (a) (1) section 1 oj the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 468) is amended by inserting after
the words "SECTION 1." a new subsection (a) as follows:
" (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 preven-
tion, control, and abatement of water pollution."
(2) Such section is further amended by redesignating subsections
(a) and (b) thereof as (b) and (c), respectively.
(3) Subsection (b) of such section (as redesignated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection) is amended by striking out the last sentence
thereof and inserting in lieu of such sentence the following: "The
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called 'Secretary') shall administer this Act through the Administra-
tion created by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by
[p. 1]
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
related to water pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall perform
such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe."
(b) There shall be in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries now provided for by
law, one additional Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The provisions of section 2 of
Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631) shall be
applicable to such additional Assistant Secretary to the same extent
as they are applicable to the Assistant Secretaries authorized by that
section. Paragraph (17) of section 303 (d) of the Federal Executive
Salary Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 418) is amended by striking out "(5)"
before the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof " (6)."
-------
624 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SEC. 2. (a) Such Act is further amended by rede signaling sections
2 through 4, and references thereto, as sections 3 through 5, respec-
tively, sections 5 through 14, as sections 7 through 16, respectively,
by inserting after section 1 the following new section:
"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 (here-
inafter in this Act referred 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 personnel of the Department, obtain, frcm within the Depart-
ment or otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, technical,
and clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the Adminis-
tration's functions 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, any officer or
employee of, or assigned or detailed to, the Administration."
(b) Subject to such, requirements as the Civil Service Commission
may prescribe, any commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
who, on the day before the effective date of the establishment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, was, as such officer,
performing functions relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act may acquire competitive civil service status and be transferred
to a classified position in the Administration if he so transfers within
six months (or such further period as the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare may find necessary in individual cases) after such
effective date. No commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
may be transferred to the Administration under this section if he
does not consent to such transfer. As used in this section, the term
"transferring officer" means an officer transferred in accordance with
this subsection.
(c) (1) The Secretary shall deposit in the Treasury of the United
States to the credit of the civil service retirement and disability fund,
on behalf of and to the cerdit of each transferring officer, an amount
equal to that which such individual would be required to deposit in
such fund to cover the years of service credited to him for purposes
of his retirement as a commissioned officer of the Public Health
Service to the date of his transfer
[p. 2]
as provided in subsection (b), but only to the extent that such service
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 625
is otherwise creditable under the Civil Service Retirement Act. The
amount so required to be deposited with respect to any transferring
officer shall be computed on the basis of the sum of his basic pay,
allowance for quarters, and allowance for subsistence and, in the
case of a medical officer, his special pay, during the years of service
so creditable, including all such years after June 30, 1960.
(2) The deposits which the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare is required to make under this subsection with respect to any
transferring officer shall be made within two years after the date of
his transfer as provided in subsection (b), and the amounts due under
this subsection shall include interest computed from the period of
service credited to the date of payment in accordance with section
4 (e) of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C. 2254 (e)).
(d) All past service of a transferring officer as a commissioned
officer of the Public Health Service shall be considered as civilian
service for all purposes under the Civil Service Retirement Act, effec-
tive as of the date any such transferring officer acquires civil service
status as an employee of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration; however, no transferring officer may become entitled to
benefits under both the Civil Service Retirement Act and title II of
the Social Security Act based on service as such a commissioned
officer performed after 1956, but the individual (or his survivors)
may irrevocably elect to waive benefit credit for the service under
one Act to secure credit under the other.
(e) A transferring officer on whose behalf a deposit is required to
be made by subsection (c) and who, after transfer to a classified posi-
tion in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration under
subsection (b), is separated from Federal service or transfers to a
position not covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act, shall not
be entitled, nor shall his survivors be entitled, to a refund of any
amount deposited on his behalf in accordance with this section. In
the event he transfers, after transfer under subsection (b), to a
position covered by another Government staff retirement system
under which credit is allowable for service with respect to which a
deposit is required under subsection (c), no credit shall be allowed
under the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to such service.
(f) Each transferring officer who prior to January 1, 1957, was
insured pursuant to the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act
of 1954, and who subsequently waived such insurance, shall be
entitled to become insured under such Act upon his transfer to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration regardless of age
and insurability.
(g) Any commissioned officer of the Public Health Service who,
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, is transferred to a position
-------
626 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which is sub-
ject to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall receive a salary
rate of the General Schedule grade of such position which is nearest
to but no less than the sum of (1) basic pay, quarters and subsistence
allowances, and, in the case of a medical officer, special pay, to which
he was entitled as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
on the day immediately preceding his transfer, and (2) an amount
equal to the equalization factor (as defined in this subsection); but
in no event shall the rate so established exceed the maximum rate of
such grade. As used in this section, the term "equalization factor"
means an amount determined by the Secretary to be equal to the
sum of (A) 6x/2 per centum of such basic pay and (B) the amount of
Federal income tax which the transferring
[p. 3]
officer, had he remained a commissioned officer, would have been
required to pay on such allowances for quarters and subsistence for
the taxable year then current if they had not been tax free.
(h) A transferring officer who has had one or more years of com-
missioned service in the Public Health Service immediately prior to
his transfer under subsection (b) shall, on the date of such transfer,
be credited with thirteen days of sick leave.
(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, any commis-
sioned officer of the United States Public Health, Service with twenty-
five or more years of service who has held the temporary rank of
Assistant Surgeon General in the Division of Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control of the United States Public Health Service for three or
more years and whose position and duties are affected by the Act,
may, with the approval of the President, voluntarily retire from the
United States Public Health Service with the same retirement bene-
fits that would accrue to him if he had held the rank of Assistant
Surgeon General for a period of four years or more if he so retires
within ninety days of the date of the establishment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
(j) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to restrict
or in any way limit the head of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration in matters of organization or in otherwise carrying
out his duties under section 2 of this Act as he deems appropriate to
the discharge of the functions of such Administration.
(k) The Surgeon General shall be consulted by the head of the Ad-
ministration on the public health aspects relating to water pollution
over which the head of such Administration has administrative
responsibility.
SEC. 3. Such Act is further amended by inserting after the section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 627
redesignated as section 5 a new section as follows:
"GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
"SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or inter-municipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and
sewage or other wastes, and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith. The Secretary is authorized
to provide for the conduct of research and demonstrations relating
to new or improved methods of controlling the discharge into any
waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste
from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage
or other wastes, by contract with public or private agencies and insti-
tutions and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709
of the Revised Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 per centum of
the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for any
fiscal year may be expended under authority of this sentence during
such fiscal year.
" (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
an 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 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no grant shall be made
for any project under this section
[p. 4]
unless the Secretary determines that such project will serve as a
useful demonstration of a new or improved method of controlling the
discharge into any water of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
or other waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm
water and sewage or other wastes.
" (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the next three succeeding
fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purposes of
this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until
expended. No grant or contract shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized by
this section in any one fiscal year."
SEC. 4. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b) of the section of the
-------
628 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 8
is amended by striking out "$600,000," and inserting in lieu thereof
$1,200,000,".
(b) The second proviso in clause (2) of subsection (b) of such
redesignated section 8 is amended by striking out "$2,400,000," and
inserting in lieu thereof "$4,800,000,".
(c) Subsection (b) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following: "The limitations of $1,200,000
and $4,800,000 imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall not apply
in the case of grants made under this section from funds allocated
under the third sentence of subsection (c) of tTiis section if the State
agrees to match equally all Federal grants made from such allocation
for projects in such State."
(d) (1) The second sentence of subsection (c) of such redesignated
section 8 is amended by striking out "for any fiscal year" and inserting
in lieu thereof "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,".
(2) Subsection (c) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
inserting immediately after the period at the end of the second sen-
tence thereof the following: All sums in excess of $100,000,000 appro-
priated 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."
(3) The third sentence of subsection (c) of such, redesignated sec-
tion 8 is amended by striking out "the preceding sentence" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "the two preceding sentences".
(4) The next to the last sentence of subsection (c) of such redesig-
nated section 8 is amended by striking out "and third" and inserting
in lieu thereof ", third, and fourth".
(e) The last sentence of subsection (d) of such redesignated sec-
tion 8 is amended to read as follows: "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."
(f) Subsection (d) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
striking out "$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967." and inserting
in lieu
[p. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 629
thereof "$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967."
(g) Subsection (f) of such redesignated section 8 is redesignated
as subsection (g) thereof and is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new sentence: "The Secretary of Labor shall have,
with respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection, the
authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14
oj 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. 133,:—15) and section 2 of
the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c)."
(h) Such redesignated section 8 is further amended by inserting
therein, immediately after subsection (e) thereof, the following new
subsection:
" (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
official 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 Presi-
dent 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."
SEC. 5. (a) Redesignated section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by redesignating subsections (c) through (i)
as subsections (d) through (j), and by inserting after subsection (b)
the following new subsection:
" (c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution con-
trol agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, 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
-------
630 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 subsection, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter be the
water quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or por-
tions 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-
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 appli-
[p. 6]
cable 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 sub-
section, 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
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
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 631
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 author-
ized 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 pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies and municipalities involved 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 Secre-
tary should be approved or modified and transmit its findings 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 recommendations.
If the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the standards as
published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall pro-
mulgate 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 tribu-
taries 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
[p. 7]
(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 for in this sub-
section, together with the recommendations of the conference and
Hearing Board and the recommendations and standards promul-
gated 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 determination of all
other issues relating to the alleged violation. The court, giving due
-------
632 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 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."
(b) Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of the section of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 10 is
amended by striking out the final period after the third sentence of
such subsection and inserting the following in lieu thereof: "; or he
finds that substantial economic injury results from the inability to
market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because
of pollution referred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State,
or local authorities."
SEC. 6. The section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
hereinbefore redesignated as section 12 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new subsections:
" (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
oj 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 author-
ized 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."
SEC. 7. (a) Section 7 (f) (6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking
out "section 6 (b) (4)." as contained therein and inserting in lieu
thereof "section 8 (b) (4).".
(b) Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as that
section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out "section
5" as contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof "section 7".
(c) Section 10 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 633
"subsection (g)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (li)".
[p. 8]
(d) Section 10 (i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out
"subsection (e)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (f)".
(e) Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as that
section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out "sec-
tion 8(c) (3)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 10 (d) (3)" and
by striking out "section 8 (e)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section
10 (f)".
SEC. 8. This Act may be cited as the "Water Quality Act of 1965".
And the House agree to the same.
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House to the title and agree to the same.
GEORGE H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,,
JOHN F. BALDWIN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
FRANK E. Moss,
J. CALEB BOGGS,
JAMES B. PEARSON,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 9]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Houss to
the bill (S. 4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase
grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to
authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in
preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters, and
for other purposes, submit the following statement in explana-
tion of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and
recommended in the accompanying conference report:
-------
634 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The House amendment strikes out all of the Senate bill after the
enacting clause and inserts a substitute. The Senate recedes from
its disagreement to the amendment of the House with an amend-
ment which is a substitute for both the Senate bill and the House
amendment. The differences between the House amendment and
the substitute agreed to in conference are noted in the following
outline, except for technical and clerical corrections and changes.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Both the Senate bill and the House amendment in subsection (b)
of the first section thereof provide for an additional Assistant Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare to assist the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare in administering this act.
The conference substitute makes certain technical revisions in the
language establishing this additional Assistant Secretary necessary
because of the enactment of the Health Research Facilities Amend-
ments of 1965. These amendments are technical in nature only.
The conferees wish to indicate the importance they believe should
be placed on this reorganization of the water pollution control pro-
gram within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This
new Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Administrator of the new Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration should be individuals of the highest caliber with the finest
possible background in the field of water pollution, so that this
program can be accelerated and real progress can begin to be made
in reducing the pollution of the streams of this Nation.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The Senate bill in subsection (b) of section 5 amends redesignated
section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by adding
thereto a new subsection (c) which authorizes the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to establish standards of water
quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof.
[p. 10]
These standards are to be formulated in accordance with adminis-
trative procedures calling for notice and public hearing, consultation
with affected Federal, State, interstate, and local interests, and are
required to be such as to protect the public health or welfare and
otherwise generally to enhance the quality and value of interstate
waters. These standards would also be subject to revision either by
the Secretary on his own motion or when petitioned for revision by
the Governor of any affected State. The same procedure for hearing
and consultation would be followed in revisions as when standards
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 635
were originally being formulated. The Senate bill further directs
the Secretary to promulgate standards only if the appropriate State
and interstate agencies have not developed standards which he finds
consistent with the purposes of the section within a reasonable time
after being requested by the Secretary to do so. Once the Secretary
has promulgated water quality standards or there have been stand-
ards established by State or interstate agencies consistent with the
section, any discharge of matter which reduces the quality of the
waters below the established standards is made subject to abatement
under the existing enforcement procedures provided in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
Subsection (a) of section 5 of the House amendment amends redes-
ignated section 7 (f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by
adding at the end thereof a new clause (7) which provides that each
State, within 90 days after the date of enactment of the bill, is to
file with the Secretary a letter of intent that such State will establish
water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof within its jurisdiction on or before June 30, 1967. Failure to
file such a letter of intent would preclude the State from receiving
any further funds under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
until such time as such a letter is filed.
Section 5 (a) of the proposed conference substitute would amend
redesignated section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to add to that section a new subsection (c).
Paragraph (1) of this new subsection provides that if the Governor
of a State or a State water pollution control agency files within 1 year
after date of enactment of the subsection a letter of intent that such
State after public hearings will before June 30, 1967, adopt water
quality criteria applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof
within such State and a plan to implement and enforce such criteria
and if the Secretary determines that such criteria and plan are con-
sistent with paragraph (3) of the subsection, then the State criteria
and plan will thereafter be the water quality standards applicable to
those interstate waters or portions thereof.
Paragraph (2) of the new subsection provides that if a State does
not file a letter of intent or establish water quality standards under
paragraph (1) or if the Secretary or Governor of any affected State
wants a revision of the standards then the Secretary may after
having given a reasonable notice and having had a conference of rep-
resentatives of appropriate Federal departments and agencies, inter-
state agencies, States, municipalities, and affected industries, prepare
and publish regulations setting forth standards of water quality to be
applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof. The Secretary
may promulgate standards 6 months after the date he publishes his
-------
636 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
regulations unless within that period the State has adopted water
quality standards which the Secretary finds to be consistent with
[p.11]
paragraph (3) of this subsection or a petition for a public hearing has
been filed under paragraph (4) of this subsection.
Paragraph (4) of this subsection provides that if the Governor of
any State affected by the standards petitions the Secretary for a
hearing at any time after the regulations have been published and
prior to 30 days after standards have been promulgated under
paragraph (2), the Secretary is required to call a public hearing. This
public hearing is to be held in or near one or more of the places where
the standards will take effect and is to be before a hearing board
consisting of at least five persons. The members of the hearing board
are to be appointed by the Secretary. However, each affected State
may select one member and the Department of Commerce and other
affected agencies may each select one member. There is a further
restriction that at least a majority of the hearing board must be per-
sons other than officers or employees of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The conferees expect that the Secretary will
appoint at least one public member of each hearing board who will be
from the area to be directly affected by the standards. Further, the
conferees intend that the Secretary in appointing hearing boards will
insure a proper balance between all affected interests. Paragraph (4)
provides that members of the hearing board who are not officers or
employees of the United States will receive compensation at a rate not
to exceed $100 per diem as well as travel expenses while away from
their homes or regular places of business all in accordance with pro-
visions of applicable law. Notice of the public hearing is to be pub-
lished in the Federal Register and is to be given to the State water
pollution agencies, interstate agencies, and municipalities involved at
least 30 days before the hearing. After the evidence has been pre-
sented and on the basis thereof the hearing board is required to make
findings as to whether the Secretary's standards should be approved
or modified, and to transmit its findings to the Secretary. If the
hearing board approves the standards as published or promulgated,
they take effect when the Secretary receives the hearing board's
recommendations. If modifications are recommended, the Secretary
is required to promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards
in accordance with the recommendations and these revised regulations
will take effect immediately upon their promulgation.
Paragraph (5) of the new subsection provides that the discharge
of matter into interstate waters or portions thereof which reduce
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 637
their quality below the applicable standard (whether the matter is
discharged directly into the waters or reaches the waters after dis-
charging into tributaries thereof) is subject to abatement in accord-
ance with either paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this section
whichever of those paragraphs is applicable. However, before abate-
ment is initiated under either paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g)
the Secretary is required to notify the violators and other interested
parties of the violation of the standards and at least 180 days must
elapse so that there may be voluntary compliance. The conferees
intend that during such period the Secretary should afford an oppor-
tunity for an informal hearing before himsslf or such hearing officer
or board as he may appoint relative to the alleged violation of stand-
ards, upon the request of any affected State, alleged violator, or other
interested party, so that if possible there can be voluntary agreement
reached during this period, thus eliminating the necessity for suit.
In any
[p.12]
suit brought to secure abatement of pollution under this subsection
the court is required to received in evidence a transcript of the
conference and hearing provided for in this subsection, the recom-
mendations of the conference and the hearing board and the recom-
mendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary and such
additional evidence including that related to the alleged violation of
the standards as the court deems necessary to a complete review of
the standards as well as a determination of all other issues relating
to the alleged violation. The court is given jurisdiction to enter
whatever judgment and orders the public interest and equities of
the case may require after having given due consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of comply-
ing with the applicable standards. The existing enforcement proce-
dures in the present Water Pollution Control Act which consist of
three stages, conference, public hearings, and court action, will con-
tinue to be applicable for enforcing the abatement of pollution which
endangers the health or welfare of persons.
Paragraph (3) of this subsection requires standards of water qual-
ity established pursuant to this subsection to be such as to protect the
public health or welfare, enhance water quality and generally to
serve the purposes of the act. In establishing such standards the
Secretary, hearing board, or State, as the case may be, is required to
take into consideration their use and value for water supply, propa-
gation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industrial, and
other legitimate uses.
Paragraph (6) of this subsection provides that this subsection is
-------
638
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
not to prevent the application of section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in any case to which subsection (a) of section
10 would otherwise be applicable, or to extend Federal jurisdiction
over water not otherwise authorized by this act.
Paragraph (7) of this subsection prohibits any witness or other
person from being required to divulge in connection with any hearing
under this section any trade secrets or secret processes.
SUBPENA POWER IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Subsection (c) of section 5 of the House amendment amends redes-
ignated section 10 (e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
add a new sentence which authorizes the Secretary in an enforcement
action to administer oaths and to compel the presence and testimony
of witnesses and the production of evidence by the issuance of sub-
penas. It further provides that no person would be required to
divulge trade secrets or secret processes and provides for payment of
witness fees, mileage, and for the enforcement of subpenas by district
courts of the United States.
The proposed conference substitute does not contain such a
provision.
[p. 13]
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Section 7 of the proposed conference substitute contains a number
of technical conforming changes in the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act made necessary by the amendments otherwise made by the
conference substitute.
GEORGE H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
JOHN F. BALDWIN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 14]
1.2h(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. Ill (1965)
1.2h(4)(a) Jan. 28: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 1503-1519,
1521,1525-1545
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill S. 4 to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and devel-
opment, to increase grants for construc-
tion of municipal sewage treatment
works, to authorize the establishment of
standards of water quality to aid in
preventing, controlling, and abating pol-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
639
lution of interstate waters, and for other
purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on
October 16, 1983, the Senate considered
S. 649, a bill to amend the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended. It was
a bill which had been subject to rigorous
and extensive hearings, producing over
1,000 pages of testimony. It had been
subjected to intensive study by the
members of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution and the members of
the full Committee on Public Works.
Members of both parties worked on re-
visions in the legislation. The final
product, as reported to the Senate, re-
tained the original objectives of the bill,
but incorporated significant changes
which were responsive to the hearing
testimony and to the flow of ideas and
discussions in the subcommittee. The
bill was debated in some detail on Octo-
ber 16, being tested by Members of the
Senate who had sincere doubts as to
some of its provisions.
Following debate, the Senate passed
S. 649 by a vote of 69 to 11, and of the
20 Members not voting, 15 announced
themselves as favoring its passage. The
House Public Works Committee reported
an amended version during the closing
days of the 88th Congress. However, no
further action was taken by the other
body.
In the months and weeks before the
opening of the 89th Congress, the mem-
bers of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution and others interested
in the Water Pollution Control Act re-
viewed S. 649 and the needed changes
in the program. S. 4, which is now
before the Senate, represents the con-
sensus of that group. It has been
cosponsored by 31 of my colleagues,
including all members of the subcom-
mittee in the 88th Congress. A hearing
was held on the legislation, January 18,
1965. As reported to the Senate, it is
identical with S. 649, with two deletions
and several perfecting amendments
which were adopted by the committee.
I shall comment on those changes later
in my remarks.
I believe S. 4 is a sound and meaning-
ful legislative approach to the enhance-
ment of the quality of our national water
resources. I believe its adoption will
strengthen our pollution control and
abatement program and will contribute
to expanded and more effective efforts
at the regional, State, and local level.
I want to express my appreciation to
my colleagues who have made a sub-
stantial contribution to the development
and perfection of S. 4. The chairman of
the Committee on Public Works, the
senior Senator from Michigan [Mr.
McNAMARA], created the special Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution
and has given the subcommittee his
backing and support. The ranking
majority member of the subcommittee,
the senior Senator from West Virginia
[Mr. RANDOLPH], has devoted consider-
able time and effort to the legislation,
offering many helpful suggestions.
The ranking minority member of the
subcommittee, the senior Senator from
Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], has been a crea-
tive and constructive partner from the
very beginning. His patience and good
will and his determination to achieve a
reasonable meeting of the minds were
essential to our success in the 88th Con-
gress and today.
The exchanges on S. 649 and S. 4 have
been healthy. The senior Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], whose dis-
agreement with the majority of the com-
mittee has been recorded in our reports
and in the debate, has contributed to a
more complete understanding of the
issues involved.
The development of S. 4, the Water
Quality Act of 1965, has been a reward-
ing experience for me. It is, in my
opinion, the product of creative dialog
and legislative craftsmanship.
S. 4 is consistent with and supports the
objectives outlined by President John-
son in his state of the Union message, in
which he called for an expanded con-
servation program as part of our effort
to acliieve the Great Society:
-------
640
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
For over three centuries the beauty of
Amerl :a has sustained our spirit and has
enlarg;d our vision. We must act now to
protec* this heritage. In a fruitful new part-
nership with the States and cities the next
decade should be a conservation mile-
stone. * * *
We will seek legal power to prevent pollu-
tion of our air and water before it happens
We will step up our effort to control harmful
wastes, giving just priority to the cleanup of
our most contaminated rivers We will in-
crease research to learn much more about
the control of pollution.
These objectives and approaches stated
by the President are reflected in S. 4.
As I mentioned previously, this legis-
lation is, with the exception of two dele-
tions and some perfecting amendments,
identical to S. 649, as approved by the
Senate on October 16, 1963, by a vote
of 69 to 11. The two sections deleted
were those relating to the control and
abatement of pollution from Federal
installations and the problem of non-
degradable detergents.
[p. 1503]
The Federal installations section was
eliminated from this bill because similar
problems with respect to Federal instal-
lations are present in the field of air
pollution, as well as water pollution. In
addition, there were other matters relat-
ing to Federal activities in both fields
which require separate and more com-
plete consideration. Because of these
factors it was decided to cover these
matters in separate legislation.
The detergents section was deleted
because the members of the soap and de-
tergent industry have reported changes
in their schedules for supplying the
market with detergents which will de-
grade more readily than those presently
on the market. In view of this change
it was considered advisable to conduct
additional hearings on the detergent
problem to determine the type or need
of corrective legislation.
S. 4 includes the following proposals:
First. To establish an additional posi-
tion of Assistant Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to help the Sec-
retary to administer the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
Second. To create a Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration to
administer sections 3, comprehensive
programs; 4, interstate cooperation and
uniform laws; 10, enforcement measures;
and, 11, to control pollution from Fed-
eral installations, of the act.
Third. To authorize appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985, and
for 3 succeeding fiscal years in the
amount of $20 million a year for grants
for research and development to demon-
strate new or improved methods for the
control of combined storm and sanitary
sewer discharges.
Fourth. To increase grants to individ-
ual sewage treatment projects from
$600,000 to $1 million, and to allow mul-
timunicipal combinations grant in-
creases from $2,400,000 to $4 million.
There is also a provision which pro-
vides a 10-percent bonus on construction
grants for treatment plants where such
construction is part of a comprehensive
metropolitan plan.
Fifth. To provide procedures for the
establishment of water quality standards
applicable to interstate waters.
Sixth. To authorize action by the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare
to initiate abatement proceedings where
he finds that substantial economic injury
results from the inability to market
shellfish or shellfish products in inter-
state commerce because of pollution of
interstate or navigable waters and actions
of Federal, State, or local authorities.
Seventh. Provisions for audits where
Federal funds are utilized under the act,
and provisions, under the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, for appropriate appli-
cation of the authority and functions of
the Secretary of Labor with respect to
labor standards.
The two perfecting amendments to the
bill, as adopted by the committee, relate
to the quality standards section of the
bill. The first clarifies the procedure
relating to the revision of water quality
standards, so that the same provisions
for hearings and consultation, followed
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
641
in establishing standards in the first
instance, will be followed in the revision
of those standards. There is, connected
with that amendment, another amend-
ment which provides a more logical
sequence of paragraphs in the standards
section.
The second committee amendment
requires the hearing board, under the
enforcement procedure, to give consid-
eration to "the practicability of comply-
ing with such standards as may be
applicable." This language is identical
with that added to the court review
section of the Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, in S. 649 in the 88th
Congress. It is considered a clarification
of a protection the committee intended
to be present in the enforcement provi-
sions of the act.
I have outlined, Mr. President, the
provisions of S. 4, its origins, its develop-
ment, and its senatorial sponsorship and
support. In addition, this year, it has
the support of the administration, as in-
dicated in the January 18, 1985, letter to
Chairman McNAMARA from the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
In that letter he wrote, in part:
The overall purposes of S 4 are highly
desirable, particularly insofar as they are con-
sistent with the President's goals and objec-
tives noted above We favor, therefore, the
enactment of this legislation as necessary for
the effective conduct of the national water
pollution control program and the accom-
plishment of its important aims and purposes
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the full text of the Secretary's
letter be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C , January 18, 1965
Hon PAT V. MCNAMARA,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN- This letter is in re-
sponse to your request of January 11, 1965,
for a report on S 4, a bill, to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
to establish the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, to provide grants for
research and development, to increase grants
for construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment works, to authorize the establishment
of standards of water quality to aid in pre-
venting, controlling, and abating pollution
of interstate waters, and for other purposes.
In his state of the Union message, de-
livered to the Congress on January 4, 1965
(H Doc. No 1, 89th Cong ), President John-
son set forth important national goals and
objectives for the prevention, control, and
abatement of water pollution. The Presi-
dent proposed "that we end the poisoning
of our rivers," and to this end he recom-
mended legal power to prevent pollution be-
fore it happens and further asserted that we
will step up our effort to control harmful
wastes, giving first priority to the cleanup
of our most contaminated rivers and will in-
crease lesearch to learn much more about
the control of pollution. We view the pur-
poses of S 4 as consonant with these goals
and objectives and therefore highly desir-
able
The provisions of S 4 are identical with
those of S 649, 88th Congress, passed by the
Senate on October 16, 1963, except for Lhe
deletion of the provisions for permits for
waste discharges from Federal installations
and for measures for the control of syn-
thetic detergents Our comments on their
identical provisions were submitted to you
in our letter of October 11, 1963.
As stated therein, we fully support the pro-
vision of an additional Assistant Secretary
position for this Department. This impor-
tant provision will contribute to the necessary
strengthening of the Office of the Secretary
and will benefit all the Department's
programs
The proposed program of grants to assist
municipalities in the development of projects
which will demonstrate new or improved
methods of controlling discharges of sewage
and wastes from storm sewers and combined
storm and sanitary sewers will aid greatly
in resolving this very critical pollution prob-
lem A recent report prepared by the Public
Health Service, entitled, "Pollutional Effects
of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined
Sewer Systems; a Preliminary Appraisal," re-
veals the following significant aspects of this
problem' Approximately 59 million people
in more than 1,900 communities are served
by combined sewers and combinations of
combined and separate sewer systems Storm
,water and combined sewer overflows are
responsible for major amounts of polluting
material in the Nation's receiving waters and
the tendency with growing urbanization is
for these amounts to increase. Both com-
bined overflows and storm water contribute
significant amounts of pollutional materials
-------
642
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to watercourses. These discharges affect all
known water uses adversely in the receiving
watercourses. Complete separation of storm
water from sanitary sewers and treatment of
all waste is the ultimate control measure to
provide maximum protection to receiving
waters. Total costs for complete separation
based on scattered information are estimated
to be in the $20 to $30 billion range. The
report recommends demonstration projects
identical in purpose with those specified in
S. 4 as an attack on the problem and to pro-
vide information for future action. While we
fully endorse the objectives of this provision
of the bill, we wish to advise the committee
that the administration will be proposing a
community facility grants program. The or-
ganizational and coordinating arrangements
for this and related existing programs are still
under consideration, and will be dealt with in
future recommendations to the Congress.
We agree with the desirability of increasing
the existing dollar ceiling limitations on the
amount of a single project grant from '$600,-
000 to $1 million and from $2,400,000 to $4
million for a project in "which two or more
communities jointly participate. This amend-
ment will provide a more equitable measxire
of assistance to those projects involving dis-
proportionately higher costs and substantially
stimulate the construction of necessary waste
treatment facilities by larger communities,
where the attendant needs are commensu-
rately greater.
The bill provides that the amount of a
grant for a project may be increased by 10
percent of that amount if the project is
certified as conforming with a comprehensive
plan for the metropolitan area in which
the project is to be constructed. We believe
that a direct financial incentive such as this
is desirable to encourage municipalities to
coordinate and conform, if practicable, to the
facility plan for the metropolitan or regional
area, both in the interests of effective water
pollution control and because of the substan-
tial savings in expenditures that may be
realized to all levels of government as a
result of such area coordination. This pro-
vision of S. 4 and the proposed increases
in the dollar limitations for any single or
joint construction project implement the
recommendations of the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations in its
October 1962 report on "Intergovernmental
Respon-
[p 1504]
sibilities for Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal in Metropolitan Areas."
The provisions Jor establishment oi stand-
ards of water quality to be applicable to
interstate waters would appear to have for
their purpose the prevention of pollution
before its inception. Sound water quality
standards are capable of serving as valuable
guidelines for municipalities and industries
in providing for effective treatment and dis-
posal of their wastes so as to prevent pol-
lution situations from arising We are in
agreement, therefore, as to the necessity and
desirability of these provisions.
Such industries as the commercial shell-
fish and fishing enterprises, which are im-
portantly engaged in the shipping and
marketing of seafood products, are particu-
larly susceptible to the deleterious effects of
pollution. In addition to the immediate health
nazards involved, the uncontrolled discharges
of water matters in proximity to shellfish bed
and commercial fish habitat areas inflict grave
economic losses upon these industries through
the resultant necessary closing of such areas
to harvesting operations The proposal of S. 4
directing the application of enforcement
authority and procedures in such instances
would provide corrective relief measures
presently unavailable to those operators
whose economic livelihood is imperiled
through such pollution.
The overall purposes of S. 4 are highly
desirable, particularly insofar as they are
consistent with the President's goals and
objectives noted above We favor, therefore,
the enactment of this legislation as neces-
sary for the effective conduct of the national
water pollution control program and the ac-
complishment of its important aims and
purposes.
We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget
that there is no objection to the presentation
of this report from the standpoint of the
administration's program.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY CELEBEEZZE,
Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the pro-
visions of S. 4 also have the support of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
visory Board, by resolutions adopted by
the Board on June 12, 1983, and Novem-
ber 10, 1964. This distinguished panel
of public-spirited citizens maintains a
continuing relationship with the water
pollution control program and has an
intimate knowledge of its operation
within the Public Health Service and
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the names and titles of the
members and the resolutions of the
Board relating to the creation of a Water
Pollution Control Administration in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare be printed at this point in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
643
RECORD.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman, ex officio. Hon James M. Quig-
ley, Assistant Secretary, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington,
DC.
Executive secretary Mr Robert C Ayers,
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D.C
Mr Earle G Burwell, former member, Wyo-
ming State Stream Pollution Committee,
Casper, Wyo.
Mr. M. James Gleason, commissioner,
Multnomah County, County courthouse,
Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Raymond A. Haik, attorney-at-law,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Mrs Burnette Y. Hennington, national sec-
retary, National Federation of Business and
Professional Women's Clubs, Inc , Northsidc
Station, Jackson, Miss
Mr. Gerald A. Jackson, vice president,
Champion Papers, Inc , Chicago, 111
Mr. Lee Roy Matthias, executive vice
president, Red River Valley Association,
Shreveport, La.
Mr Blucher A Poole, director, bureau of
environmental sanitation, State board of
health, Indianapolis, Ind.
Mr. William E Towell, director, Missouri
Conservation Commission, Jefferson City,
Mo.
Mr. William E Warne, director, California
Department of Water Resources, Sacramento,
Calif.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY FEDERAL WATEE
POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD ON JUNE
12, 1963
Whereas the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Advisory Board was created by Congress
and members are appointed by the President
for the purpose of reviewing the water pol-
lution problem of this country, appraising
public opinion on the subject and making
recommendations which would lead to the
formation of policies which would effectuate
better water pollution control throughout
the Nation; and
Whereas there is now pending before the
Congress legislation which would transfer the
administration of the Federal water pollution
control program out of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and
Whereas there is also pending before the
Congress legislation which would establish
a separate administrative agency within the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare for the Federal water pollution control
program; and
Whereas this Board is previously on record
in favor of the establishment of such a sep-
arate administrative organization within the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare: Now be it
Resolved—
1 That considering the availability of
highly qualified water pollution control per-
sonnel now in the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and considering the
wealth of knowledge and experience accumu-
lated within that Department in this area
this Board strongly urges and recommends
that the administration of water pollution
control be retained within the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and
2 This Board specifically endorses and
urges the adoption either by administrative
action by the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare or by congressional enactment,
that section of S 649 and H R. 3161 (or simi-
lar pending bills) which relates to the estab-
lishment of a separate administrative agency
for water pollution control within the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
be it further
Resolved, That the Chairman of this Board
is requested to bring the contents of this
resolution to the attention of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on
Water and Air Pollution and the chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Rivers and
Harbors and Public Works so that they may
be fully appraised of this Board's deep con-
cern for the need of the immediate upgrading
of the water pollution control program
within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
RESOLUTION CREATING A WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ADMINISTRATION IN THE DEPART-
MENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Resolved, That the Federal Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board, in executive session
this 10th day of November 19G4, at Chicago,
111., recommends the creation of a separate
Water Pollution Control Administration
within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
proposed legislation has the support of
the distinguished Governor of Califor-
nia, Edmund G. Brown, who testified be-
fore the committee. It is supported by
the U S. Conference of Mayors and other
civic organizations. It is supported by
the National Wildlife Federation and
other conservation groups. Industrial
representatives who appeared before the
committee and who consulted with us
-------
644
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
have indicated that while they may not
agree with all of its provisions, they be-
lieve S. 4 is reasonable in its approach.
Mr. President, I believe S. 4 deserves
the high priority accorded it by the ad-
ministration and by the Senate leader-
ship. Two years have passed since its
basic provisions were presented to the
Senate. A year and a quarter has passed
since the Senate approved S. 649. The
improvements that this legislation offers
are needed today more than ever.
The need for the acceleration of sew-
age treatment plant construction and
for the correction of the problem of com-
bined sewers is no less urgent than when
I introduced S. 649 in January of 1963,
or when it passed the Senate in October
of that year. As a matter of fact, the
delay in enactment of legislation has
created a greater backlog of needs in
correcting the Nation's water pollution
problems.
The committee recognizes that the
increased authorizations in S. 4 do not
go as far as some members would like.
We are conscious of the problems con-
fronting our larger cities where even the
$1 million project authorization con-
tained in S. 4 will not approach 30 per-
cent of the project cost. We are also
conscious of the growing needs of
smaller communities, where the cost of
collection sewers—not eligible for aid
under the Water Pollution Control Act
—is often larger than that of the sewage
treatment works. There are many other
fiscal and developmental problems con-
nected with the sewage treatment grant
program which must be examined. But
none of these questions can be consid-
ered adequately without giving atten-
tion to the problem of overall grant
authorizations. It is the committee's
intention to give timely and intensive
study to this problem. The views of all
' interested parties will be solicited in an
effort to arrive at a sound and fair total
authorization and to correct any inequi-
ties which exist in the present grant
program.
Today our older cities are faced with
the necessity of separating their com-
bined storm and sanitary sewers, or
devising means whereby the discharge
of runoff from city streets is gradually
fed through treatment plants to prevent
overloading of treatment systems and
the discharge of untreated sewage into
public waterways. The correction of the
problem of combined sewers requires
huge expenditures on the part of com-
munities. Current estimates place the
cost of separation in the order of $30
billion. The $20 million annual authori-
zation in S. 4 would help launch a re-
search and development program to find
[p. 1505]
improved methods of dealing with the
combined sewage problem. Hopefully,
this program will also cut the costs of
corrective action.
For the program of sewage treatment
facilities to be of greater benefit to our
larger communities, the limitation on
individual and multimunicipal grants
needs to be raised. The present ceilings
are unrealistic when applied to the con-
siderably greater expenditures which a
larger city must bear in installing nec-
essary treatment works. In application,
the grants approximate as little or less
than 10 percent of the costs involved,
and thus they fail to achieve what is at
once a primary and necessary objective
of the grant program—the incentive to
develop local projects for the control
and abatement of water pollution.
S. 4 would authorize the establishment
of an additional Assistant Secretary to
help in the responsibility of the Depart-
ment to oversee this important sphere of
activities. There would also be author-
ized a Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration to carry out certain
functions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, thus accomplishing two
purposes:
First, the new Administration would
elevate the status of our water pollution
control and abatement programs to a
more appropriate and effective level in
the Department.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
645
Second, it would free the Public
Health Service to concentrate on its
primary concern with health in the
water pollution field, as it is in other
areas.
The importance of establishing water
quality standards in our interstate water
system is gaining more recognition and
support. While this would be a new
provision in Federal legislation, it is by
no means a new or novel approach to
aiding in the improvement of water
quality and in the proper management
of our water resources. We all recog-
nize that the availability of water of
good quality is a necessity for our eco-
nomic and industrial growth. It is
essential to the achievement of the Great
Society.
The development and application of
water quality standards would enable us
to establish objectives and guidelines on
the use of our waters and to prevent the
misuse and abuse of this vital resource.
Water quality standards would pro-
vide techniques which could, in many
instances, help us to avoid the necessity
for enforcement action. Under present
law and procedures nothing is done until
pollution has reached the point where
it endangers the health or welfare of
many people when there then are im-
posed unconscionable burdens upon
industry and others responsible for deal-
ing with it. Then abatement action is
taken and efforts are made to correct a
situation which could have been pre-
vented if standards of water quality had
been established; municipalities and in-
dustries could develop realistic plans for
new plants or expanded facilities, with-
out uncertainties about waste disposal
limitations which may be imposed.
In my own State, as in others, our pre-
viously abundant shellfish producing
waters have been immeasurably harmed
through disposal of deleterious wastes.
The economic losses to shellfishermen
have been catastrophic. S. 4 could pro-
vide them with effective protection for
the first time.
These, Mr. President, are the basic
provisions of the Water Quality Act of
1965, as amended by the committee. I
urge the Senate to approve S. 4 as a
major contribution to the quality of
American life.
WATER POLLUTION MORE SERIOUS EACH YEAR
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I strongly support this legislation being
brought before the Senate by the leader-
ship of the distinguished junior Senator
from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE],
Water pollution is high on the list
of our urgent national priorities. In-
creasing population and industry will
necessarily increase water pollution;
increasing reuse of the scarce water
supplies of a basin will compound pol-
lution problems.
A recent survey showed a national
backlog of over $2 billion of waste
treatment works needed to be built now;
several hundred millions of dollars
should be spent annually to keep popu-
lation growth from increasing water
pollution.
The bill before the Senate today is
another modest improvement in the
water pollution effort the Federal Gov-
ernment has been engaged in for several
years. It provides research and develop-
ment grants for work on the problems
of combined storm-sewage systems,
increases the maximum grants possible
to communities under the sewage treat-
ment works construction program, and
improves the administrative authority
over the water pollution program in-
cluding procedures for establishing
quality standards for interstate waters.
All of these are reasonable and prudent
steps that represent progress. Pure
water is necessary for a healthy people.
Impure water lowers the health level
of a people, and increases the death
rate. Clean water makes for clean
people.
For all of us who labor here in Wash-
ington, the need for faster progress in
water pollution prevention is illustrated
by the Potomac River that so enhances
the majesty of this great city. The
-------
646
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Potomac is a beautiful river—until one
gets close to the stinking thing. So far
as I am concerned, none of us can feel
content with what has been done against
water pollution until there are again
bathing beaches on the Potomac within
sight of the Capitol. Then we can feel
that the needed job is being done.
I commend my colleagues who have
labored so diligently in this field; I as-
sure them of my support for continued
efforts to combat water pollution across
the Nation.
Mr. EOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to
join with the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, the very able junior
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], in
the remarks he has just made regarding
S. 4, the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1965. I also
want to express my appreciation to him
and other members of the committee for
the great amount of work which has
gone into the preparation of this legis-
lation and its ultimate referral from the
committee to the Senate floor for action.
As the Senate knows, an almost iden-
tical bill to this passed the Senate in
the last Congress but, unfortunately, did
not receive final consideration by the
other body. The bill presently before
the Senate is the result of many days of
work by members of the committee and
many conferences held between State
governments, industries, and Federal
officials. It is my considered opinion that
in this legislation we have a good bill
which will go a long way in protecting
the wise use of our water resources.
As I think everyone is well aware, the
waters of our Nation are one of our
most precious natural resources. They
are in fact essential to all aspects of our
well-being.
With the population growth and the
increasing uses of our available waters,
their essentiality is becoming more and
more evident.
I think it is also well to keep in mind,
Mr. President, that commendable prog-
ress in pollution control has been made
by industry, municipalities, States, re-
gional authorities, and the Federal Gov-
ernment; and it is only because of the
scope, number, and complexity of the
problems of pollution that I feel this
legislation is timely and provides for a
more realistic and effective water pollu-
tion control program.
As the distinguished Senator from
Maine has pointed out, it provides for
an "effective national policy for the pre-
vention, control, and abatement of water
pollution."
Much concern has been evidenced over
the standards section of this legislation;
therefore, I would like to make this
comment. It is my firm belief that the
establishment of standards as provided
for in this legislation will reduce the
need for enforcement proceedings and
facilitate treatment programs because
full knowledge would be available as to
water quality needs. This authority to
establish standards in appropriate cases
does not extend the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government over water not now
covered by existing law. In fact, Mr.
President, the members of the committee
and the staff have worked diligently in
preparing language to make it abun-
dantly clear that the States, interstate
agencies, and industries will be fully
protected from any arbitrary action by
a Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare regarding established stand-
ards. Senators will note that the report
as well as the language of the bill make
it abundantly clear that the review
authority contained in existing water
pollution control laws shall take into
consideration the practicability of com-
plying with such standards as may be
applicable.
(At this point Mr. TYPINGS took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. BOGGS. I should like to mention
one further thing, Mr. President, and
that is the fact that the proposed legis-
lation, unlike S. 649 of the past Congress,
does not include a section dealing with
water pollution control at Federal in-
stallations. Both the chairman of the
subcommittee, the junior Senator from
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
647
Maine, and I, along with others, have
[p.1506]
introduced a separate piece of proposed
legislation dealing with pollution abate-
ment at Federal installations. I feel very
strongly that legislation to control pollu-
tion at Federal installations is a "must,"
and that we at the Federal level must
place our own house in order before we
can expect others to do likewise. I would
hope and believe that the Federal instal-
lations bill would receive early consider-
ation by the subcommittee and that
we would see it enacted into law in this
Congress.
Again, Mr. President, let me most sin-
cerely commend the junior Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the chairman of
our subcommittee, for his leadership in
this field of water pollution control and
for the many kindnesses and courtesies,
he has extended to me during all of our
deliberations in the creation of a mean-
ingful proposal in the field of water pol-
lution control.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to
consider this proposed legislation most
favorably, and look toward its passage.
This proposed legislation will be a rea-
sonable and practical step toward the
protection and wise use of our water re-
sources.
I thank the Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE], the distinguished Senator in
charge of the bill, for yielding to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend
the Senator from Delaware for his help-
ful and useful statement, lucid as always,
and for his kind, psrsonal remarks.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. First, I commend the
Senator from Maine for his excellent
statement on the pending bill. The
Senator will recall that last year, when
a similar bill was considered by our Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution
Control, a considerable amount of atten-
tion was devoted to what might be called
the problem of judicial review, with a
view to making very clear the procedure
that would be followed if the bill became
law. I should like to ask the Senator a
few questions.
On page 9, the bill contains a provision
indicating that violations are "subject
to abatement in accordance with the pro-
visions of this section." The section ref-
erence is to section 10 of the basic
Fedsral Air and Pollution Control Act, a
part of which is amended, along with
additions, by the pandmg bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The present section 8
will become section 10, if the bill is
passed.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
Let us assume that action for abate-
ment were taken because of what
appeared to be a violation by some indi-
vidual. What would be the first step
involved?
Mr. MUSKIE. The first step would
be the calling of a conference, notice of
which would be given to States, State
agencies, interstate agencies, industries,
and municipalities. Any parties in in-
terest would be brought into the confer-
ence for the purpose of considering all
matters dealing with the problem of pol-
lution in the waters involved. I empha-
size that the waters must be interstate
waters, under the act.
Mr. MILLER. If the conference pro-
cedure, which I presume would be rela-
tively informal, did not result in an
abatement, what would ba the next step?
Mr. MUSKIE The conference proce-
dure would be informal. It would not be
an adverse procedure in any sense at that
point. Its purpose is to establish a
factual basis upon which the Secretary
may determine whether or not to pro-
ceed with an abatement order. The con-
ference would make its report to the
Secretary. The Secretary, following the
conference, would be required, under the
law, to prepare and forward to all water
pollution agencies attending ths confer-
ence a summary of the conference dis-
cussions.
In effect, this is a notice to the agen-
cies involved, State and interstate, of the
-------
648
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
findings of the conference on this very
point.
The Secretary is then required to allow
at least 6 months for the States or inter-
state agencies to act upon any recom-
mendations he may make in connection
with the conference report. The period
is at least 6 months.
If at the conclusion of the period which
he allows—and that period is stated, so
that all parties are on notice—such re-
medial action has not been taken, the
Secretary shall call a public hearing, to
be held before a hearing board appointed
by the Secretary.
Mr. MILLER. Do I understand that
in the proceedings before that hearing
board, it would be expected that the pro-
cedure would indeed be an adversary
type procedure?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read the provi-
sion of the act. I am speaking of the
present law, and not of S. 4. It reads:
Each State in which any discharge causing
or contributing to such pollution originates
and each State claiming to be adversely af-
fected 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 Hearing Board shall be persons other
than officers or employees of the Depart-
ment 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 On the
basis of the evidence presented at such hear-
ing, the Hearing Board shall make findings
as to whether pollution referred to in subsec-
tion (a) is occurring and whether effective
progress toward abatement thereof is being
made. If the Hearing Board finds such pol-
lution is occurring and effective progress
toward abatement thereof is not being made
it shall make recommendations to the Secre-
tary concerning the measures, if any, which
it finds to be reasonable and equitable 10
secure abatement of such pollution The
Secretary shall send such findings and rec-
ommendations to the person or persons dis-
charging 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 pol-
lution, 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,
I have read the provisions of the pres-
ent law in detail in order to emphasize
the point that the hearing board, estab-
lished by the Secretary, does not in it-
self have the power to direct enforcement
action against a polluter. The board is
to hear the case as it is developed up to
the time when the case is presented to it.
Then the board is to make recommenda-
tions based upon its findings.
Mr. MILLER. The recommendations
are to go to the Secretary. The Secre-
tary, if he thinks such action is indi-
cated, I presume, could then refer the
matter to the Department of Justice for
enforcement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The provision for
not less than 6 months' notice, is to give
a State or interstate agency an opportu-
nity to move in with its own enforcement
board. If they fail to act, in the case of
a pollution of waters which is endanger-
ing the health and welfare of persons in
a State other than those in which the
discharge or discharges take place, the
Secretary may request the Attorney
General of the United States to bring a
suit on behalf of the United States to
seek abatement of the pollution.
Mr. MILLER. In that action, there
would be what might be termed a judi-
cial review. Is that not correct?
Mr MUSKIE. Yes. This is the first
adversary proceeding in the whole proc-
ess, in the sense that we lawyers under-
stand the term "adversary proceedings."
It is at this point that the polluter is
confronted with the enforcement power
of the Government.
Mr. MILLER. At that stage of the
proceeding, it would be proper for the
person aggrieved and the person against
whom the abatement action is being
brought to argue the reasonableness of
the standards under which the abate-
ment action had been taken?
Mr. MUSKIE. Precisely.
Mr. MILLER. I understand further
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
649
that in this bill, we have specifically
written in another matter than can foe
considered. It provides on page 10, sub-
section (d), that the practicability of
complying with such standards as may
be applicable is also relevant matter. Is
that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I ought to ex-
plain what the provision in the bill
which the Senator has just read means.
Under S. 4 as originally drawn and S.
649 as passed by the Senate, the court
was given the power to consider the
practicability of complying with the act.
This language would give like power to
a hearing board in connection with the
functions we have described. I think the
board had that power under S. 4 as writ-
ten, but to make it clear, we have in-
serted it in the language in the section
dealing with the powers of the hearing
board.
Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the Sen-
ator's extended reply to my question.
It will help in making clear what the
legislative intention of this language is.
One further observation. The Sen-
ator has said that at least a 6-month de-
lay must occur to give State agencies an
opportunity to proceed in an abatement
action. I assume that the procedures
under the State laws involved would em-
brace judicial review. Is that correct?
[p.1507]
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not hear the last
part of the question.
Mr. MILLER. I assume that the pro-
cedures under the State laws involved
would admit of judicial review.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. MILLER. So, either way, the ag-
grieved person, whether it be in a pro-
cedure before a State agency or a
procedure under the law proposed by
S. 4, has the assurance that there will be
an opportunity for judicial review under
which the reasonableness of the stand-
ards and practicability of compliance
therewith will be considered?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield first to the Sen-
ator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER].
Mr. COOPER. I say to my friend
from Iowa that the amendment which I
will propose goes to the very point that
has been discussed. I shall not discuss
it at this time. I disagree wholly with
the thesis on which the Senator from
Maine bases his argument.
Mi. MUSKIE. I have been reading
from the provisions of the present law.
I have not interpolated any words of my
own.
I yield now to the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DOUGLAS].
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wish
to speak very briefly on another matter,
but before I do so, I congratulate the
Senator from Maine for taking up this
very important issue. Increasingly we
have interstate problems in dealing with
water pollution. The Mississippi is a
polluted stream, but eight or nine States
are involved in the pollution, and it is
difficult to obtain united action on this
problem. The same problem exists on
lower Lake Michigan as between Indiana
and Illinois. The Senator from Maine
has made a fine contribution to the so-
lution of this problem.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, let
me congratulate the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE] and the members of the
Senate Public Works Committee for the
speed with which they have considered
and reported S. 4. Abatement of water
pollution and improved standards of
water quality control are most worthy
objectives.
In Missouri, we are proud of the fact
that we have made great progress in con-
struction of sewage treatment plants,
and thus the abatement of pollution of
our interstate waters.
In this effort, however, some of our
communities, particularly smaller com-
munities such as Caruthersville, Mo., are
finding it extremely difficult, if not im-
possible, to finance the necessary sew-
age collection and treatment plants.
-------
650
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
A community in an economically de-
pressed county, Caruthersville is a city of
approximately 8,600 with a high rate of
unemployment. Of the 10,443 house-
holds in the county, 1,013 are on welfare
and 3,518 have been receiving surplus
food.
This city is under order from the Mis-
souri Water Pollution Control Board to
stop dumping raw sewage into the Mis-
sissippi River. The citizens want to meet
this requirement. In fact, in August of
1963, they voted by a majority of 659 to 4
to authorize the sale of revenue bonds to
[p. 1508]
pay $484,000 of the estimated cost of
$908,000 for construction of the sewage
treatment plant, interceptor and outfall
mains, plus some extension and modern-
ization of the present sewage system.
The city was counting on the accel-
erated public works program for grants
of $424,000 to pay the balance of the
cost. Unfortunately money was ex-
hausted before these worthy applications
could be approved.
The city has filed an application for
30 percent of the cost of interceptor, out-
fall and treatment works, a cost esti-
mated at $657,000; but it does not appear
that such a grant would provide suf-
ficient funds to do the job.
Mr. President, I can understand that
in the effort to move rapidly on this
present bill, S. 4, the Public Works Com-
mittee did not go into problems such
as that presented by the city of
Caruthersville.
I do note, however, that on page 7 of
the committee report—Senate Report No.
10—on this bill that the committee
states:
It is the intention of the committee to
give early and thorough attention to the
financial and technological problems con-
fronting communities, large and small, as
they endeavor to control and abate municipal
sewage.
The committee is confident that out of ihe
experience we have gained under the present
act and from information derived from hear-
ings and technical studies it will be able to
develop a sound and expanded program of
pollution control and abatement grants
designed to meet realistic goals of water
quality enhancement.
I would ask the distinguished Senator
from Maine if this means that considera-
tion will be given to an increase in the
percentage of the allowable grant on the
cost of sewage treatment plants and the
necessary interceptor and outfall sewage
mams connected thereto?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Sen-
ator from Missouri that it is our desire
and intent to go into that question. So
far as the larger States are concerned,
they are not getting a sufficiently large
proportion of the total cost of sewage
treatment projects from the Federal
Government. I believe that is a legiti-
mate concern. In the development of
this program, we have moved toward
higher and higher ceilings in that re-
spect, but we still have a problem.
Then there is the question of the per-
centage of Federal support, particularly
in distressed areas. That has been a
problem.
The accelerated public works program
has been of great assistance in this con-
nection. We have been able to generate
Federal grants of 50 percent or more in
the past. That experience will be useful
to our committee in considering changes
in the formulas in the Federal Pollution
Act itself.
I assure the Senator from Missouri
that it is the full intention of the com-
mittee to go into this subject thoroughly,
in the hope of developing proposals
which will help relieve communities and
States, to an even greater extent than in
the past, of the burden of dealing with
this problem.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the able
Senator from Maine. May I ask if this
is planned to be done fairly soon?
Mr. MUSKIE. We intend to do it in
this session.
Mr. SYMINGTON. In this session?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the chair-
man. I appreciate his courtesy in ac-
ceding to my request in this particular
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
651
case, and I am sure that will be true in
other cases that will arise in the State
of Missouri.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; and I expect to
hear other remarks on this subject today.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I, too,
commend the Senator from Maine and
his subcommittee and the full commit-
tee for the very fine work they have done
on this timely subject and troublesome
question, to which some solution must
be found.
[p. 1509]
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 19S5
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill S. 4, to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, to pro-
vide grants for research and develop-
ment, to increase grants for construction
of municipal sewage treatment works, to
authorize the establishment of standards
of water quality to aid in preventing,
controlling, and abating pollution of in-
terstate waters, and for other purposes.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I wish to
propose an amendment to the bill S. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate must first dispose of the com-
mittee amendments.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Have not the commit-
tee amendments been disposed of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They
have not. The first committee amend-
ment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 7,
line 14, it is proposed to strike out the
word "and"
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
that the committee amendments be con-
sidered en bloc, and that the bill as thus
amended be considered as original text
for the purpose of amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Maine?
There being no objection, the commit-
tee amendments were considered and
agreed to en bloc, as follows:
*****
[p. 1511]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT TO
LIMIT TIME
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield to the Senator
from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I should like to
propound a unanimous-consent request
without the Senator from Texas losing
his right to the floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that on the Tower amendment in
the nature of a substitute there be a time
[p.1512]
limitation on debate of 1 hour, 30 minutes
to be under the control of the Senator
from Texas [Mr. TOWER] and 30 minutes
to be under the control of the Senator
in charge of the bill, the distinguished
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I offer
the amendment which I send to the desk
and ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Texas
will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENTS BY MB. TOWER
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following-
"That (a)(l) section 1 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S C 466) is
amended by inserting after the words Section
1.' a new subsection (a) as follows-
"'(a) The purpose of this Act is to en-
hance the quality and value of our water
resources and to establish a national policy
-------
652
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for the prevention, control, and abatement
of water pollution.'
"(2) Such section is further amended by
redesignating subsections (a) and (b) thereof
as (b) and (c), respectively.
"(3) Subsection (b) of such section (as
redesignated by paragraph (2) of this sub-
section) is amended by striking out the last
sentence thereof and inserting in lieu of such
sentence the following- "The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter
in this Act called the "Secietary") shall ad-
minister this Act and, with the assistance
of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare designated by him, shall
supervise and direct the head of the Water
Pollution Control Administration created by
section 2 and the administration of all other
functions of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare related to water pollu-
tion. Such Assistant Secretary shall perform
such additional functions as the Secretary
may prescribe '
" (b) Section 2 of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1953, as made effective April 1,
1953, by Public Law 83-13, is amended by
striking out 'two' and inserting m lieu
thereof 'three', and paragraph (17) of sub-
section (d) of section 303 of the Federal
Executive Salary Act of 1964 is amended by
striking out '(2)' and inserting in lieu
thereof '(3)'."
SEC. 2. Such Act is further amended by
redesignating sections 2 through 4 and refer-
ences thereto, as sections 3 through 5, re-
spectively, sections 5 through 14, as sections
7 through 16, respectively, by inserting after
section 1 the following new section:
"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 Con-
trol Administration (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the 'Administration'). The
head of the Administration shall be ap-
pointed, and his compensation fixed, by the
Secretary, and shall, through the Adminis-
tration, administer sections 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and
11 of this Act and such other provisions of
this Act as the Secretary may prescribe
The head of the Administration may, in ad-
dition to regular staff of the Administration,
which shall be initially provided from per-
sonnel of the Department, obtain, from
within the Department or otherwise as au-
thorized by law, such professional, technical,
and clerical assistance as may be necessary
to discharge the Administration's functions
and may for that purpose use funds available
for carrying out such functions
"SEC. 3 Such Act is further amended by
inserting after the section redesignated as
section 5 a new section as follows:
" 'GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
" 'SEC 6 The Secretary is authorized to
make grants to any State, municipality, or
intermumcipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of assisting in the development of
any project which will demonstrate a new or
improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage or other waste from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm water
and sewage or other wastes, and for the
purpose of reports, plans, and specifications
in connection therewith
" 'Federal grants under this section shall
be subject to the following limitations (1)
No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project
shall have been approved by an appropriate
State water pollution control agency or agen-
cies and by the Secretary, (2) no grant shall
be made for any project in an amount ex-
ceeding 50 per centum of the estimated rea-
sonable cost thereof as determined by the
Secretary, (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 of a new or
improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any water of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage or other waste
from sewers which carry storm water or both
storm water and sewage or other wastes
"'There aie hereby authorized to be ap-
piopriated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1965, and for each of the next three succeed-
ing fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section Sums so appropriated
shall remain available until expended. No
grant shall be made for any project m an
amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total
amount authorized by this section m any
one fiscal year '
"SEC. 4. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b)
of the section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act herein redesignated as section 8
is amended by striking out '600,000,' and
inserting in lieu thereof '$1,000,000,'
"(b) The second proviso in clause (2) of
subsection (b) of such redesignaled section
8 is amended by striking out '$2,400,000,'
and inserting in lieu thereof '$4,000,000,'
"(c) Subsection (f) of such redesignated
section 8 is redesignated as subsection (g)
thereof and is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence: "The
Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect 10
the labor standards specified in this subsec-
tion, the authority and functions set forth
in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950
(15 FR 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).'
"(d) Such redesignated section 8 is further
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
653
amended by inserting therein, immediately
after subsection (e) thereof, the following
new subsection
" ' (f) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sions of this section, the Secretary may in-
crease the amount of a grant made under
subsection (b) of this section by an addi-
tional 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 mteistate compact i,o
perform metropolitan or regional planning
for a metropolitan area within which the as-
sistance is to be used, or other agency or in-
strumentality designated for such purposes
by the Governor (or Governors in the case of
interstate planning) as being in zonfoimily
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 aiea
as defined by the Bureau of the Budget, ex-
cept as may be deteimined 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 factors as present and
future population trends and patterns of
urban growth, location of transportation fa-
cilities and systems, and distribution of
industrial, commercial, residential, govern-
mental, institutional, and other activities,
which in the opinion of the President lends
itself as beng appiopnate for the purposes
hereof'
"SEC 5 (a) Redesignated section 10 of the
Federal Water Pollution Contiol Act is
amended by redesignating subsections (c)
through (i) as subsection (d) through (j)
"(b) Such redesignated section 10 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act is fur-
ther amended by inserting after subsection
(b) the following
"'(c) (1) In order to carry out the pur-
poses of this Act, the Secretary may, after
consultation with officials of the Slate and
interstate water pollution control agencies
and other Federal agencies involved, and with
due regard for their proposals, pi epare rec-
ommendations for standards of water qual-
ity to be applicable to interstate waters or
portions thereof The Secretary's recommen-
dations shall be made available to any confer-
ence which may be called pursuant to subsec-
tion (d) (1) of this section, and to any
hearing board appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (f) of this section, and all or any part of
such standards may be included in the report
of said conference or m the lecommendations
of sard hearing board.
" '(2) The Secretary shall, when petitioned
to do so by the Governor of any state sub-
ject to or affected by the water quality
standards recommendations, or when in his
judgment it is appropriate, consult with the
parties enumerated in paragraph (1) of this
subsection concerning a revision in such
lecommended standards
" ' (3) Such recommended standards of
quality shall be such as to protect the public
health and welfare and serve the purposes
of this Act In establishing recommended
standards designed to enhance the quality of
such waters, the Secretary shall take into
consideration their use and value for public
water supplies, propagation of fish and wild-
life, recieational purposes, and agircultural,
industrial, and other legitimate uses
" ' (4) The Secretary shall recommend
standards pursuant to this subsection with
respect to any waters only if, within a reason-
able time aftei being requested by the Sec-
retary to do so, the appiopnate States and
interstate agencies have not developed stand-
ards found by the Secretary to be consistent
with paragraph (3) of this subsection and ap-
plicable to such interstate waters or portions
thereof
" '(5) No standard of water quality rec-
ommended by the Secretary under this sub-
section shall be enforced under this Act unless
such standard shall have been adopted by
the Governor or the State water pollution
control agency of each affected State
" '(6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A)
prevent the application of this section to any
case to which subsection (a) of this section
would otheiwise be applicable, or {B} extend
Federal jurisdiction over water not otherwise
authorized by this Act '
"(c) Paragraph (1) of redesignated sub-
section (d) of the section of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act herein redesig-
nated as section 10 as amended by striking
out the final period after the third sentence
[p. 1513]
of such subsection and inserting the follow-
ing in lieu thereof ', or he finds that sub-
stantial economic injury results from the
inability to market shellfish or shellfish
products in interstate commerce because
of pollution referred to in subsection (a) and
action of Federal, State, or local authorities,'
"(d) Redesignated subsection (h) of the
section of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act hciein redesignated as section 10 is
amended by inserting after the word 'practi-
cability' in the second sentence thereof, ihe
words 'of complying with such standards as
may be applicable '
"SEC 6 The section of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as
section 11 is amended by inserting '(a)' after
'SEC 11 ' and by inserting at the end of such
section the following
"'(b,) No interceptor drain shalL be con-
-------
654
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
structed or financed, in whole or in part, by
any department, bureau, agency, or instru-
mentality of the United States to carry waste
drainage water or treated sewage effluent
from the service area of any reclamation proj-
ect constructed in whole or in part by the
Secretary of the Interior within the State of
California to a termination point in the San
Francisco Bay, the San Pablo Bay, the Suisun
Bay, the waters of the Sacramento-San Joa-
quin Delta, or any channels lying between
these bodies of water, unless the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare has first
made a determination, based upon a study,
that the anticipated discharge water from
such interceptor drain will not, in the fore-
seeable future, pollute or increase the salin-
ity, chloride, or pesticide content or impair
usability for domestic, industrial, or irriga-
tion purposes of the receiving water in the
vicinity of the location where the interceptor
drain is terminated, and Congress is given
notice of such determination The Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare shall con-
sult with the California regional water pollu-
tion control boards for the San Francisco
Bay region and the Central Valley region
before making the determination and shall
give consideration to the recommendations
and findings of such regional boards '
"SEC 7. The section of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act hereinbefore redesig-
nated as section 12 is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsec-
tions :
"'(d) Each recipient of assistance under
this Act shall keep such records as the Secre-
tary shall prescribe, including records which
fully disclose the amount and disposition by
such recipient of the proceeds of such as-
sistance, the total cost of the project or
undertaking in connection with which such
assistance is given or used, and the amount
of that portion of the cost of the project
or undertaking supplied by other sources,
and such other records as will facilitate an
effective audit
'"(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.'
"SEC 8 (a) Section 7 (f) (6) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as that section
is redesignated by this Act, is amended by
striking out 'section 6(b) (4)' as contained
therein and inserting in lieu thereof 'section
8(b) (4)'.
" (b) Section 8 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as that section is redesig-
nated by this Act, is amended by striking
out section 5' as contained therein and
inserting in lieu thereof 'section 7'.
"(c) Section 10 (b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as that section is re-
designated by this Act, is amended by strik-
ing cut 'subsection (g),' as contained therein
and inserting in lieu thereof 'subsection (h)'.
"(d) Section 10(i) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as that section is re-
designated by this Act, is amended by strik-
ing out 'subsection (e)' as contained therein
and inserting in lieu thereof 'subsection (f)'.
"(e) Section 11 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as that section is re-
designated by this Act, is amended by strik-
ing out'section 8 (c) (3)' as contained therein
and inseiting in lieu thereof 'section 10(d)
(3)' and by striking out 'section 8(e)' and
inserting in lieu thereof 'section 10(f)'
"Amend the title so as to read 'An Act to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, to establish the Federal
Water pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and development,
to increase grants for construction of mu-
nicipal sewage treatment works, to authorize
recommendations for standards of water
quality, and for other purposes.' "
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I intend
to make only a brief presentation. I in-
tend to ask for the yeas and nays; there-
fore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
the Tower amendment in the nature of a
substitute, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I intend
to be relatively brief; however, other
Senators may wish to speak on the
amendment, so I ask unanimous consent
that the time for the quorum call not
be charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, my pro-
posal is identical with S. 649, as reported
from the House Committee on Public
Works last year.
The substitute can be easily described
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
655
and understood. It simply removes from
the Secretary the authority to promul-
gate standards of water quality. The
Secretary is, however, granted authority
to make recommendations for these
water quality standards, although no
such standard may be enforced under
the act unless the standard has been
adopted by the Governor or State water
pollution agency of each affected State.
Mr. President, as the minority views
on S. 4 point out, the proposed Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, particu-
larly with the discretionary authority
conferred up the Secretary, is opposed
by a large number of States.
Further, State water control agencies
have not had ample opportunity to ex-
press their views before the Senate Pub-
lic Works Committee.
Mr. President, the matter of water
quality standards is one that depends on
State and regional circumstances, thus
basically, the setting of such standards
is a function for State and regional
agencies.
The Texas Water Pollution Control
Board is opposed to S. 4 because of the
vast power that would be given to a new
Federal agency. The Texas Water
Agency fears the encroachment into an
area that has always been reserved to
State and local agencies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD, with accompanying material, the
statement of Joe D. Carter, chairman,
Texas Water Pollution Control Board,
accompanied by David E Smallhorst,
executive secretary, Texas Water Pollu-
tion Control Board, made before the
House Committee on Public Works
Many other State agencies have ex-
pressed similar opinions.
There being no objection, the state-
ment and accompanying material were
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
STATEMENT OF JOE D CARTER
I have with me today Mr David Smallhorst
who is the executive secretary of the Texas
Water Pollution Control Board who can field
some of these difficult questions that you all
toss out every once in a while
Mr. WEIGHT Mr Smallhorst, we are glad
to have you with us, sn
Mr SMALLHORST. Thank you, sir.
Mr CARTER The State of Texas, not being
blessed with an abundance of water as some
other States, has traditionally held water in
high regard and great respect, adhering to che
philosophy that water should be maintained
in as high a degree of purity as possible
Texas has been and is continuously mov-
ing to assume the responsibility of pollution
control within its boundares and cooperat-
ing with its neighboring States on border
streams
The preponderance of testimony presented
to (he Subcommittee on Natural Resources
and Power of the Committee on Government
Operations at the Southwest regional hear-
ing, December 6-7, 1963, in Austin, Tex , in-
dicated quite strongly that "no additional
Federal water pollution control legislation
is needed at this time "
The Texas Water Pollution Control Board
concurs in this, and therefore, submits this
statement in opposition to S 649 and i elated
bills
The Texas Water Pollution Control Board
is opposed to S 649 because it unquestion-
ably would place a great deal of power and
authority in the hands of a new Federal
agency which would have far-reaching ef-
fects threatening encroachment into a gov-
ernmental area heretofore reserved to the
State and local agencies
Since the beginning of the current Federal
water pollution control law in 1956, adminis-
tration of the program has been competently
carried out by the U S Public Health Service,
and Texas has always enjoyed excellent work-
ing relationships with that agency It is dif-
ficult to rationalize, therefore, the advantage
which might be gained by any such drastic
change in administration as authorized in
S 649.
The Texas Water Pollution Control Board
is seriously concerned about and is opposed
to the proposal in S 649 which would au-
thorize the Federal Government to establish
standards of water quality This is a matter
depending entirely upon Stale and regional
circumstances and is, therefore, basically a
function of State and regional agencies
Texas is proud of the close cooperation al-
ways received fiom the neighboring States
when interstate waters become involved, and
such situations have always been handled in
a most friendly and effective manner
It is obvious that quality standards which
would be applicable to a "water rich" State
would certainly not be applicable to a "water
poor" State There looms, therefore, the very
] difficult and time-consuming problem of es-
-------
656
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tablishing adequate water quality standards
[p. 1514]
on any given stream, not to mention the
gigantic task this implies when imposed on
a nationwide basis.
The Texas Water Pollution Control Board
is charged by the legislature to issue per-
mits for all waste discharges in the .State,
and an elaboiate surveillance and enforce-
ment program has been developed to back
up this permit system Hence, if this Fed-
eral law were passed, it would appear there
would be a duplication of effort and a need-
less expenditure of Federal funds. This does
not appear to be consistent with the present
economy move of the administration, -ior
would it be conducive to unification of effort.
Pollution abatement is something that
cannot be achieved instantaneously but tre-
mendous inroads have been made during
recent years, and the machinery for reach-
ing a solution to this problem is currently
operational. Inasmuch as amendments were
made to the Federal water pollution control
law as recently as 1961, it is believed ihe
present act, as amended, has not been in
effect a sufficient length of time to indicate
the need for further "patch work " Ob-
viously, changing the basic "ground rules"
at such frequent intervals does not contrib-
ute to a healthy administrative atmosphere
Drastic administrative revisions as proposed
in S. 649 might result in retrogiession and
possibly confusion in the entire program
rather than a desirable acceleration of
progress.
It is for these reasons the Texas Water
Pollution Control Board recommends that
no action be taken on S 649 and related bills
which proposes to amend the present Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
Mr. WRIGHT Mr Carter, I note that you
have appended to your statement a copy of the
testimony presented to Jones subcommittee
in Austin on December 6 and 7.
Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. WRIGHT Since that is a subcommittee
of another committee of the House, I wonder
if it would not be appropriate for us simply
to make this additional statement a part of
our record at this point
Mr. CARTER I would appreciate that, Mr
Chairman, and would like to incorporate our
entire statement by reference.
Mr. WRIGHT Without objection, then, it
will be so ordered.
Mr WRIGHT Joe—may I call you Joe9—I
would like to ask you one thing here. I
notice that you are basically in opposition
to what you refer to as patchwork You do
feel that the present program is working
effectively?
Mr CARTER We feel it is in Texas, Con-
gressman WRIGHT- I do not know how it is
working in the other States We feel we have
an effective program in cooperation with
other Federal agencies in Texas
Mr. WRIGHT. When the giants program was
first inaugurated, there was some appre-
hension expressed in the committee and on
the floor of the House, based on the fear
that the presence of Federal matching funds
to assist in the most severe cases might in
fact discourage some communities and mu-
nicipalities undertaking a solution of their
own problems individually and slow down,
lather than accelerate, the cleaning up of our
streams You do not feel that that has been
the case, do you9
Mr. CARTER No sir.
Mr WRIGHT Would you say that the pro-
grams as such as accelerated and encouraged
and stimulated a great deal of activity which
has been needed for a great many years9
Mr CARTER. Unquestionably.
Mr WRIGHT Now, with respect to further
amending the law at this time, I have in
question that your basic objection, like i.hat
of so many representatives of agencies of our
States, relates primaiily to the establish-
ment of broad national standards and the
conferring upon the Secretary the power to
make those unvarying standards.
Is this really the crux of your opposition9
Mr. CARTER That is really the crux of our
argument, Congressman WTRIGHT
Mention was made earlier, I believe by Mr.
BLATNIK, with respect to the fact that the
Secretary was only going to set these stand-
ards if the State or local agencies weren't
doing a good job That might be the inten-
tion but the language of the act is such, as
was brought out by Congressman HARSHA,
that he is the sole judge on this. The big
print in the bill might leave that impres-
sion but the little print kind of takes it away.
Mr WRIGHT In other words, the provision
as is presently contained in the bill would
vest in the Secretary, the authority to de-
termine whether, in his judgment, the States
had done a good job9
Mr CARTER. Dictatorial powers
Mr WRIGHT This does give him the power
to set standards, of course
With respect to the general proposal in
section 12 of the bill, I would like to get your
views and those of Mr, Smallhorst about the
need for additional liaison between the Secre-
tary and the national manufacturers of deter-
gents and with respect to increasing efforts to
find detergents with greater decomposibility.
Mr CARTER I might say, Mr WRIGHT, that
there is no legislation needed for such a pro-
gram That could be handled by your Health,
Education, and Welfare agency acw in co-
operation with industry. I see no need for
Congiess to take action
Mr WRIGHT This authorizes the creation
of a technical committee.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
657
Mr. CARTER That could be created by ap-
pointment of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare in cooperation with the
industries of the States.
Mr WRIGHT I am not certain of the
breadth of his authority in that regard It
might be that he could create an additional
secretary now.
Mr. CARTER. The point I mention is that he
could call industry and say, Let others get
together and try to work out this problem
of detergents They are doing it now In-
dustry is working on this problem They
have found a solution to it It is just a ques-
tion of getting this new formula they have
worked out into operation I think industry
will solve this problem very shortly.
Mr. WRIGHT I am sure we do applaud ihe
efforts on the part of industry and any other
scientists who may be involved in eliminating
this particular problem as soon as possible
Are there any questons9
Mr SCHWENGEL I have one
I wish to commend the gentleman for his
fine statement and position on this pioblem
I know you are wary of Federal Government
authority to establish standards of water
quality Now, you have that right m the
State of Texas9
Mr CARTER Yes, sir.
Mr SCHWENGEL You establish the stand-
ard
Will you give that to us so that we will
have that part of the record9
Mr CARTER We are very much*like Michi-
gan Our standard is a policywide standard
in the sense that all applications for permits
which we pass on we are dedicated to the
proposition of maintaining the purity of the
stream Under any permit we issue to an in-
dustry or municipality, the effluent they con-
tribute to the stream must not deteriorate
the quality of the stream from its existing
condition.
Then we propose later to come in with
those industries and municipalities whose ef-
fluent is not quite up to the quality we
would like to see and we will move in and
amend the permits they have at the piesent
time to require a better quality of effluent
I might say on standards with respect
to municipal effluent Mr Smallhorsl can
probably give you the answer.
Mr. SCHWENGEL I wish you would con-
tinue on that This is a very important
aspect
Mr. SMALLHORST The board since its cre-
ation in 1961 has followed the policy of re-
quiring what we call complete treatment,
producing an effluent of a quality to get
technical here, of 20 parts per million BOD,
120 parts total solids and chlorinalion of 15
parts per million residual after 30 minutes
contact. The board is taking this across the
board on a statewide basis
I might say also that as far as Texas is con-
cerned, every city in the State that has a
sewage system has some type of sewage treat-
ment plant with the exception of three This
is mentioned in our Jones committee state-
ment The three towns that do not have a
treatment plant, the total population is
about 30,COO and they now have active plans
underway to correct this situation
So that our problem, you might say, is
more of one not of building plants but io
pi event the discharge of raw sewage, but to
keep the plants that we have up to date and
adequate for the population explosion ihat
we are expecting in the area
Does that answer your question, sir9
Mr SCHWENGEL Yes Your policy, then,
is one of maintaining the present quality of
the water in the streams9
Mr CARTER Yes, sir
Mr SCHWENGEL There are areas, especially
in Iowa, where we need to improve the water
and with this kind of program this would aot
do this I ask you, you probably have
this kind of situation in Texas what do
you do about those areas where you need
improvement9
Mr. CARTER We propose to move in che
trouble areas as socn as possible and re-
quire not only the municipalities but also
the industries to improve the quality of the
effluent they are now discharging
Mr SCHWENGEL What is your policy with
reference to industry9 Do you force them
to do it right now or do you give them a
period of time9
Mr. CARTER We give them a period of time,
of course, We try to be rational about it.
As Mr Smallhorst pointed out, this pollution
legislation in Texas is rather new They Had
a grandfather clause in it which permitted
these making discharges to continue to do so
as of the type they were discharging in 1961.
We propose to come into those trouble
areas, as I pointed out, and try to correct
what we consider bad situations
Mr SCHWENGEL At the present time, it has
to be mostly by negotiation, though, doesn't
it9 Or do you have a law9
Mr CARTER We have a law It is $200 a
day fine for continuation of any discharge
winch the pollution board says they should
not be discharging And we have the
injunction process, too
Mr SCHWENGEL What do you do in a sit-
uation like this where an industry has moved
in because of an invitation from the com-
munity with certain assurances about disposal
over a period of years9
Mr CARTER We have run into that prob-
lem when Campbell Soup came into Paris,
Tex , with an effluent discharge program that
did not quite meet the standards we thought
should be met, Through discussions with
the management, we worked out what we
-------
658
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
consider an acceptable practice
Mr SCHWENGEL In that case, you resorted
to negotiations.
Mr CARTER Yes. sir.
Mr. SCHWENGEL You probably could not
resort to law, then, in that case?
Mr CARTER We could have, had the nego-
tiations failed But we feel it is best to talk
these things out with folks.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Carter, as I understand,
it is the position of the Texas Water Pol-
lution Control Board that no amendments
are necessary at this time to the Water
Pollution Control Act.
Mr. CARTER. Exactly.
[p. 1515]
Mr. HARSHA. If amendments are to be
made to it, would you favor amendments
that expand the research program under
that act and possibly increase the construc-
tion grants but not go any further than
that?
Mr. CARTER Mr. HARSHA, personally, I do
not see why legislation would be needed
That would come under the heading of
appropriations
Mr. HARSHA There are some limitations
under the construction grant, the amount
that a grant may be, and to certain types
of areas. Then there is a limitation on the
amount of grant. I think that is 30 percent
of the construction project
Mr. CARTER I would answer that and this
is my personal answer and not for the pollu-
tion board We are doing very well under
the program I see no reason to change it
Mr HARSHA Thank you.
I have one other thing What is Texas
doing in the oil-field brine situation?
Mr. CARTER That is my biggest headache
The pollution board at the present time
is issuing permits for the disposal of oilfield
brine We sent out 70,000 applications here
a few weeks ago to the oil operators who in
turn are returning them indicating how
much oilfield brine each well is producing,
how they are disposing of it, and so forth.
We are in the process of holding hearings
with a view of what we term "no pit law,"
you can't put the salt water you are disposing
of into an open unlined pit
One area that we are having our biggest
hearing on is what we call the area over-
laying the Ogallala formation in west Texas
which covers around 47 counties These
hearings are in progress
We have been working closely with the oil
industry, Mid-Continental Oil & Gas Asso-
ciation, and all the representatives of the oil
companies, trying to come up with pro-
cedures to get rid of this salt water by
injection primarily, and that is not the solu-
tion to the problem in its entirety because
you must be very careful in injecting this
brine into the subsurface You must have
these injection wells properly cased. You
must be careful about the pressure under
which this salt water is injected
We have closed two counties, three coun-
ties, issued orders where they cannot use
these open pits for salt water disposal pur-
poses It is a tremendous job. With 70,000
less, producing less
Mr HARSHA Is there any research program
going on, either conducted by the State or
industry to develop a method of disposal'
Mr CARTER The State and industry are
working together to come up with what we
consider proper injection procedures We
have just about got together on it. There
is a little area of disagreement We feel that
through this cooperative effort we will arrive
at a solution to the problem It is a
tremendous job
Mr. HARSHA. Thank you
I have no further questions
Mr WRIGHT Thank you very much, Mr
Smallhorst We greatly appreciate your
having come and given us the benefit of your
experience and following and background
Mr SMALLHORST Thank you
TEXAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(Abstract Statement presented to the Jones
Subcommittee on Natural Resources and
Power of the Committee on Government
Operations, southwest regional hearing,
December 6-7, 1963, Austin. Tex.)
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TEXAS AFFECTING
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
In order to fully appreciate some of the
water quality or water pollution control prob-
lems of Texas, some knowledge of the physi-
cal characteristics of the State itself is
desirable
1 Texas is big Over 264,000 square miles
in area This presents obvious administra-
tive problems in surveillance and water qual-
ity monitoring activites and dictates the type
of cooperative program which has been
developed over the years
2 Texas is a water-scarce State, with aver-
age annual rainfall ranging from less than
10 inches on the west to about 50 inches on
the east This is a wide variation and pro-
foundly affects surface runoff in Texas river
systems
3 Evaporation rates exceed rainfall rates
This indicates generally arid conditions with
resultant water losses due to evaporation and
definitely affects water quality.
4 Most of the river systems of Texas are
intrastate, with the Canadian, the Red, the
Sabine, and the Pecos being the only inter-
state rivers and the Rio Grande being an
international boundary Interstate com-
pacts are in effect on the Pecos and Sabine
Rivers, a commission is developing an agree-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
659
ment on the Red River, and the waters of the
Rio Grande are under the immediate control
of the International Boundary and Water
Commission.
5. In general, the river systems of Texas
head in the western areas of the State—the
most arid areas—and flow in a southeasterly
direction to the gulf In some of the western
headwater areas natural minerals tend to
contribute to deterioration in quality of the
runoff water.
6. Texas relies heavily upon -its under-
ground water resources Protection of the
quality of this water supply source is of vital
importance Also the effect of return flows
from these underground sources upon the
quantity and quality of surface river systems
is a matter of interest
7 In Texas, areas of population concentra-
tion are located at, or near, the headwaters
cf some of the major river systems. This
feature complicates the water quality control
picture not only as to furnishing these areas
with adequate water supply souices, but also
concerning the downstream effect of return
"used" waters upon the river system.
8. The production of oil and gas in Texas
has been developed generally on a statewide
basis so that the disposal of the byproducts
of this industry (oil- and gas-field waste) is
a matter of interest in every river basin of
the State
9 Concentration of the major manufac-
turing industries of Texas is along the gulf
coast with waste discharges to tidal waters,
hence the resultant problem is different than
where such discharges are to fresh waters
TEXAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
The initial water pollution control statute
of Texas was passed in 1917 vesting the au-
thority for enforcement primarily with the
State health department In 1961, the State
legislatuie enacted a new law codified as
article 7621d creating a water pollution
control board comprised of three ex officio
members and three appointive membeis
This law also established a permit system
wherein all wastes discharged into or ad-
jacent to the waters of the State must be
in accordance with a valid permit issued by
the board This board is now completing its
second year of operation, and in this lela-
tively short time, considerable progress has
been made and some general obseivations
can be made as to the effectiveness of this
type of administration.
1 The initial phase of setting up the ma-
chinery for operation under the new law
is just now being completed—after estab-
lishing rules, regulations, and modes of pro-
cedure for obtaining permits—in that most
all "statutory" or "grandfather" peimits have
been issued for municipal and industrial
discharges. Applications for oil and gas
waste discharges have been issued by the
board In this process it has been noted
that numerous corrective measures are being
obtained by mutual agreement and the plan-
ning of needed improvements is being
initiated
2 Water-pollution-control committees of
interested groups have proved to be invalu-
able in assisting the board in setting up this
basic machinery These groups included the
Texas Water and Sewage Works Association,
the Texas Water Pollution Control Associa-
tion, the Texas Water Conservation Associa-
tion, The Texas Manufacturers Association,
the Texas Chemical Council, the Texas So-
ciety of Professional Engineers, and the Texas
Public Health Association. Close communi-
cation with these groups is deemed vital in
assuring the cooperation required for a
successful progiam
3 By relying upon the cooperating State
agencies (water commissions, parks and
wildlife, and the health department) for
technical and field services, duplication of
effort and service is eliminated, with a con-
siderable financial saving to the State.
4 In its short period of operation the
board has held public hearings and has issued
orders relative to municipal, industrial, and
oil- and gas-field waste discharges The
board has initialed a survey of the Galveston
Bay waters to obtain needed basic data for the
establishment of water quality objectives in
this vast area involving some 511 square miles
of water surface One small segment of this
survey is the Clear Lake watershed which
includes the NASA development complex,
and another area is the industrial complex
along the Houston ship channel
5 Clear Lake has been determined by the
board to be conserved as a recreational lake
and intensive studies are underway toward
this end Deteimmations will be considered
by the board in June or July of 1964 as to
the desired water quality objectives in the
ship channel, following completion of the
first phase of the survey.
PRESENT STATUS OF THE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAM IN TEXAS
Probably one of the most outstanding
achievements of the past water-pollution-
control program has been in the field of mu-
nicipal waste treatment and disposal An
active partner in this endeavor has been the
Texas Water and Sewage Works Association—
an association of almost 4,000 members, all
of which are intimately connected with
the municipal waste treatment field This
association has gained national and even
international recognition for its intensive
opeiator training program as well as its nev-
er-ending efforts to broaden the scope of tech-
nical advances in waste-water treatment
knowledge The association has been influ-
ential on the local level in bringing about
-------
660
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
needed construction and elevating the status
of local operators As a result, it is with
considerable pride that the board reports
that every city within the State of Texas
having a sewage collection system has some
type of sewage treatment facilities with the
exception of three small municipalities
located along the gulf coast The 1960 popu-
lation of these three municipalities was only
about 30,000, and each of them is now actively
engaged in abatement programs.
Indicative of the high regard Texans have
for water is the extensive use of waste water
for irrigation purposes. Presently 119 mu-
nicipalities utilize sewage plant effluents for
the irrigation of cotton, cattle feed crops, and
pasture land.
Coupled with the developments of these ir-
rigation systems, Texas pioneered in the ap-
plication of holding ponds (now called sew-
age oxidation or waste stabilization ponds)
as a type of inexpensive but efficient second-
ary treatment unit. These ponds are being
used by 284 municipalities in Texas
The application of sewage plant effluents
for industrial uses was begun in Texas in the
late 1930's At the present time three re-
fineries are using municipal effluent for cool-
ing water, and one of these further uses ihe
[p. 1516]
refinery waste water for flooding operations
in the oil production industry.
Texas has 998 municipal waste-water treat-
ment plants, consequently, apprising mu-
nicipal officials of the status of their facility,
the need for planning, financing, and con-
structing plant enlargements to keep abreast
of population growth and the proper main-
tenance and operation of the treatment works
is one of the principal functions of ihe en-
forcement agency Construction grants made
available under Public Law 660 have proven
of tremendous aid One hundred and thirty-
one projects have been completed and an ad-
ditional 110 projects are under construction
or have been approved Of the 110 projects
just mentioned, 22 are under the accelerated
public works program.
There is an active water quality monitoring
program underway. This consists of monthly
samples being obtained at 276 points located
on the rivers and major tributaries of the
State. This program has been m effect 3ince
1957 as a cooperative activity between Ihe
health department and the parks and wildlife
department. Evaluation of data discloses
water quality conditions to be generally gocd
with evidence of mineral contamination af-
fecting rather large areas of three river
systems, whereas organic contamination is
locally confined below major areas of popu-
lation
Utilizing the framework of the statewide
monitoring program, samples were taken and
the baseline radioactive levels of the surface
waters of the State were determined.
Under provisions of article 7621b V C S ,
the Texas Water Commission, in close coop-
eration with the water pollution control
board, administers a permit system for the
disposal, by subsurface injection, of munici-
pal and industrial wastes
Since most of the major industries are
concentrated along the gulf coast, the prob-
lem of industrial waste disposal is not one
as acute as it might be if these industries
were located inland Under the new permit
system water quality obj ectives for tidal
water will be established by the board in the
near future
The permit system for oil- and gas-field
wastes is in the early stages of establishment
with some 70,000 applications for permits
having been mailed to operators.
Studies of the control of natural pollution
sources are well advanced by the U S. Public
Health Service and the Corps of Engineers.
Status of permits issued by the board to
date is as follows: Municipal, 542 statutory
issued, 167 being processed, 41 regular issued
Industrial, 1008 statutory issued, 59 being
processed, 19 regular issued, Oil and gas,
70,000 applications for permits mailed to
operators. Hearings held on permits, et
cetera, 41 municipal, 19 industrial, 10 oil
and gas
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS
Due to the general water-scarce charac-
teristics of Texas and the deep respect of the
average citizens toward water, there is no
public apathy toward support of the water
pollution control program With the type
of approach being taken by the board, and
in view of trends observed during the short
time of its operation, it seems that the water
pollution control program of Texas is receiv-
ing full support from all interested groups
On this basis, therefore, the "can-do" spirit
is becoming more and more apparent in
State-local relationships. Of primary im-
portance at this time is the ability to furnish
the know-how leadership for keeping pace
with the rapidly increasing economic, indus-
trial, and population growth of Texas Most
of these problems are local in nature and
will be resolved through State-local coopera-
tive endeavors. Others, however, are not
limited to matters of this nature, and conse-
quently, involve areas of Federal contribu-
tion to the program A few suggestions of
such problem areas are as follows
1 Being on the threshold of increased
water reuse in Texas, it is becoming more
urgent that techniques in the art and science
of waste-water treatment be drastically
bioadened and improved
2 There is a need for the development of
reasonably priced, portable, and reliable in-
struments, recording devices, and data irans-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
661
mission systems for water quality monitoring
networks and close surveillance.
3. Better and more quickly determined
parameters of water quality are needed.
4. More information is required concern-
ing bioassay tests on salt water fishes, shell-
fish, and other marine life
5 Studies are needed on methods and
materials to assure the construction of a
"tight line" from the house to the treatment
plant.
6 Consideration could be given to a pro-
gram which would encourage plant operators
and superintendents to conduct studies and
applied research on waste-water treatment
process improvements.
In conclusion, the State enforcement
agencies, in effect, represent the frontline
troops fighting the battle against pollution
but are relying upon the logistic support of
the Federal Government to develop new and
advanced equipment and techniques If the
States receive this kind of support, then cer-
tainly they will be in better position to meet
and conquer the common enemy, water
pollution.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the
adoption of my amendment in the nature
of a substitute would not hinder water
pollution control. Indeed, my amend-
ment merely recognizes that the primary
responsibility for pollution control lies
with the affected States.
Too often there is a tendency to face
up to a problem by creating some sort of
new authority that places arbitrary dis-
cretion in only one person. That is what
I believe has been done in this instance.
I do not believe that any one person
should possess such power.
I should like to express commendation
and appreciation to the distinguished
senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
COOPER] for having the perception to
point out to Senators the inherent danger
in the enactment of legislation of this
kind. He has said that it would give the
administrator the authority virtually to
zone practically every body of water that
feeds into a navigable stream. The sig-
nificance of such vast power should and
must be understood. Furthermore, con-
ceivably at some time such power could
be used as a political bludgeon.
So I urge the Senate to give favorable
consideration to my amendment in the
nature of a substitute. It has already
been acted on by the House committee.
It is, m effect, the work of the House
committee, which was broadly repre-
sentative and had considered the various
angles. It was a committee that pos-
sessed a large Democratic majority at the
time the report was made.
I urge the Senate to adopt my amend-
ment because I believe it is a sound and
sane solution of what I believe is an in-
herent and fatal weakness in the bill. At
the same time, I do not believe my
amendment would narrowly proscribe
what we are trying to do in trying to
mitigate the pollution of our streams.
Certainly something must and should be
done in that field, but let us do it in the
right way. Let us not run roughshod
over the Federal system.
Let us recognize that Governors and
State agencies are conscious of the
needs, the problems, and the ramifica-
tions of the enforcement and other pro-
visions of the act in their own areas
and, therefore, should have a decisive
voice in the establishment of water
quality standards.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished senior Senator from
Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, later I
shall speak in more detail on this sub-
ject in connection with an amendment
I shall offer.
In 1983, a bill almost identical to S
4 was presented to the Senate I raised
in the Senate then, some of the issues
which have been discussed by the Sena-
tor from Texas [Mr. TOWER]. I pointed
out that vast powers were proposed to
be given to the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare—powers which, in
my judgment, would be greater than any
powers now given to any other official
in the Federal Government. That bill as
S. 4, now before us, did not assure to the
States, to interstate compacts, to mu-
nicipalities, the right to participate fully
in the development of water quality
standards.
It is questionable whether any right of
judicial review is provided to the States
-------
662
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
by S. 4. The bill confers vast power,
one which would enable the Secretary,
as stated by the Senator from Texas, to
zone every body of interstate water in
the United States, and to prescribe the
uses of such waters or portions thereof.
Nothing like this has ever been proposed
before.
In 1963, my efforts were rejected, and
the bill went to the House. A different
situation obtained there.
During the 1963 hearings in our com-
mittee, no Governor was called, some
but not many State water authorities
were called. But Governors and State
water authorities were called in the
House. Without exception, the Gover-
nors and State authorities who testified
before the House committee, protested
the ultimate grant of power to one man
to fix water quality standards. The
House Public Works Committee rejected
the Senate bill. In its place, it sub-
stituted the measure which is now pro-
posed by the Senator from Texas. I
would support S. 4 if there were some
provisions in it for the effective partici-
pation of the States in the preparation of
proper quality standards and for their
proper judicial review.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield
such time to the Senator from Kentucky
as he may require.
Mr. COOPER. I support the amend-
ment of the Senator from Texas. If the
amendment should be rejected—and I
am not suggesting that it will be, al-
though I know the great fighting spirit of
the Senator from Maine—I shall offer an
amendment that will at the least assure
that States, municipalities, and individu-
als will have the right to have the action
of the Secretary reviewed by a court. I
support the pending amendment.
[p.1517]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the in-
teresting aspect of the chore that I have
had for almost 2 years in dealing with
this bill and the arguments against it is
that I am often in the position of try-
ing to explain what the bill is and how
irrelevant the arguments against the
bill are, before I can proceed to deal with
the arguments advanced against the bill.
I am interested in the argument of
the Senator from Kentucky that the bill
gives the Secretary vast powers that are
greater than the power given to any of-
ficial of the Federal Government. This
is a form of exaggerated statement that
does not stand up. I can illustrate that
by referring to the Secretary's power in
this very field. It is a power that was
considered at the hearings. That is the
power of the Secretary to absolutely pro-
hibit from shipment in interstate com-
merce shellfish which the Public Health
Service finds deleterious to health. This
is an absolute prohibition which can put
a man out of business, as it has done in
my State, in the case of the clam diggers
and shellfish harvesters along the coast
of Maine. There is no recourse what-
soever to the Federal Government for
protection against that type of calamity.
The statement of the Senator from
Kentucky that the powers asked for on
behalf of the Secretary are greater than
any powers now existing does not stand
up. I am sure that the Senator would
agree with me if he were to give the
subject further thought.
The proposal presented to us by the
Senator from Texas is very interesting.
He is saying that the Senate, rather than
accept the recommendation of its own
committee—a recommendation spon-
sored by all members of the subcommit-
tee, dealing with the subject, Republicans
and Democrats, and reported by the
Subcommittee on Water Pollution—
should accept the recommendation of
a House committee, not of this Congress,
but of the previous Congress.
It is a recommendation that the House
itself never acted upon. The Senator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
663
from Texas is asking us to accept this
proposal, not only against the recom-
mendation of our own committee, but
also against the action of the Senate it-
self in October 1933 when it passed this
bill, and particularly this section, in al-
most exactly the same form by a vote
of 69 to 11, with 15 Senators not voting,
but expressing their favorable position
on it.
We are asked to take the position that
this vehicle of the House committee,
never acted upon by the House, should
be given that weight in the Senate
merely because the action of the Senate
as a whole was rejected.
I have never found that the Senate was
willing to concede its own prerogatives
at any time past, and I doubt that it will
concede its own prerogatives now.
The substitute offered by the Senator
from Texas differs from the Senate bill
in one important respect, which I think
is at the heart of his proposition. That
is with respect to the water quality
standard section of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I yield
myself such additional time as I may
require.
The House bill, for all practical pur-
poses, eliminates any power of the Secre-
tary to establish water quality standards
on standards under the provisions of the
it the dubious right to make recommen-
dations for standards of water quality.
Under the House bill, the Secretary
could not even make recommendations
on standards under the provisions of the
present law, prior to such time as an en-
forcement action is begun by a con-
ference. If he should undertake to give
consideration to an interstate waterway,
in which case he thought a little preven-
tive medicine might avoid a great deal
of economic hardship—which is the posi-
tion now taken by industries and com-
munities—if he should feel that he ought
to recommend certain standards of
water quality v/hich may apply to pre-
ventive measures to the interstate or
State agencies involved, under the House
version of the bill, he could not make
recommendations to anybody. So in the
House bill, he is not even given full and
clear authority to recommend standards.
On page 22 of the proposed substitute,
there is this interesting language:
No standard of water quality recom-
mended by the Secretary under this subsec-
tion shall be enforced under this Act unless
such standard shall have been adopted by
the Governor of the State Water Pollution
Control Agency of each affected State
That language, "each affected State"
means not only the State being injured,
but the State doing the injury. Is it con-
ceivable that in this type of situation,
the Governor of a downstream State
which has been injured by its pollution
would seemingly accept such a standard
if pressures were brought to bear upon
him within his own State, by industrial
polluters of the waterway, not to accept
such standards? It is conceivable that
a Governor or a legislature which had
found it impossible to generate a public
policy or program within its own State to
deal with that situation would willingly
accept the recommendation of the Sec-
retary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in such circum-
stances? I doubt it.
It has not happened before. It is be-
cause it has not happened before and
because these problems have accelerated
and accumulated, that it is before the
Senate today. It is because it has not
been done before that the bill passed the
Senate 2 years ago. And it is because it
has not happened before that the need
has been so clearly recognized by so
many people, many of whom I have re-
ferred to already in my remarks today.
Mr. President, I shall sum up with one
or two observations about S. 4 on the
question of water quality standards.
The standards would be pertinent in
two different kinds of situations. One
situation would be one in which already
there is pollution which endangers the
health or welfare of any person. I use
that language because that language is
-------
664
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
found in the present law, which gives
the Secretary the right to move into such
situations without any standards what-
soever. The proposed standards in that
kind of situation would be a warning to
people, in advance of enforcement pro-
ceedings, that there was a situation re-
quiring corrective action.
The other kind of situation in which
water quality standards would be needed
is a situation in which there is no pollu-
tion at the present time but in which a
little preventive medicine is called for,
not only in the interest of those who like
to use water for recreation, or for drink-
ing, or for water skiing, but in the inter-
est of industry. There have been in-
stances in my State m which we could
not allow an industry to settle on the
banks of a stream because there was no
more oxygen left in the stream. So it
would serve the industrial health of that
community to have water quality stand-
ards established to avoid the expenditure
of that oxygen so that the water will be
available not only for recreation, but for
industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired
Mr. MUSKIE. For those reasons,
which could be expanded ad infinitum, I
urge the rejection of the amendment of
the Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield
myself 3 minutes. I should first like to
comment on the contention of my friend,
the Senator from Maine, that we should
accept the work of the Senate committee
and reject that of the House committee
I recall reading of an incident which oc-
curred when Mr. Thomas Jefferson
returned from France after the Consti-
tution had been framed. He called on
George Washington. They were having
a cup of coffee. He said to Mr. Washing-
ton, "Tell me, Mr. Washington, why do
you have a bicameral Congress?" Mr.
Washington said to Mr. Jefferson, "Why
are you pouring coffee from your cup
into your saucer?" Mr. Jefferson said,
"To cool it." Mr. Washington said,
''That is why we have a bicameral Legis-
lature We pour legislation from one
Chamber to the other to cool it."
The proposed legislation certainly
needs cooling. I am not disparaging the
work of my friend, the Senator from
Maine, whom I hold in high esteem. It is
with great trepidation that I take him
on, because he is skillful, he has great
knowledge, and he has worked zealously
to accomplish a very desirable goal.
It appears that the States and State
agencies are willing to take their chances
in a mutual veto arrangement. Those
agencies which opposed the measure,
who either appeared or filed statements,
include the Delaware Water Pollution
Commission, the Texas Water Pollution
Control Board, the Alabama Water Im-
provement Commission, the Tennessee
Stream Pollution Control Board, the
American Association of Professors of
Sanitary Engineering—some of these are
not State agencies—the Florida State
Board of Health, the Kansas Department
oi Health, the State of New York Water
Resources Commission, the Kentucky
State Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion, the Kentucky Department of
Health, the North Carolina State Stream
[p. 1518]
Sanitation Committee, the Pennsylva-
nia State Health Department, the Gov-
ernor of Maryland, the Arkansas Water
Pollution Control Commission, the Cali-
fornia Water Pollution Control Associa-
tion, the Maine Water Improvement
Commission—the agency from the Sen-
ator's own State testified in opposition
to the bill—the Oklahoma State Depart-
ment of Health, and the Oregon State
Board of Health.
I could continue and include agencies
from Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and
many other States.
I should like to read into the RECORD
at this time a statement made by the
Governor of Texas, Hon. John Connally,
at the County Judges and Commission-
ers Association conference held at Cor-
pus Christi on October 5, 1964, which I
think typifies the attitude of responsible
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
665
and forward-looking State governments:
One point I want to make clear. Texas is
going to determine its own destiny in the
development of its water resources These
goals will not be realized by chance nor by
blind dependence upon the wisdom of the
Federal agencies We must accept our own
responsibilities
I reject the notion that State govern-
ments and State agencies are going to be
irresponsible or incompetent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. TOWER. I yield myself 2 addi-
tional minutes.
I reject the notion that State govern-
ments and agencies are going to be less
competent and fail to recognize that
water pollution problems exist; or that
they are going to be more loath and re-
luctant to do something about it.
It is time to stop downgrading State
officials and governments. We have in
America today some of the best State of-
ficials we have ever had, even though
most of the Governors are Democratic.
I am willing to leave it to them to take
care of this problem. This power should
be left in the States, rather than in the
hands of a single man or administration.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from
Texas referred to Maine. The Governor
has his own water pollution commit-
tee. I do not yield to the Senator,
despite the differences in our views, in
my appreciation of the very great need
of strong local and State government ac-
tions. I have served at all levels of State
government. I have served in the legis-
lative branch in two levels and the exec-
utive branch in two levels.
One of our efforts has been to create
every opportunity for the exercise of
initiative and for the discharge of re-
sponsibility, for the acceptance of the
burden involved in the problem, by State
and local governments. Over and over
again, in the enforcement procedure, in
the procedure for setting standards, our
State and local governments and inter-
state agencies have been given an oppor-
tunity to come in and do the job.
Just as the Federal Government, in its
vast bureaucracy, includes people who
are not as wise or as responsible as they
ought to be, or who do not always meet
the requirements of the public interest
as they should, so on the local and State
levels is that true. Neither has a monop-
oly on virtue, ability, or regard for the
public interest.
What we have tried to do in this bill—
and I think we have succeeded, certainly
to the satisfaction of the Republican
Members, as well as the Democratic
Members, on the subcommittee—is to
achieve a cooperative partnership among
the State, local, and Federal govern-
ments in dealing with a problem that is
not only a State and local problem, but a
national problem
The substitute recommended by the
Senator from Texas would be a step
backward from this objective in that,
even with respect to making recommen-
dations, the proposed substitute would
dilute the power that the Secretary has
under existing law.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I am
prepared to yield back the remainder of
my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Texas
[Mr. TOWER].
So Mr. TOWER'S amendment was re-
jected.
-------
666
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate reconsider the vote
by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 1519]
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. Beginning with
line 2 page 7, it is proposed to strike out
all to and including line 2, page 9, and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
(ci (1) In older to carry out the purpose of
this act, the Secretary may, after reasonable
notice and public hearings and after consul-
tation with the Secretary of the Interior and
with other Federal agencies, with State and
interstate water pollution contiol agencies,
and with municipalities and industries in-
volved, to obtain the views of such officer and
such agencies, municipalities, and indus-
tries, prepare proposed regulations setting
forth standards of water quality to be ap-
plicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof
(2) Standards of quality prescribed by
regulations adopted under paragraph (1)
shall be such as to protect the public health
and welfare and carry into effect the purposes
of this Act In establishing such standaids
with respect to any waters, there shall be
taken into consideration (A) the use and
value of such waters for public water sup-
plies, agricultural, industrial, and commercial
use, the propagation of fish and wildlife re-
sources, recreational purposes, and other
uses of significance in the public interest.
and (B) the practicability and economic
feasibility of attaining such standards.
(3) Such proposed regulations shall be
published in the Federal Register, and copies
thereof shall be transmitted to all Federal,
State, and interstate water pollution control
agencies, municipalities, and industrial or-
ganizations affected Upon request made
within ninety days after publication of such
proposed regulations by one or more of the
States, interstate agencies, municipalities,
and industrial organizations (referred to
hereinafter as "interested parties") affected,
the Secretary shall conduct public hearings
upon such proposed regulations at a place
convenient to the interested parties In any
such hearing, interested parties shall be
accorded adequate opportunity to obtain and
present necessary evidence in support of
their contentions, and shall be entitled to
propose revisions and modifications of the
proposed regulations Upon the basis of all
evidence received in any such hearing, the
Secretary shall prepare and transmit to each
party to the hearing his report thereon,
which shall contain a full and complete
statement of his findings of fact and his con-
clusions with respect to issues presented at
the healing The Secretary may, thereupon,
affirm, rescind or modify in whole or in part
such proposed regulation
(4) Except as otherwise specifically pro-
vided by this Act, hearings and determina-
tions under this Act shall be made, and
subject to administrative and judicial re-
view, in accoidance with the provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
(5) Regulations under this subsection
shall become effective only if, within a rea-
sonable time after being requested by the
Secretaiy to do so, the appropriate States and
interstate agencies have not developed stand-
ards found by the Secretary to be consistent
with paragraph (2} of this subsection and
applicable to such interstate waters or por-
tions thereof
On page 9, line 3, strike out "(5)", and
insert in lieu thereof "(6)".
On page 9, line 13, strike out "(6)",
and insert in lieu thereof "(7)".
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[p.1521]
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
amendment which I have offered is much
more limited in its scope than the
amendment which was offered by the
Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] and
which was voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator from Ken-
tucky yield to himself
Mr. COOPER I yield myself 15 min-
utes At the outset I wish to make clear
to Senators who are present the essen-
tial purpose of my amendment. In the
event that the pending bill, S. 4, should
become law, my amendment would as-
sure that if the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare promulgates water
quality standards, then all States, States
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
667
joining in compacts, municipalities, and
water control agencies who would be
affected, would be assured the right of
full administrative and judicial review
The distinguished Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], the distinguished ranking
minority member from Delaware [Mr.
BOGGS] and the members of his Subcom-
mittee on Water Pollution Control have
worked hard to bring the Senate a bill
providing for more effective water pol-
lution control policies. I congratulate
them. I am interested in their objec-
tives. In 1947 and 1948, when I served
on the Committee on Public Works, we
approved, and Congress later approved,
the first Water Pollution Control Act, an
[p.1525]
act introduced by Senator Taft and Sen-
ator Barkley. I was happy to support
it. In the years following that, I have
supported other amendments to make
the act more effective in the interest of
water pollution.
Last year, I stated in the debate on
the floor, my reasons for opposing the
bill reported by the Committee on Public
Works, and earlier in this debate I have
outlined my reasons for opposing S. 4
But now I come to the purpose of my
amendment. Section 10 of S 4, which
is before the Senate, provides, among
other things—and this is essentially the
thrust of the bill—that the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare shall be
authorized to promulgate water quality
standards for every interstate body, or
navigable water adjacent to one or more
States. So at the beginning, let me say
that in its geographical scope, it is not
a small bill that we are considering; it
is a bill which affects every State and
countless miles of waters, waters upon
which are located great and small cities
and many industries, waters whose pu-
rity, and whose use for agriculture, in-
dustry, water supply, recreation, and the
propagation of fish and wildlife, con-
cern us as we look to the future.
The bill is broad not only in its geo-
graphical scope; it is broad in the effect
that it could have upon every State,
every municipality, and thousands of
industries, and farms throughout the
Nation. I do not believe I would have to
argue to the members of the Committee
on Public Works, especially the Senator
from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], that I do not
speak in that committee or on the floor
of the Senate for any special interest,
and I do not do so now. The point I wish
to make is that the bill gives to the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare
tremendous authority and power, a power
which I will say again is not matched, in
my opinion, by the power of any other
official of the Federal Government. I
doubt whether the President of the
United States has such power, except
with respect to foreign affairs. It is a
power that would enable the Secretary
to promulgate water quality standards.
It is an authority that is given him to
take measures to abate any nuisance,
which is defined in the bill as any dis-
charge into the water which would re-
duce the water quality standards he has
established.
The bill gives him the power to zone
interstate waters, and navigable waters
adjacent to States, reaching our lakes
and the ocean itself. I do not say it will
be used; nevertheless, it is a power which
would enable the Secretary to determine
what portion of a stream should be set
aside for industry, what portion should
be used for agricultural purposes, what
portion for recreation, and what portion
for the development of fish and wild-
life, and for such other uses as he may
determine.
This is a new legislative concept. If
there were proper precautions drawn
about the proposal, which would give
States, municipalities, and others con-
cerned an adequate role in the develop-
ment of the standards which affect them
and, finally, the right of judicial review,
I would not oppose this concept. It does
look ahead to a better, purer water sup-
ply for the Nation, a more beautiful
country, and the general public interest
as the Senator from Maine has said.
-------
668
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The Senator from Maine will argue, as
he has—and very effectively, at least to
the Senate—that all of these rights are
preserved in the bill. I disagree with
him. I have not been able to convince
him. I was not able to convince the
Committee on Public Works or the Sen-
ate last year. Nevertheless, I hold to my
views, derived from my study of the
bill.
Before the Secretary can promulgate
standards, he must consult with the
States, municipalities, and others con-
cerned, and must hold public hearings.
But that does not affect his sole and ul-
timate authority to promulgate and make
effective water quality standards.
It is true also that after he promul-
gates the regulations, public hearings
can be held upon the request of a Gov-
ernor. The Secretary would have the
authority to revise or modify original
standards that had been promulgated.
That is a fair procedure, but it does not
affect his essential authority to promul-
gate the standards.
The Senator from Maine will argue
against my insistence that there be writ-
ten into the bill provisions guaranteeing
to the parties affected the right to resort
to the courts. He will say, in my judg-
ment, as he said in committee, that this
right is assured under its enforcement
procedures. I make the point that the
enforcement sections apply to the abate-
ment of a nuisance and provide proce-
dures to be followed after a nuisance
occurs.
My amendment insists that after the
standards are promulgated and before
the nuisance occurs that States, munici-
palities, and individuals actually affected
by the standards, and showing cause
to courts, would have the right to be
heard.
I shall discuss the specifics of my
amendment, then I shall be finished.
The first section, section (c) (1) is
essentially the same as provided by S. 4.
Subsection (2), of my amendment,
prescribing the criteria under which the
Secretary would act in proposing and
promulgating water quality standards, is
essentially the same as contained in S. 4
with one distinction.
I propose criteria in addition to the
criteria of S. 4. I refer to the practica-
bility and economic feasibility of attain-
ing such standards. This is practical
and necessary and fair.
The criteria of S. 4 includes the value
of such waters for public water sup-
plies, industrial use, propagation of
fish, wildlife resources, and recreational
resources.
I have added another factor: "the
practical and economic feasibility of at-
taining such standards" which is a nec-
essary factor, in all commonsense.
Subsection 3 of my amendment is very
much like the language in S. 4, which
authorizes a public hearing after the reg-
ulations are proposed by the Secretary.
My amendment is somewhat more
specific.
My amendment would require that
regulations be published in the Federal
Register, copies be transmitted to the
States and other agencies which would
be affected, and then all parties affected
would be given 90 days in which to pre-
pare for public hearing, and then the
right to present their views if they be-
lieve revision is indicated.
This is an important distinction be-
tween my amendment and S. 4. Hear-
ings under S. 4 are limited to the request
of Governors. My amendment opens
hearings to all parties affected. This is
elemental justice.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield in a few
moments. S. 4 would permit only the
Governor of a State to ask for a public
hearing, to ask for modifications and re-
vision My amendment would not limit
this power to the State, but would ex-
tend it also to municipalities that might
be affected, great cities such as Cin-
cinnati and Cleveland.
I think of those cities because I see the
Senator from Ohio [Mr LAUSCHE] in the
Chamber. I am not trying to persuade
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
669
him to vote for this amendment on that
account. But, municipalities all over the
country would be concerned.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield later. I
would like to finish first. I have never
had the chance to present my position in
whole to the Senate.
I learned a great deal from the Senator
from Maine. My amendment contains
the same provision as S. 4, which is
that the Secretary could not put into
effect his standards until the States
have had an opportunity to promulgate
their own water quality standards.
Again, I know that the Senator will
argue, "We are giving the States a
chance."
I say that it is a fictitious chance be-
cause the standards that they would be
required to establish must be identical
with the standards that the Secretary
would promulgate or consistent with
them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Presideni, I yield
myself 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized for
an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. COOPER Mr. President, no mat-
ter what is said, in essence, the ultimate
and complete power is given to one man
to fix water quality standards for every
interstate stream in the country, includ-
ing zoning, if he so determined. I shall
read the last provision of my amend-
ment and I do not see how anyone could
be opposed to it It reads:
Except as otherwise specifically provided by
this Act, hearings and determinations under
this Act shall be made, and subject to adminis-
trative and judicial review, in accordance
with the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act
provides for adequate administrative re-
view. It provides also that after a final
rule is made, an affected party may ob-
[p, 1526]
tain a review in the circuit court of ap-
peals. The review would not go into the
question de novo, but would go to the
abuse of discretion by the official or
agency entering the order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that section 1009, title 5, of the
Administrative Procedure Act, subsec-
tion 19, United States Code, 1958 edition,
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the section
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
§1009 Judicial review of agency action
Except so far as (1) statutes preclude
judicial review or (2) agency action by law
committed to agency discretion—
(a) Right of review Any person suffer-
ing legal wrong because of any agency action,
or adversely affected or aggrieved by such
action within the meaning of any relevant
statute, shall be entitled to judicial review
thereof.
(b) Form and venue of proceedings The
form of proceedings for judicial review shall
be any special statutory review proceeding
relevant to the subject matter m any court
specified by statute or, in the absence or in-
adequacy thereof, any applicable form of
legal action (including actions for declara-
tory judgments or writs of prohibitory or
mandatory injunction or habeas corpus) in
any court of competent jurisdiction Agency
action shall be subject to judicial review
in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial
enforcement except to the extent that prior,
adequate, and exclusive opportunity for such
review is provided by law
(c) Acts reviewable Every agency action
made reviewable by statute and every final
agency action for which there is no other
adequate remedy in any court shall be sub-
ject to judicial review Any preliminary,
procedural, or intermediate agency action or
ruling, not directly reviewable shall be sub-
ject to review upon the review of the final
agency action Except as otherwise expressly
required by statute, agency action other-
wise final shall be final for the purposes of
this subsection whether or not there has
been presented or determined any applica-
tion for a declaratory order, for any form of
reconsideration, or (unless the agency other-
wise requires by rule and provides that the
action meanwhile shall be inoperative) for
an appeal to superior agency authoiity
d) Relief pending review Pending judi-
cial review any agency is authorized where
t finds that justice so requires, to postpone
the effective date of any action taken by it
Upon such conditions as may be required
-------
670
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and to the extent necessary to prevent irre-
parable injury, every reviewing court (in-
cluding every court to which a case may be
taken in appeal from or upon application
for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing
court) is authorized to issue all necessary
and appropriate process to postpone the effec-
tive date of any agency action or to preserve
status or rights pending conclusion of the
review proceedings
(e) Scope of review So far as necessary to
decision and where presented the reviewing
court shall decide all relevant questions of
law, interpret constitutional and statutory
provisions, and determine the meaning or
applicability of the terms of any agency
action. It shall (A) compel agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,
and (B) hold unlawful and set aside agency
action, findings, and conclusions found to be
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discre-
tion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law; (2) contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in
excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right; (4)
without observance of procedure required by
law, (5) unsupported by substantial evidence
in any case subject to the requirements of
sections 1006 and 1007 of this title or otherwise
reviewed on the record of an agency hearing
provided by statute, or (6) unwarranted by
the facts to the extent that the facts are
subject to trial de novo by the reviewing
court. In making the foregoing determina-
tions the court shall review the whole record
or such portions thereof as may be cited by
any party, and due account shall be iaken
of the rule of prejudicial error. (June 11.
1946, ch 324, §10, 60 Stat. 243.)
EFFECTIVE DAYS
Section as effective three months after
June 11, 1946, see section 1011 of this title
CFOSS REFERENCES
Section applicable to functions exercised
under International Wheat Agreement Act of
1949, see section 1642 (1) of title 7, Agricul-
ture.
Section applicable to judicial review of any
agency action under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1964, see section 2231 of title 42, the Public
Health and Welfare.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I shall
not misquote the Senator from Maine
The Senator made the statement in com-
mittee that my amendment would open
the doors to everyone, whether or not
they had an interest. Section 1009, sub-
section (a) of the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act defines those persons
affected and the reasons for giving
parties the right to go to the courts. So,
I would say that there is no strength to
that argument.
Last year, the committee held hearings
for 6 days. No Governor testified before
the committee. Few State water con-
trol commissioners were represented be-
fore the committee. It went to the
Committee on Public Works of the House
after the bill passed the Senate. The
committee considered the bill. It heard
the testimony of about 25 Governors and
State water pollution control boards.
All raised the questions that I have raised
here today. The committee refused to
accept S. 4, with respect to the author-
ity to be given the Secretary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I close
by saying that if the protections I seek
can be included in the present bill re-
specting the formulation of standards
and the assurance of judicial review, I
would support the concept of water qual-
ity standards. But I could not vote for
the bill, in the form it has been presented
to the Senate, without these proper
safeguards.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is
an additional 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, in
reading the amendment, I note that prior
to the promulgation of the rule, hear-
ings are to be conducted. The Secretary
then has the right to promulgate a rule.
May I ask whether the amendment
would afford the affected parties a right
to be heard after the rule is recom-
mended, and before adoption?
Mr. COOPER. Yes. I must say that
we are in accord on that.
Mr. MUSKIE. S. 4 does that also.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, after
the regulation has been published—and
my amendment would require publica-
tion and notice—then a public hearing
could be requested.
The distinction between the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Maine
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
671
and my amendment is that the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maine would
allow only the Governor of a State to
request a public hearing, unless the Sec-
retary wanted to do it on his own motion
My amendment would permit any
affected public party to ask for a public
hearing. This in accord with prin-
ciples of justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, touch-
ing the last point first
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MON-
DALE in the chair). How much time does
the Senator yield himself?
Mr. MUSKIE. Fifteen minutes.
Touching the last point first, so that
my reply may be close to the statement
made by the Senator from Kentucky,
let me say that the procedures set up
in the rulemaking and policymaking
authority given in S. 4 are subject to
the Administrative Procedure Act. The
Senator has said that S. 4 gives only the
Governor the right to appeal from any
water quality standard established by
the Secretary. That is not so. S. 4
provides, following the promulgation of
the standard, that the Governor may
then petition, in accordance with the
procedure followed in establishing the
standard in the first instance, for a re-
vision of the standard; but in addition
to the provision in S. 4 is this provision
of the Administrative Procedure Act
We have gone over this in the committee,
and the matter is plain and clear:
Every agency shall accord any interested
person—
Any interested person—
the right to petition for the issuance, amend-
ment, or repeal of a rule.
So the provision of S. 4 must be read
in connection with the requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act.
If there is any doubt in the Senator's
mind or that of any other Senator that
the Administrative Procedure Act is ap-
plicable, I shall be happy to accept an
amendment to this effect: All action
taken under this section for the adoption
of standards and the promulgation of
rules and regulations shall be taken in
conformance with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
There is no question in my mind, or
that of any other lawyer who has ad-
dressed himself to this question, that the
Administrative Procedure Act will be
applicable to this bill if it is passed. But
if there is any doubt, I shall be happy
to accept the amendment.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator
from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. I was about to ask the
Senator from Maine, if that safeguard is
already provided for in the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, what his objection
was to accepting the amendment offered
by the Senator from Kentucky. It seems
to me it would be better to have a dupli-
cation of this authority than to take a
[p.1527]
chance on some definition which might
be placed on the various sections of the
law later. I wondered what his objec-
tion was. I am sorry I have not been on
the floor long enough to have heard all
the argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the pro-
vision of S. 4 with which we are dealing
is the product of 2 years' work, careful
refining and polishing, so that members
of the committee on both sides know
what it means and what its implications
are. There is no doubt in our minds
about it.
The amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky has been presented to me in its
present form for the first time in the past
30 minutes. From such examination as
I have been able to give it in that time it
does not seem to me that it changes suffi-
ciently to make different, in my judg-
ment, the provisions or objectives of S. 4.
It says the same thing, in language that
has not had the kind of testing and re-
fining that the language in the bill has.
For example, the Senator's amendment
-------
672
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
provides that the regulations shall be
published in the Federal Register. That
is a requirement of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Mr. AIKEN. My question is: Does the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Kentucky do violence to S. 4, the bill
itself?
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot be sure. The
Senator from Kentucky obviously feels
it does, or he would not have offered it.
He is not in the habit of offering frivo-
lous amendments. And because of that
conviction, I must be careful when I say
that in my judgment it does not differ
from S. 4.
Mr. AIKEN. The reason I ask the
question is that I know the Senator from
Kentucky is not in the habit of offering
amendments that do violence to a wor-
thy bill. I wondered what the objection
was. Perhaps the Senator from Ken-
tucky can explain what his amendment
would do which the Senator from Maine
has not been able to discern up to now.
I have a great deal of respect for both
the Senator from Maine and the Senator
from Kentucky. I dislike to vote against
either of them. Therefore, I must get
down to the merits in making up my
mind.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree.
In the first place, the Senator's amend-
ment is presented in the context of the
argument which he has made, and the
argument which he has made includes
what he considers to be a list of dangers
in S. 4. He leaves the implication that
his amendment will deal with this mat-
ter. Otherwise, the argument has no
relevance.
For example, he has said that this
amendment is designed to protect the
right to judicial review which, somehow,
S. 4 has presumably jeopardized.
S. 4 does not jeopardize the right to
judicial review. But if it does, the Sen-
ator's amendment does nothing different
from S. 4 to correct that weakness
Secondly, the Senator from Kentucky
expresses concern about the vast geo-
graphical scope that S. 4 would give to
the Secretary's control over the waters
o£ the Nation.
Here, again, if that is a danger in S. 4,
the Senator's amendment does nothing
to correct it. Moreover, the bill does not
enlarge by a cubic inch of water the
jurisdiction of the Secretary under pres-
ent law. So the junsdictional territory
does not change under S 4. But if it
did, the Senator's amendment does not
correct that point.
Third, the Senator complains that S. 4
is too broad m its effect over States,
municipalities, and industries. If indeed,
S. 4 does go beyond reasonable bounds
in this respect, again the Senator's
amendment does not touch the point in
any different way than does S. 4.
The Senator from Kentucky speaks of
the vast authority and power S. 4 gives
to the Secretary.
I have indicated that S. 4 provides
ample protections. But if it does not,
the Senator's amendment does not
change the bill, if it is adopted, in its
effect in that respect.
The fifth point the Senator makes is
that S. 4 gives the Secretary power to
zone all our waters. I do not believe
that is true. But if it is true, it is true
as a result of the powers the Secretary
now has.
For example, under section 2 of the
present law is this language, and the title
of the section: "Comprehensive Pro-
grams for Water Pollution Control":
The Secretary shall, after careful investi-
gation, and in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, with State water pollution control
agencies and interstate agencies, and with the
municipalities and industries involved, pre-
pare or develop comprehensive programs for
eliminating or reducing the pollution of in-
terstate waters and tributaries thereof and
improving the sanitary condition of surface
and underground waters
This is a power the Secretary now has.
S. 4 does not enlarge it in any way. But
under S. 4 it is required that the Secre-
tary, in advance of any attempt on his
part to use enforcement powers which
the law gives him, to establish stand-
ards so that industrial and other users
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
673
and interstate agencies may understand
in advance what is expected of them. He
cannot exercise even this much author-
ity without the safeguards which have
been outlined in that section, which I
shall be happy to discuss in detail.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. If the Senator's only
objection to the amendment offered by
the Senator from Kentucky is one of
doubt in that the meaning may not be
clear, would he not be willing to take
the amendment to conference? I am
sure all of us believe the question will
be cleared up there. I expect to vote for
the measure, as I did previously.
It seems to me it is better to state a
certain position of authority twice than
it is to run the risk of leaving it out, if
it is a desirable matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. If there were a way to
bring the Senator's language into the
bill, in addition to the committee's lan-
guage, I would have no particular objec-
tion to the surplusage, but he offers it
as a substitute. Therefore, the Senator
from Vermont puts us in the position of
saying that, as between two versions
which say essentially the same thing, we
are to take something developed in the
past 6 hours rather than something
which has been developed over the last
2 years.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not saying, I am
asking. I am not saying.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is there any specific
language in S. 4 giving the right to an
aggrieved party to avail himself of the
Administrative Procedure Act and to
appeal to the courts, in the event he
believes that his rights have been vio-
lated by the finding made? Is there any
specific language in S. 4 to that effect?
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, S.
4 does not deal with the enforcement
authority of the Secretary, that is, with
the procedure for using that enforce-
ment authority. It deals only with the
question of establishing standards of
water quality in advance of any enforce-
ment situation.
If the enforcement powers are in-
voked, they are spelled out in present
law and are not changed by S. 4, except
to insert the test of practicability on
standards. Otherwise, the enforcement
powers are not changed. If they are
invoked, there is ample protection for
the individual.
First of all, the Secretary must call a
conference. At that conference, all in-
terested States, interstate agencies, in-
dustries, and municipalities are parties.
A case is made for the factual basis, for
the consideration of the Secretary. The
conference then reports to the Secretary
with recommendations, if it chooses.
In a report to State and interstate
agencies, the Secretary then provides
for a minimum of 6 months to act in
accordance with the conference report.
If they fail to act, the Secretary can
then convene a hearing board.
Each of the States involved can ap-
point a member of the hearing board.
The Federal Government is also repre-
sented. The hearing board then hears
all the interested parties. At the con-
clusion of its deliberations, it files a re-
port with the Secretary indicating what,
if anything, the hearing board concludes
as to the state of pollution; what, if any-
thing, it concludes about steps to be
taken to alleviate the situation; and also
what, if anything, it recommends for
additional action.
The Secretary then sends those rec-
ommendations to the States and the
interstate agencies and gives them no
less than 6 months to do something about
it. If they fail to act, he then asks the
Attorney General to invoke the judicial
process.
Mr LAUSCHE. The Senator from
Kentucky suggests that we write into
the bill the applicability of the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act and the right to
appeal. Is there any specific language
in S. 4 stating that the Administrative
-------
674
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Procedures Act applies, and that a party
who believes himself to be wronged may
go to court?
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
[p.1528]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for
5 additional minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If it is not, what is
wrong with putting it into the bill and
resolving the question positively, so that
it does apply and the right to go to court
exists?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be happy to
accept the language of the suggestion
and insert the following language:
All action taken under this action for the
adoption of standards in the promulgation of
rules and regulations shall be taken in con-
formity with provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
I have no objection to such a provision.
I believe it is unnecessary, but I would
be happy to accept that language.
Mr. President, I offer that amendment
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair advises the Senator that before
doing so it will be necessary to obtain
unanimous consent.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, what is
the parliamentary situation?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am
sorry—I withdraw my suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's request is withdrawn.
Mr. LAUSCHE. One further question.
The Senator from Kentucky has stated
that in his amendment there is certain
following language which is not in S. 4
—namely, that in determining the qual-
ity standards and what shall be done
to procure them, there shall be consid-
ered the practicability and economic
feasibility of obtaining such standards.
Will the Senator discuss what his pro-
posal provides on that item, and what
his position is on it? On page 10 there is
some language relating to the practica-
bility of complying with such standards
as may be applicable. Is that in here?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The language about which the Senator
from Ohio inquires is found in two
places; first, in the provision which to do
with the standard that the court shall
use in evaluating not only the standard,
but also the practicability of the abate-
ment orders which it is considering.
Thus, the court is given that authority
under S. 4.
Second, in addition to the language
which the Senator has just brought to
my attention at the top of page 10, it
gives the hearing board—to which I re-
ferred earlier in my colloquy with the
Senator—the same mandate to consider
the practicability of applying such
standards as may be applicable.
Obviously the mandate to the court
and the mandate to the hearing board
which establishes the size of the opening
at one end of the pipe would control
what goes on at the other end of the
pipe.
The Secretary must consider, as he
frames these standards, that they will be
subject to the test of practicability, first
by the hearing board and second by the
court, so the test is clearly set out.
There is no question about it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Maine yield to me-
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. If the Senator from
Maine will allow me to proceed, I wish
to answer the arguments the Senator has
made respecting my statement support-
ing my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Senator
rose to answer a question.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from
Maine stated a few minutes ago that he
was about to respond to the propositions
I had made in my statement. I desire
to answer his argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE TllSTORY
675
to the Senator from Kentucky on his
own time.
Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. The statement was
made that my amendment is a new one,
and had not been made until a few min-
utes ago. It is correct that I reduced in
form the amendment I offered in the
committee, which spelled out in detail
the right of affected parties for review
in the circuit court of appeals of any
regulation the Secreary might promul-
gate.
In place of such specific detail I have
put this language in my pending amend-
ment:
Except as otherwise specifically provided
by this act, hearings and determinations under
this act shall be made, and subject to admin-
istrative and judicial review, in accordance
with the provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
This in substance, is exactly what I
have been arguing for in committee for
2 years. I have offered the substance of
this language—the right of judicial re-
view in hearings and the last time, only
yesterday. The distinguished Senator
from Maine would not accept it. He
would not agree to it. The committee
would not agree to it and voted it down.
The second response I make is this:
The Senator has referrsd to the addi-
tional criteria which my amendment
purposes "the practicability and eco-
nomic feasibility of attaining such stand-
ards." The Senator has stated that this
language is contained in S. 4 with respect
to abatement proceedings. That is an
entirely different matter. It is correct
that when proposals for abatement are
considered and recommendations are
made by the hearing board, the question
of the practicability and economic feasi-
bility of abatement plans may be con-
sidered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield on my time?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield in a mo-
ment. But the criteria I offer goes to
the development of the water quality
standards. That is entirely separate
from their application in our statement
proceedings.
Third My amendment relating to pub-
lic hearings is not limited to a Governor
making a request, but gives the right
to any affected party, anyone affected
within the terms of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
The Senator from Maine argues that
the Administrative Procedure Act ap-
plies, even without its specific mention
in the bill. Even if it is correct that it
does apply, without a specific provision
in the act saying it is applicable, yet if
there is language in the act which con-
tradicts the language of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, as S. 4 does, of
course the language of the bill would
supersede the Administrative Procedure
Act.
I shall not detain the Senate longer. I
have stated my position. I was rather
interested to hear the distinguished
Senator from Maine say, after 2 years
of work on this subject, that the bill does
not give any additional authority to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. I ask, then, what is the purpose of
the bill?
I have great respect for the Senator.
He is an able debater. That is the great
problem I have with him in committee,
and on the floor. When we reach a
spacific point for debate and answer,
he raises some other point. This makes
matters difficult.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr COOPER. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Is not the
Senator from Kentucky trying to make
sure that in this vast new power which
is being given to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, the Governor
of a State and the States themselves will
be assured of an opportunity of a public
hearing in court, if necessary?
Mr. COOPER. The right would be
-------
676
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
given to any affected party.
Mr. President, my amendment does
not meet all the objections in the bill I
am offering it as a minimum assurance
that the parties will have their day in
court.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes. I believe I should
make this point so that the RECORD will
be very clear. I shall not go beyond it,
unless I am asked some questions. The
amendment of the Senator from Ken-
tucky would change S. 4 in one further
important respect, and that is in the
procedure which is established in S. 4
for a revision of standard once they
have been promulgated.
The Senator from Kentucky would
rely wholly upon the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act for that
purpose. The committee felt it impor-
tant 2 years ago that there be clearly
spelled out in the bill an opportunity to
test the standards that had been promul-
gated by the Secretary, and that that
test be applied by all the agencies which
the Senator is interested in protecting,
and the interests that he is interested in
protecting.
The provisions set out in S. 4 do this
very thing. The day after the Secretary
promulgates his standards, the Governor
of any State can question them, not only
under the Administrative Procedure Act,
which is open to any interested party,
but also in his own right under the pro-
visions of S. 4, and test them in any way
he wishes to test them, and to suggest
modifications or outright repeal.
There is one other point that should
be made. What we are talking about is
the establishment of standards, not as a
[p.1529]
preliminary action, but as an enforced
action. There is a very important dis-
tinction. When we are talking about
enforcement action, we are talking about
something that impinges on someone or
has a direct impact.
When we are talking about standards,
I have in mind, for example, the possi-
bility of the standards of a pure stream
not being defiled by any industrial user.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's time has expired
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 addi-
tional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator may proceed.
Mr. MUSKIE. From what basis of
fact could a determination be made as
to whether the standard required in that
kind of situation is practicable or eco-
nomic or feasible as to some future use,
which has not been identified or denned?
When we are talking about estab-
lished standards, where there is no indi-
cated need for enforcement, we are talk-
ing about a situation which would call
for the wisdom of Solomon to apply the
practicability standard at that point.
Therefore, understandably, the practi-
cability standard is established and
clearly established in the law by S. 4
in the enforcement section of the law,
where it ought to be, in the place where
the people's right are being affected by
the proposed abatement order of the
Secretary.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a few questions?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Florida.
Mr. HOLLAND. Is it correct to say
that the fact that a stream is navigable
brings it under the proposed act, even
though it is an intrastate stream and
not an interstate stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. In my judgment, the
stream must cross a State boundary to
be covered by the provisions of the bill;
that is, by the standards section. Under
current law, the Secretary is given
authority to move into intrastate streams
when requested to do so by the Gov-
ernor of a State.
However, the bill (S. 4) provides no
authority for the Secretary to establish
standards on any intrastate stream when
he is invited in by the Governor. The
standards section is clearly limited to
interstate streams.
Mr. HOLLAND. Then, on the request
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
677
of the Governor of a State, having a
large intrastate stream which passes
various industries and various cities, the
Secretary would have no authority
whatever under the proposed act to set
standards of purity? Is that correct7
Mr. MUSKIE. None whatever under
these provisions. He has general au-
thority under the present law to suggest
programs. He could use that authority
in making recommendations to the Gov-
ernor of the State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has again expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 addi-
tional minutes.
But the Secretary cannot go in in
advance on an intrastate stream.
Mr. HOLLAND. In my State, the St.
Johns Rivsr runs north for approxi-
mately 200 miles, to the city of Jackson-
ville, and then turns east and flows into
the Atlantic Ocean. It is a large stream,
and navigable for at least 150 miles of its
length. The stream passes various cities,
such as Sanford, Palatka, Green Covs
Springs, and Jacksonville, to name only
a few. The stream is now receiving, and
probably will in the future continue to
receive, the effluence from a mill at a
certain point lying between certain of
these cities. Assuming that the Gov-
ernor of the State should ask the Secre-
tary to come in and set standards as to
this stream, would the Secretary have
the authority to set standards for that
stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not under this section.
Mr. HOLLAND Under any section7
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to read to
the Senator the language in the pres-
ent law bearing upon the Secretary's
authority.
Under section 2 of the present law,
under the title "Comprehensive Pro-
grams for Water Pollution Control," the
present act provides:
SEC. 2. (a) The Secretary shall, after care-
ful 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 com-
prehensive programs for eliminating or re-
ducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary
condition of surface and underground waters.
That would give him the authority,
as I understand, to recommend pro-
grams which might include standards of
use. But that is not the kind of author-
ity which would permit him to go
on from there and actually promulgate
standards that would have the force of
law on anyone in that State
Mr. HOLLAND. There is no provi-
sion in the bill that would give the Sec-
retary the right in such a case to pre-
scribe compulsory standards of purity of
water in such a stream?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would think not. I
have one caveat on that point. Is there
any tributary of the stream to which the
Senator has referred which crosses the
State border?
Mr. HOLLAND. No. The border be-
tween the State of Florida and the State
of Georgia is itself another river, the
St. Marys River, so that streams that
would come from the north would begin
inside the State of Florida.
Mr. MUSKIE Then it is my impres-
sion that in that situation the only au-
thority the Secretary would have with
respect to standards would be the rec-
ommending authority in the language of
the present law, which I have just read.
S 4 would not expand the authority.
Mr. HOLLAND. If the Governor made
a request of the Secretary of the Inte-
rior in such a matter, how far could that
request go and how far could the Secre-
tary go in fulfilling it?
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be under
present law. Under present law the
Secretary has instituted enforcement
actions of a type which can be brought
only when there is an endangerment to
health and welfare in, I believe, roughly
30 to 35 instances. I believe that a few
of those may have involved intrastate
waters and have been brought at the
request of the Governor. I think there
has been only a handful of those. Other
than those, I believe most of the actions
-------
678
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
taken by the Secretary have involved
interstate streams.
With respect to comprehensive pro-
grams—the language to which I referred
earlier—the Secretary is undertaking
river basin studies of the major river
basins of the country with a view to
development, with the assistance of
interstate and intrastate agencies, of
programs for the cleanup.of the waters.
But they are subject, of course, to the
cooperative efforts of the States.
Mr. HOLLAND. With reference to
the substitute amendment which the
Senator has offered, if standards could
be imposed by the Secretary in such a
case as I have recited, would it clearly
give the right to the mayors of the vari-
ous cities, to the industries that were
involved, and to property owners who
were involved, to take the contrary posi-
tions, and would it give them the right
in court to take those positions?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand, the
Administrative Procedure Act provides
only for administrative review of the
regulations. Judicial review is provided
when enforcement action is undertaken
but in the establishment of rules and
regulations only administrative review
is provided. I am not an authority on
the Administrative Procedure Act—ex-
cept insofar as the sections are relevant.
Mr. HOLLAND. In any event, under
the Administrative Procedure Act, if the
Secretary should attempt to set stand-
ards in such a case as I have recited,
could the mayors of the various cities
having contradictory rights, and prop-
erty owners and industries having con-
trasting rights, take an opposite position
and be heard under the Administrative
Procedure Act?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand that
section, they could.
*****
[p. 1530]
So Mr. COOPER'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the motion by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Have the yeas and
nays been ordered on passage of the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
yeas and nays have not been ordered on
passage of the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mi'. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I in-
dicated in the discussion on the Cooper
amendment, I offer an amendment. All
this amendment would do would be to
make all of the authority exercised by
the Secretary under S. 4 subject to the
Administration Procedure Act. I per-
sonally think that it would be subject to
it anyway, but to clarify the matter, I
offer the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Between lines
17 and 18 on page 9 it is proposed to
insert:
(7) All action taken under this section
for the adoption of standards and the pro-
mulgation of rules and regulations shall be
taken in conformity with provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maine. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
*****
[p. 1531]
So, Mr. MUSKIE'S amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
679
dent, I call up my amendment, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Louisiana will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed,
on page 5, between lines 10 and 11, to
insert the following:
No part of any appropriated funds may
be expended pursuant to authorization given
by this Act involving any scientific or tech-
nological research or development activity
unless such expenditure is conditioned upon
provisions effective to insure that all in-
formation, copyrights, uses, processes, pat-
ents, and other developments resulting from
that activity will be made freely available
to the general public Nothing contained in
this paragraph shall deprive the owner of any
background patent relating to any such activ-
ity, without his consent, of any right which
that owner may have under that patent
Whenever any information, copyright, use,
process, patent, or development resulting
from any such research or development ac-
tivity conducted in whole or in part with
appropriated funds expended under authoi-
ization of this Act is withheld or disposed
of by any person, organization, or agency in
contravention of the provisions of the pre-
ceding paragraph, the Attorney General shall
institute, upon his own motion or upon re-
quest made by any person having knowledge
of pertinent facts, an action for the enforce-
ment of the provisions of the preceding para-
graph in the district court of the United States
for any judicial district in which any defend-
ant resides, is found, or has a place of busi-
ness. Such court shall have jurisdiction to
hear and determine such action, and to enter
therein such orders and decrees as it shall
determine to be required to carry into effect
fully the provisions of the preceding para-
graph. Process of the district court foi any
judicial district in any action instituted under
this paragraph my be served in any other ju-
dicial district of the United States by the
United States Marshal thereof. Whenever it
appears to the court in which any such action
is pending that other parties should be
brought before the court in such action, the
court may cause such other parties to be sum-
moned from any judicial district of the
United States.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, S. 4 authorizes the expenditure of
public funds for research and develop-
ment to aid in preventing, controlling,
and abating pollution of interstate
waters, and for other purposes.
The research to be financed by these
funds is intended to benefit the public
to the greatest possible extent. It is
natural, therefore, that the results of the
research should be available to those
whom the research is intended to bene-
fit in the first place: The United States,
the individual States, the general pub-
lic, and the populations of many areas
where water pollution problems are now
serious or are expected to be serious in
the future. The proposed amendment
is an assurance and mandate that the
intent and purpose of this legislation
will be carried out.
This amendment is similar to the
provision unanimously approved by the
Senate for the Coal Research and De-
velopment Act, the Helium Gas Act, the
saline water bill, the disarmament bill,
the mass transit bill, and the water
resources bill. And additional provi-
sion has been added, however, to assure
that the Government in any action for
the vindication of its rights will not be
denied adequate relief because of pro-
cedural obstacles.
What we are talking about is that
when the Government makes $20 million
available in grants to States and munici-
palities for them to do research, those
people are not going to give away pri-
vate patent rights with the Govern-
ment's money, with the result that the
private contractor would then be in a
position to deny every other munici-
pality in Amercia, including the one that
signed the contract, the benefit of the
Government's $20 million in research
money.
What has been happening to this re-
search money is so bad that the men
who signed the contract should be in
jail.
I have before me a publication of
the General Accounting Office showing,
on page 6, that the Department of De-
fense awarded a contract to one of the
biggest corporations in America, receiv-
ing many millions of dollars of Federal
money, and taking out private patents
which put them in a position to deny
-------
680
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
everyone the benefit of the Govern-
ment's own research money. The Gov-
ernment is supposed to be licensed so
that it can license someone to work in
behalf of research for the Government,
or on national defense.
Although these people are supposed to
be permitted private patents to their
own advantage, they seek a patent
monopoly and they do not even tell the
Government what they are developing.
At the time of the review, for example,
we found that LMSC—which is the
Lockheed Co.—had refused to discuss
information on 58 subjects of interest to
the Government. That was done under
a contract which requires disclosure.
Lockheed would not disclose informa-
tion to the Government on 340 other
subject inventions which had been de-
layed from 6 to 46 months—as long as
4 years after the inventions were re-
ported to the contractor, or by the em-
ployee inventors.
Imagine that. We give those people
$12 billion for research. What do they
do? They will not even tell the Govern-
ment what it will get for the $12 billion.
Suppose they are trying to build a
missile to shoot down an attack vessel.
We would need to know what those
people have discovered with our own
money. We cannot find out. They will
not tell the Government.
Director Webb is signing the con-
tracts—in my judgment, in violation of
the law. If they have the power to get
away with this, such administrators vio-
late the law in this giveaway.
We must put it expressly into law
that this research will be for the benefit
of 180 million Americans, when it is
made with Government money. Other-
wise, we shall not be able to protect the
Government's money.
I am happy to say that the distin-
guished Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON] put amendments into the
saline water research bill to see to it
that the Government's rights in these
discoveries would be for the benefit of
all the people in America. Great head-
way is being made. If we find a way
to convert salt water into fresh water
it will be done for the benefit of every-
one in America and the world.
We will not have some robber baron
getting the benefit of the Government's
money, but it will be for the benefit of
180 million people, done with the benefit
of their tax money.
This amend-nent should be in the bill,
just as it was in the saline water re-
search bill. It should be included in this
bill, just as it was in the bill on coal
research, and in the bill which was
passed on helium, which was in charge
of the Senator from New Mexico.
In my judgment, this is one of the
serious faults in Government where it
raises the point: Are these tax moneys
to be spent for the benefit of the public
in general, or are they to be spent for
private gain?
In my judgment, taxing the American
people for the private gain of an individ-
ual is corrupt and should be prevented.
I know that the Senator in charge of
the bill does not want that to happen
The best way to see that it does not
happen is to take the provision which
is patterned after all the provisions
adopted previously in other bills to
which Senators have agreed.
It is essential that this money be spent
on research, and not be given away to
some private individual at the expense
of the public interest.
I believe that the Senator from Maine
is willing to accept the amendment. I
hope very much that he will fight for
it, in the event that we have some diffi-
culty persuading the House' to take it.
Mr. MUSKIE. In response to the
statement made by the Senator from
Louisiana, the amendment was not con-
sidered at the committee hearings, so we
did not have an opportunity to study it.
Nevertheless, the fact is that the pattern
has been established, in some instances,
particularly with respect to the saline
water research bill, and I am willing to
accept the amendment and take it to
conference, subject to such questions and
-------
9527—EPA
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
681
discussions as we may have on the floor.
Mr. AIKEN. I should like to ask some
questions. To what extent was this
amendment considered in the commit-
tee?
Mr. MUSKIE. As I have just stated,
Senator, it was not considered at all.
Mr. AIKEN. No witnesses at all were
heard on the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. No witnesses were
heard.
Mr. AIKEN. Is it important?
Mr MUSKIE. It is important.
Mr. AIKEN. Then why was it not
considered in committee, if it had been
considered in other committes at other
times? Why was it not considered in
committee at this time? Is not this
[p. 1532]
amendment more important than the
Cooper amendment to which the Sena-
tor from Maine has taken strong excep-
tion?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is of the utmost im-
portance, as the Senator from Louisiana
has stated so eloquently.
Mr. AIKEN. But it comes in at the
last minute. The Senator from Louisi-
ana spoke of the robber barons. He
spoke with reference to the oil com-
panies, the uranium companies, and
the helium companies. It seems to me
ridiculous to vigorously oppose an
amendment such as the one offiered by
the Senator from Kentucky on the
ground that it duplicates the provisions
in the Administrative Procedure Act,
and yet accept the far-reaching amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Loui-
siana. It is nonsense It is ridiculous.
We wonder who is back of it?
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, will the
Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is imply-
ing that I am speaking for someone who
is hidden in the mists of obscurity. I am
doing no such thing. So far as the Sena-
tor from Kentucky is concerned, I was
not opposing his amendment vigorously
He was opposing my bill vigorously, and
I was undertaking to defend it against
the allegations which he made as to its
merit. That is all. I did not pillory the
Senator from Kentucky, did not intend
to do so, and do not intend to do so.
What I did, in the case of the Senator
from Kentucky, has no relevance to this
question. I have indicated my attitude.
The Senator can disagree with it or not.
I see no reason for him to question my
motivation concerning it. I stated that
there was no hearing held on this point.
Mr. AIKEN I do not question the
Senator's motivation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I stated, in addition to
that question, that there has been a pat-
tern of some sort set in this respect in
research programs sponsored with the
Government's money, and that I was
willing to accept the amendment and
take it to conference for such considera-
tion as the conference wished to make.
I am not an advocate of the amendment.
I could not be, because I have no basis
for it.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from Maine
is willing to accept the amendment of-
fered by the Senator from Louisiana on
almost the same basis that he was will-
ing to reject the amendment offered by
the Senator from Kentucky, on the
ground that there is already provision
for it, and that the precedent is estab-
lished. I merely ask, what is the reason
for bringing it in at this time when it
was not proposed before the committee,
and no one had been notified that the
bill was coming up? I suspect that I
will support the amendment. I am
pretty sure that I would support the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Louisiana if it were offered on its own
merits, but I will admit I am not happy
about the manner in which it is being
brought up at this time.
I am not an advocate of the oil com-
panies, the helium companies, or the
uranium companies. I believe that the
amendment is probably a good one, but
it should bs offered in its own right and
not sprung upon the Congress or the
Senate without any previous considera-
-------
682
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion being given to it.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, several years ago I conducted hear-
ings on the subject and informed the
Senate that any time a bill came before
the Senate which would provide for re-
search, I proposed to raise this issue: Is
this research going to be for the benefit
of 180 million Americans, or for the ben-
efit of one private corporation?
If we are going to tax the American
people for the private gain of some com-
pany or a single individual, I propose to
raise that issue.
Now we are about to authorize a re-
search program. In 1947, 17 years ago,
the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN]
was a sponsor of an amendment along
exactly the same principles I am for, on
all Government research. He was fight-
ing to defend the public interest in ex-
actly the same way I see it.
An amendment was proposed in the
National Science Foundation Act con-
cerning this research, in order to protect
the Government.
I salute the Senator from Vermont for
having acted in the national interest in
this fashion.
I raised this same issue on the coal re-
search bill, and on the urban transit
bill. I raised the same issue on the dis-
armament bill, and I am not in a position
to know what these requests ara going
to accomplish.
Whenever a research bill is brought
before the Senate the junior Senator
from Louisiana can be expected to offer
such an amendment and to raise the
question whether the research will be
for the benefit of the 180 million people
of the country who pay for it, or whether
it will be used exclusively for the benefit
of private groups.
Something has been said about oil
companies. I am not embarrassed to be
called an oil Senator. Anyone who
wishes to do so can call me an oil or gas
Senator. I will continue to look after
the interests of the State of Louisiana,
just as I expect every other Senator to
look after the interests of his own State.
The oil industry does its own research.
It has never asked the Government to
finance its research. It has never come
to Washington to ask for money with
which to conduct its research. If it ever
does come I will offer my amendment to
any bill of that kind that may be pro-
posed. No one has any right to use Gov-
ernment money for his own advantage.
Who proposes to defend this practice?
The Lockheed Corp. has been holding
out on the Government for 4 years on
discoveries it has made with Government
money. Who wants to defend a prac-
tice like that? Who wants to justify it?
That research was paid for by taxpayer
money.
Senators know that today we do not
have a missile that can shoot down a
Russian missile aimed at the United
States. The reason could well be that
important technical and scientific in-
formation has been withheld. The Lock-
heed Corp. will not tell us what it has
found out in its research financed with
tax money. They will not tell us what
they have discovered with that money.
If they can get away with this in dealing
with the Federal Government, they can
do this in dealing with the individual
States.
The only way to stop this thing is to
spell it out in the law by stating that
they cannot get away with this sort of
thing. What I propose has been done be-
fore. We did it in the Atomic Energy
Act. It has created no problem in con-
nection with that act. Frankly, Mr.
President, if we look in the areas where
the Government research has been in the
public interest, with no private patents
granted, we find that those are the areas
in which we are ahead. In atomic en-
ergy, we are ahead. That research is
available to everyone. No one can hold
out on the results of research in that
field.
In the field of agriculture we have had
a research program without private
patents. In that field we are far ahead
of the Russians. They cannot possibly
catch up with us, even with our help.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
683
That is how far ahead we are in areas
where we did it in the public domain.
Whenever we let certain individuals
keep research results for as long as 4
years and have private patents, we can-
not keep up with the Russians.
Here it is proposed to go on with a
new research program which can allow
someone to use his power with a Gov-
ernor to see to it that Federal money is
used for his private advantage, instead
of in the public interest.
The Senate has acted on this issue
time and time again during the past 2
years. Its answer has been consistent.
Its answer today should be consistent
also.
We are dealing with a new research
program that is proposed to be estab-
lished. The States will handle Federal
money. If they discover something
worthwhile, it should be available to
every citizen in the country. The pub-
lic should be given the benefit of its tax
money.
I hope my good friend from Vermont
will support the amendment, because he
sponsored a similar amendment 17 years
ago.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I have no
doubt that I would support the proposal
of the majority whip if it were properly
offered I object to the manner in which
it is proposed and the manner in which
it is brought before the Senate. We hear
a great deal about precedents. I realize
that there are many precedents. We
have found some of them to be useful.
However, most of our precedents have
been established after mature thought
and consideration.
What I am trying to do now is to ask
that the Senate not establish the prece-
dent of ramming major legislation down
the throat of the Senate without previous
notice or consideration. That is all I
am asking.
I do not believe this is the place for
this sort of amendment. No notice was
given. The amendment was not printed.
Let us not establish another precedent
under which anyone in authority can
[p. 1533]
ram major legislation down our throats
without notice and without considera-
tion.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I shall
support the amendment of the Senator
from Louisiana. The amendment is very
simple. All that the amendment pro-
vides is that when taxpayers' money is
used in research, anything that is dis-
covered belongs to all the people. It is
as simple as that. I cannot understand
that we would be setting a precedent that
should alarm anyone. It is a simple
amendment.
What the Senator from Louisiana is
doing is saying that where taxpayers'
money is used in a research project the
result that is discovered belongs to all
the people because all the people gave
money to the discoverer in order to have
the opportunity to make the discovery.
That is how simple the issue is.
I do not see why anyone should be
alarmed about any precedent being
established. I shall wholeheartedly sup-
port the amendment, in good conscience.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not opposing the
principle set forth by the Senator from
Louisiana. I am opposing the method by
which it is being put forth. I object to
anyone in official standing or even the
whole party across the aisle ramming
major legislation down the throats of
Senators without previous notice or con-
sideration. That is all I am saying.
Mr. PASTORE. We do it every time.
We do it all the time.
Mr. AIKEN. It should not be done. I
know it is done, but it should not be done.
Mr. PASTORE. It is done every time.
Mr. AIKEN. I know, but it should not
be done.
Mr. PASTORE. It is no novel idea to
bring up an amendment unexpectedly
and by surprise. That is how a Senator
can get his name on the front page.
Mi. MILLER. Mr. President, the Sen-
-------
684
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ator from Rhode Island has said that
this is a very simple amendment. That
is the difficulty with the amendment. It
is too simple. It is not just a matter of
whether or not we take taxpayers' money
and turn it over to a private contractor to
be used entirely for research purposes
and the contractor does not spend any
of his own money. We have no problems
with that kind of situation. At least, I
do not have any difficulty with it. It is
not as simple as that. In some cases a
contractor would receive $100,000 from
the Federal Government and he would
put up another $100,000, or perhaps
$200,000, $300,000, or $400,000.
Are the Senators from Rhode Island
and Louisiana willing to say, because the
Federal Government put up $100,000 and
the private contractor put up $300,000,
that it is fair that the whole result should
go to the Federal Government?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. I shall yield in a mo-
ment. Are they willing to say that all
of the benefit should go to the Federal
Government? Last year there was a
hearing before the Joint Economic Com-
mittee. The distinguished Senator from
Illinois will recall that this very problem
was raised and discussed at length by
some of the witnesses. It was indicated
that there were difficult problems in the
allocation with respect to the results of
research.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. In some cases a 50-50
division might be fair. In other cases
an allocation of 100 percent to the Fed-
eral Government might be fair. In some
cases it might be fair to give one-third,
while in other cases it might be fair to
give two-thirds. The problem is not as
simple as that. That is the difficulty I
have with the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Does the
Senator from Iowa know how the admin-
istrators use their discretion? Wherever
administrators have had discretion, they
have given it all away.
Mr. MILLER. I would not want to
apologize for what the administrators
did in these matters. The Senator from
Iowa and the Senator from Louisiana
probably could get together on a fair and
equitable allocation where it was indi-
cated. The difficulty with the Senator's
amendment is that, merely because $1
of Federal money goes into some re-
search project, the entire result would
have to go to the Federal Government.
I do not believe that is fair.
All of this is raising an increasingly
serious problem. The Joint Economic
Committee went into this subject last
year.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The amend-
ment states in effect: "If you have some
background that you have obtained, we
will protect your use of it." The provi-
sions of the amendment are contained
in the Agricultural Act, in the Atomic
Energy Act, in the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority Act; and in a great many other
acts. Everyone who has been affected
by it likes it very much. Those in Gov-
ernment who have had experience with
it say that people come to them and put
pressure on them. They may be people
who have made large political contribu-
tions. They come and ask the admin-
istrators to give away the Government's
rights. The Government can say, "No;
we cannot do that."
That is how interested parties look at
it. They do not want that type of dis-
cretion because there is so much in it
for some contractors. The discretion
would be used to give it all away. I make
that statement because when adminis-
trators have had the discretion they have
given it away. A proposal was made that
before patent rights could be given away,
a study should be made to determine the
value of the right and knowledge of what
would be given away.
Do Senators know what administrators
would do? They would give away the
results of research no matter what the
right would consist of, for that is what
has happened when discretion has been
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
685
given to them. If the Senate wishes to
give the administrators discretion, we
might as well give it all away and be
done with it.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator has said.
"I have not read the proposal," and then
he refers to background patent protec-
tion. I am not talking about background
patent protection. I am talking about
patent developments that may grow out
of specific research, the background pat-
ents to the contrary notwithstanding.
We are not talking about the same prob-
lem. If the Senator wishes to refer to
the background patents, all I am saying
is that if the amendment offered by the
Senator from Louisiana—and, inciden-
tally, I think it would be most beneficial
if all Senators had a copy to look at—
had provided that instead of all of the
benefits going to the Federal Govern-
ment, language something like "the Fed-
eral Government's fair and equitable
share in the information, copyrights,
uses, processes, patents, and other devel-
opments resulting from that activity will
be preserved," then I think we would
have a fair and equitable amendment.
So far as uniformity with respect to
other laws is concerned, I grant that
the proposal is in line. But that does
not mean that those provisions are right.
Last year we had hearings before the
Joint Economic Committee which indi-
cated that serious problems were arising
because of these other uniform provi-
sions.
The Senator from Louisiana, I believe,
could make a contribution if he would
modify his amendment and let the House
of Representatives look it over to see
whether or not the proposal might be
a step in the right direction in getting
away from these harsh results. I be-
lieve it would be an improvement to do
so, and I would support an amendment
with that modification in it, because I
think it would be an improvement. But
I do not think that we ought to take
a meat-ax approach to everything that
happens as a result of research.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, my friends on the other side of
the aisle start by saying that the amend-
ment ought to be studied, and that such
a proposal should not be brought before
the Senate as a surprise.
I point out that the procedure pro-
posed has been adopted by Congress with
relation to every research bill that has
been passed during the past 4 years.
We have done it repeatedly It is iden-
tically the same language, so far as the
requirements in the contracts are con-
cerned, that we have voted for time and
time again.
It is the suggestion of the Senator
from Iowa that is on trial. That is the
one that has not been tried. No one
knows what his suggestion would do.
We all know how my proposal would
work.
Atomic Energy Commission contracts
include a requirement that the result of
research be available generally. Ad-
miral Rickover has said that there has
never been a problem. He has said he
has too many contractors to do research
for him He has said that the difficulty
is that he does not have enough contracts
to go around.
Parallel work is being done on salt
water conversion. That activity is al-
most identical with what we would
attempt to do under the bill. We are try-
ing to clean up water. The same prob-
lem in water control is involved. There
[p. 1534]
has been no problems, however, with re-
spect to the provision which I have pro-
posed. It works fine.
The type of provision proposed, word
for word, in the controlling section is
identical with what has been the law for
50 years. If we insert similar language
into the bill now before the Senate, we
know how it will work. If we did it the
way the Senator from Iowa has pro-
posed, no one knows how it would work.
If we inserted a provision permitting dis-
cretion, let us face it: We might as well
give the results of the research away.
Let us include a provision that we
-------
686
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
know has worked in the past.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. I am not saying that
my proposal is perfect. But I do think
that it is pretty difficult to refute the
point that the Federal Government is
entitled only to its fair and equitable
share, and to nothing more and nothing
less.
The difficulty with the Senator's
amendment is that he is proposing that
the Government be entitled to every-
thing. He falls back on the fact that
a similar uniform provision appears in
some other acts. But that does not make
it right.
I am sorry that the proposal was not
before the subcommittee for hearings.
The subcommittee did a very fine job on
what it had to work with. The bill is
most complex. I would regret to see the
bill go back for further hearings with
respect to the Senator's amendment.
But what I would like to suggest is
that the Senator either modify his
amendment or be content to file it as a
bill and let the bill before the Senate
stand on its own two feet. Let us get
it going. I am sure that the Senator
could see to it that proper action would
be taken on this bill. Let us do a job
in this area for once.
I think the amendment needs study.
I believe it needs hearings. I think it
needs action, too, because the uniform
provisions to which the Senator has re-
ferred have caused a considerable
amount of difficulty.
If we say that administrators have
abused their discretion and therefore
we will not give them any discretion, I
do not know how we are ever going to
move. Great discretion is given to ad-
ministrators. We have to respose a cer-
tain amount of confidence in their
discretion, regardless of who the ad-
ministrators may be. I believe it would
be proper to give them discretion in
cases such as the one we are now con-
sidering; and if there are abuses, we
shall clean them up, too.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield to the
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Is the Senator from
Rhode Island correct in assuming that
the money which will be devoted to re-
search projects under the bill would be
all public money?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what we have
in mind.
Mr. PASTORE. No private moneys
would be involved?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is conceivable that
we might find some situation in which
some person has put his private money
into a project, although that is not likely.
But in the past we have had research
programs in which a contractor would
do the research
Mr. PASTORE. How would it be con-
ceivable that an individual would put
his own private money into such a
project?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is conceivable that
private money would be involved. For
example, with relation to the program
involving the separation of storm and
sanitary sewers, it is conceivable that
some private organization might be in-
terested in contributing a solution, a
technique, or a formula, and would be
willing to put up some of its money and
some of its efforts provided it got some
assistance from Federal, State, or local
governments. In that event some pri-
vate funds would be involved. I agree
that it is not likely that it would be
involved.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. There is one
slight difference between the proposal
and existing law in other areas. Most of
the statutes to which reference has been
made that prevent the giveaway of
patent rights provide that the informa-
tion shall be freely and fully available.
At the request of some departments the
word "fully" has been omitted, so that a
distinction could be made between the
ideas that some people had already de-
veloped with their own private money
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
687
and that which they might develop with
the Government's money. So if a con-
tractor should desire a Government con-
tract, he could come in and say, "This is
what we know now. This is what we
have done. We would like to protect our
rights with respect to what we have
developed."
But what will be done with Govern-
ment money will be freely available to
everyone in the country. I do not think
we would desire much more flexibility
than that. Otherwise we would get into
the prospect of doing something of the
kind that we have discussed, m which an
administrator signs away the Govern-
ment's rights entirely. That being the
case, we have that much flexibility and
do not want any more.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.
Mr. HRUSKA. I have suggested to
the Senator from Rhode Island that he
consider the language in the second
paragraph of the amendment. It would
be helpful to us if we had printed texts.
The language states:
Whenever any information, copyright, use,
process, patent, or development resulting
from any such research or development
activity conducted in whole or in part with
appropriated funds.
That means that if there is $100,000
spent by the researcher and $100,000 by
the Government, the whole amount
would have to be mandatorily disclosed
to everyone—to the public—regardless of
the contribution of the private re-
searcher, regardless of security consid-
erations, or anything else. That is the
plain language contained in the first
paragraph of the amendment
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr Presi-
dent, the Senator has not read the rest
of that section. If there is any question
about who has the rights stated, the At-
torney General can go into court The
reason for that section is so that, for
example, he can subpena someone in
New Jersey to come to Louisiana, if need
be, in order to testify to what he knows
about a situation. Otherwise, difficulty
in subpenaing witnesses might be en-
countered. The controlling section is the
one prior to the section to which the
Senator referred. That section would
put teeth into the provision. There
might be witnesses in New Jersey, Illi-
nois, California, or other States. The
provision would give the Attorney Gen-
eral the right to go into court and deter-
mine who possesses the rights, so that
the Attorney General could subpena a
witness to come from, let us say, New
Jersey to Louisiana in order to testify.
The procedural provisions are modeled
after section 5 of the Sherman Act and
section 15 of the Clayton Act. So the
Attorney General, in trying to handle
antitrust matters—and this is parallel to
that situation—can send his witnesses
from one place to another to testify to
the facts. That is all that is sought to
be done.
Mr HRUSKA. Is any consideration
given, in the first paragraph of the
amendment, to matters which would
enter the security field? Many research
contracts are executed in the research
field and might involve security. Is
there some safeguard?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. We are talk-
ing about water pollution. Can the
Senator from Nebraska tell me what se-
curity item is involved in v/ater pollu-
tion? What is there about cleaning up
water that is secret?
Mi. HRUSKA. I do not know.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I have seen
the old red herring dragged out on many
occasions. But when Senators talk
about cleaning up sewers, I do not see
what that has to do with the national
defense, except that cleaning up the wa-
ter enables people to be healthier; and
I do not know what is wrong with letting
the Russians know about that.
Incidentally, the Russians invented a
sleep machine. By putting electrodes
over the eyes, a person can go to sleep.
It might be useful when one has experi-
enced a frustrating session in the U.S.
Senate. I am told that 2 hours of sleep
-------
688
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under that machine is the equivalent of
as much as 6 hours of natural sleep. The
Russians obtained a patent on it, but
did not raise a security question. So
what is secret about how we clean up
sewers? That is absolutely beyond me.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Louisiana yield for a
question?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. -1 yield.
Mr. ERVIN. Paragraph (3) starting
on page 2 of the committee report, as-
serts that the bill authorizes among
other things:
Research and development grants in the
amount of 50 percent of the estimated
reasonable cost of projects which will dem-
onstrate new or improved methods of con-
trolling the discharge into any waters of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or
[p. 1535]
other wastes from sewers which carry storm
water or both storm water and sewage or
other waste Authorize appropriations of
$20 million for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1965, and for each of the next 3 succeed-
ing fiscal years ior the purpose of making
demonstration grants. A grant for any sin-
gle project shall not exceed 5 percent of the
total amount authorized for any 1 fiscal
year.
If that is a correct analysis of the pro-
visions of the bill, the bill contemplates
that local governmental subdivisions and
others will contribute at least 50 percent
of the money for all the research projects
in this area. Despite the great venera-
tion the Senator from North Carolina
has for his leader, the Senator from
Louisiana, the Senator from North Car-
olina cannot conceive that it is fair to
expect local subdivisions of government
and others to put up at least 50 percent
of the cost of research projects and then
allow the exclusive rights to the patents
on them to be given to the Federal Gov-
ernment, which puts up only 50 percent
or less.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. This section
does not say anything about "50 per-
cent." I do not see anything about "50
percent" in this section. I am seeking
to amend section 6.
Mr. ERVIN. Does not the Senator's
amendment apply to the entire bill?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana Let us look
at the other side of the picture. Suppose
a grant were given to Podunk, La., to
conduct research, and that Podunk put
up some money. Suppose it signed a
contract that provided that when the
contractor conducted research, he would
bs entitled to a private patent. Then
suppose the contractor developed some-
thing good. He has the privilege of say-
ing, "I found it. I found it first with
your money." He would get the benefit
of the law that would deny the Govern-
ment the benefit for 17 years. He could
say, "It is a fine thing, but I am not going
to let anyone use it because I have the
patent rights on it." He would have the
right to license anybody to use it, if he
wanted to.
Does not the Senator from North Car-
olina have some qualms about allowing
$20 million of Government money to be
used and not permitting the public the
use of the benefits?
Mr. ERVIN. The purpose of the bill
is to encourage local subdivisions of gov-
ernment, and even private individuals
and private industry interested in rid-
ding our waters of pollution, to partici-
pate in the program to the extent of
putting up at least 50 percent of the cost
of research projects. In my judgment,
the proposal of the Senator from Louisi-
ana would discourage local subdivisions
of government and private individuals
and private industry from participating
in the program if we say they will have
to put up at least 50 percent, while the
Federal Government would take all the
benefits from the research.
Furthermore, there are many people
with brains who have spent many years
of study and research in the purification
of water and the elimination of pollution
from the streams of this country. The
Senator's amendment would discourage
those people from contributing their
brains to research projects in this field,
if there is written upon our law books a
statute that the Federal Government
would take the benefit of not only the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
689
part of the research funds put up by the
Federal Government and private indi-
viduals and private industry, but also
the benefit of the brains of those
people. Merely because the Federal
Government contributes a portion of the
cost, the amendment clearly contem-
plates that the Federal Government will
take everything, so far as any discovery
is concerned.
I favor the principle that the Senator
is seeking to implement with his pro-
posal, but I believe what has been said
emphasizes the fact that this question
ought to be dealt with by the Subcom-
mittee on Patents of the Committee on
the Judiciary in connection with an over-
all bill, where all possible arguments can
be weighed according to their worth and
value and where all interested officials
and communities and individuals can be
heard.
While I would support the Senator's
amendment if it were restricted to in-
stances where the Federal Government
puts up all the money, I am unwilling
to have the Federal Government require
other States, municipalities, private in-
dividuals, and private industry to put up
at least 50 percent of the money for re-
search and then allow the Federal Gov-
ernment to take as its exclusive pos-
session everything that is discovered.
The Senator's proposal ought not to
be offered as an amendment to this bill,
but ought to be considered by the ap-
propriate committee, so that a general
policy might bo adopted. If the Sen-
ator's amendment comes to a vote as an
amendment to this bill without any com-
mittee consideration, I shall have to vote
against the amendment. The Senator's
idea is a good one, but it ought to be
carefully considered, and all objections
should be weighed.
I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana I went be-
fore a subcommittee. I do not know
whether I went before the proper sub-
committee but I went before some sub-
committee of the Committee on the Ju-
diciary 3 years ago—in 1981. I went to
great efforts to explain my proposal, but
nothing happened. That being the case,
I felt that the committee would not
report the bill. I decided that if it would
not report the bill, I would offer an
amendment on the floor of the Senate.
That is what I have been doing for the
past 3 years. If any Senator does not
know by now how to get a committee
to consider a research proposal, he ought
to offer an amendment on the floor of
the Senate.
Repeatedly, the managers of bills have
offered to take my amendments and sup-
port them, and do what they could with
them. That is what the manager of this
bill has offered to do in this instance.
Ii the Senator from North Carolina
wishes to invoke the procedure of a yea-
and-nay vote, that is all right; we will
then see how the Senate stands.
My proposal does not seek to have
the Federal Government take anything
away from anybody. It merely provides
that if the Federal Government con-
tributes $20 million, whether a city or a
State contributes anything or not, the
benefits should all be freely available to
every city, State, and municipality, so
that they can all have the benefit of the
$20 million to eliminate sewage pollution.
If a different procedure is followed, we
shall be opening up the prospect of what
I have just described The General Ac-
counting Office or some other agency will
discover something that has been done
improperly.
In the field of atomic energy, for 4
years that great man, Admiral Rickover,
has been saying that the plan I am pro-
posing has been working, and working
well. It offers no problem or difficulty
The only trouble is that there are not
enough contracts.
Mi. President, I read now from a com-
mittee print of the Small Business Com-
mittee's Subcommittee on Monopoly, of
which I am chairman. This print is the
text of a conference on Federal patent
policies at which Admiral Rickover testi-
fied in 1980. He told me at that time:
We have had no difficulty in the Atomic
-------
690
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Energy Commission getting contractors, large
and small, to-do research and development
work In fact, many of them are constantly
urging us to give them such work Further,
a number of companies have built their own
facilities, with their own money Many busi-
nesses want Government research and de-
velopment work in order to develop a strong
position. They now wish to extend this to
the atomic energy and the space fields.
So, you can see, Mr. President, as I
have stated before, where the Govern-
ment retains patent rights for the bene-
fit of all the public, there is no lack of
contractors wishing to do the research.
Instead, there is just a lack of contracts
to go around to all of the contractors.
I am not saying that there is not some-
one who might not wish to conduct Gov-
ernment-financed research. That may
well be. I salute anyone who does pri-
vate research. But if such people want
Government money, they ought to make
the benefits of their research available
to the United States.
I challenge anyone to show me where
any information has been withheld,
where any chicanery has been involved
under the procedure I propose. Admiral
Rickover told us on one occasion that
the time lawyers take in preparing patent
applications means that from the time
one discovers something until the time
he applies for a patent averages 4 years
before a patent application can be filed.
This is information which the public
needs for its own benefit, but some in-
dividual may be fooling around with
papers to tie up the patent, so that no
one can get the benefit except the private
company.
On the other hand, if we say that the
Government shall have the patent rights
when the Government pays for the re-
search, the information will circulate
much more freely.
Mr. President, I felt that since the
manager of the bill offered to take the
amendment—which has been done time
and time again—if there is going to be
any opposition to it, then I suppose we
shall have to have a rollcall vote on it,
if we cannot agree on a voice vote.
[p. 1536]
So, I suppose I shall have to suggest
the absence of a quorum and ask for the
yeas and nays on the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator answer a question before doing
that?
Mr LONG of Louisiana. Yes.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senator stated that
the language used was exactly the same
as has been used in a number of other
laws. I have found an example in the
atomic energy law which is relevant to
this matter.
Section 152 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1958 reads as follows:
An invention or discovery, useful in the
production of utilization of special nuclear
material or atomic energy, made or con-
ceived in the course of or under any contract,
subcontract, or arrangement entered into
with or for the benefit of the Commission,
regardless of whether the contract, subcon-
tract, or arrangement involved the expendi-
ture of funds by the Commission, shall be
vested in, and be the property of, the Com-
mission, except that the Commission may
waive its claim to any such invention or dis-
covery under such circumstances as the Com-
mission may deem appropriate, consistent
with the policy of this section.
There are other examples such as the
National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration Act of 1958 and the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950.
I know what the Senator said to
NASA Administrator Webb. I, too, as
Senator LONG did, sat in on the hearings
before the Senate Small Business Com-
mittee. But, may I say as a lawyer—
and Senator ERVIN has spoken as a
lawyer—that the trouble with the
amendment is that it is an immediate
directive to the public domain.
This may sound appealing. But, it
could work out very badly because the
race would go to the swift rather than to
the just.
The question that I put to my col-
league, in view of the questions that are
raised, is this: Even if a conference com-
mittee is to take the measure and try to
do what they can do with it, should not
the purpose of the Senate be to have such
-------
STATUTKS AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
691
patents and inventions vested in the Sec-
retary, or whatgver the operative Gov-
ernment agency is under this particular
bill, rather than an immediate dedication
to the public domain with some of the
dangers which I have just spelled out?
The financial involvement of the Gov-
ernment in a particular contract is an
extremely important factor in a deter-
mination of patent rights under a con-
tract; however, it is not the only factor.
Whether the contractor has contributed
substantial experience, background, and
funds on his own and whether the inven-
tion would have been a probable result
of his acquired skills, experience, and
own funds should also be taken into
consideration.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, it is hard to satisfy all Senators.
Senator MILLER just got through agree-
ing that we ought to have more flexibility
in the provision Now the Senator from
New York reads a provision which he
apparently seems to like, which is a
stricter section.
The amendment that I offer is almost
identical to the amendment which I of-
fered on the Coal Research Act, which
is the law, the Helium Act, which is the
law, the saline water bill, which is the
law, the disarmament bill, as passed in
the Senate, and the mass transit bill as it
was passed in the Senate and sent to the
House, and the Water Resources Act.
This is what we have voted on time
and time again. The section to which
the Senator refers is in the Atomic En-
ergy Act. In that case they do not waive
background patents. The reason that
the act did not waive background pat-
ents is that the Government had all the
background, anyway. No one else had
any. So we did not waive the back-
ground patents. In this instance, we
have no problem.
I think we have discussed the amend-
ment sufficiently. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I have
an amendment at the desk which is an
amendment to the Senator's amend-
ment. I would like to have it read, and
perhaps we can discuss it. I would ap-
preciate it if the Senator would see fit
to accept it. But I would like to have
the amendment stated at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The amend-
ment of Mr. MILLER reads as follows:
Strike out lines 7 and 8, through the
period on line 9, and insert in lieu thereof
the following- "That the Federal Govern-
ment's fair and equitable share in the infor-
mation, copyrights, uses, processes, patents,
and other developments resulting from that
activity, will be preserved."
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the Sen-
ators may note that what this does is
tc change the language which now states
that all information, copyrights, uses,
patents, and other developments result-
ing from that activity will be made
freely available to the general public.
Instead of saying "all," I have simply
said that the Federal Government's fair
and equitable share will be preserved in
all of these things. I think it is a much
more reasonable approach than the ap-
proach which the Senator's amendment
uses.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana Mr. Presi-
dent, nobody under the sun would know
what that would mean. For example,
suppose a contractor has put up 1 per-
cent of the cost, and the Federal Gov-
ernment and the State government have
put up the other 99 percent. It could
well be construed, from the Senator's
amendment, that that fellow, because he
has 1 percent of his own money invested,
has the right to deny anyone the right
to use it.
As the Senator knows, if I have an
interest in a business and the Senator
has an interest in the same business, both
of us must agree in order that the infor-
mation may be made available for any-
one to use it.
The Senator has no answer to the
-------
692
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
problem. No one under the sun would
know what we are talking about here.
If we use the Government's money to do
the research, and if this is a Government
contract, then the information should
be free and available, to be used by
everyone.
We have had some of these instances
in which discretion was allowed to be
used.
I submit that I do not know what that
means. If we want that amendment, we
may just as well vote against my amend-
ment and be done with it.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, there
are many provisions in bills which have
been passed by this body which have
used the phrase, "fair and equitable."
The people administering the laws are
the ones whose discretion we trust in the
matter of determining what is fair and
equitable.
I would not be quite as sanguine about
this as the Senator from Louisiana.
Who else would do it except the Ad-
ministrator? But what would happen
under this kind of provision is that it
would give the Administrator the discre-
tion to sit down and negotiate such
things Certainly, if all of the research
funds are going to come from the Federal
Government, there will not be any nego-
tiations. It is all going to go to the Fed-
eral Government. That is all there is to
it. But, if there are very substantial
funds to be put up by the private con-
tractor, then this would give discretion
to negotiate a fair and equitable share.
I do not know why we should have so
much difficulty over this. I think it is a
fair amendment. It is certainly infi-
nitely more fair than the one that the
Senator has now offered.
I am trying to be helpful. I am not
trying to hinder anyone.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr Presi-
dent, if the Senator wants to help, he
would withdraw his amendment As
far as this Senator is concerned, I would
just as soon withdraw my amendment as
to have that amendment We would
have happen what happens when an ad-
ministrator is given discretion. That
happened when we gave discretion to the
Administrator in the Space Agency.
What happened? He just signed a paper
saying that it is all given away, without
taking a second look. And when we give
them discretion, sooner or later they will
get an administrator in there who will
find it easier to give everything away.
I would not be surprised if they do not
use pressure on the President to name
an administrator who would give it to
them.
Nobody has to take Federal money, but
if they do take the Federal money, they
are told of certain terms and conditions
with which they must comply.
When they passed the civil rights bill,
against which I voted, they did not say,
"Under section 6, because the Federal
Government is putting up half of the
money, or two-thirds of the money, if
you want some of the money, you must
integrate one-half or two-thirds, ac-
cording to the amount of money that is
being paid." The bill provides that if
the State wants the money, they must
comply with certain conditions. No one
is going to make us take the Federal
money. But, if we do take the Federal
money, we must comply, the same as all
of the other researchers are made to
comply with the law, which states that
[p. 1537]
the information will be freely available
for the use and benefit of 180 million
people.
I hope the Senator will withdraw his
amendment and vote against my amend-
ment so that his position will be clear.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I shall
be willing to withdraw my amendment if
the Senator from Louisiana is willing to
withdraw his amendment. But, his
amendment is what generated the whole
controversy. I shall be fair about this.
The Senator has a point. But he is going
too far. I think that the reference to the
Civil Rights Act is not at all analogous.
Under the Civil Rights Act, it was de-
termined by Congress that as a matter of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
693
public policy, if there is a project that is
tainted, then the whole project is tainted.
But, this is not the same situation that
we are talking about here.
The Senator's amendment is, in effect,
saying that because one-tenth or one-
third or one-half of the money is put up
by the Federal Government, therefore all
the results must go to the Federal Gov-
ernment. I do not think that is fair.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. MILLER I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Was this
amendment prepared by the legislative
counsel?
Mr. MILLER. This amendment was
prepared by a legislative counsel;
namely, myself, here on the floor.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. But it was
not done by the men we employ to do
that work. It was not done by the legis-
lative counsel.
Mr. MILLER. How much time did I
have to prepare it? I saw this amend-
ment for the first time only 30 minutes
ago.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Has the
Senator discussed his amendment with
any of the departments? Has he dis-
cussed it with the Department of the
Interior?
Mr. MILLER. I have not had any
more discussion with them than has the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I have dis-
cussed my amendment with those who
will have to administer it. The Senator
from Iowa offers his amendment when
he has not discussed it even with his own
legislative counsel and says this is what
I would like to have adopted, when he
does not know what will be the effect of
the amendment. The one I have offered
is one that the departments understand.
This is the one that every department
which would be handling this section
of the bill is familiar with. There is a
similar section of the law which the de-
partments are complying with now.
They advise that this is the way to do it.
The amendment of the Senator from
Iowa would do nothing but completely
confuse the matter and destroy the whole
purpose of the measure, and he offers it
on the floor at this time.
If he insists on having it voted on, we
can do it, but it is my judgment that
when the people of this country spend
the money for research, they should have
the benefits of it. I think we should vote
on that issue one way or the other.
Mr. MILLER. I hope we are not get-
ting ourselves into a position of deciding
the merits of an issue on tlie basis of
who drew the amendment or how little
time there was or when it was drawn.
Let us look at the merits of the proposed
legislation. I am not the only one who
has drafted amendments. The Senator
from Louisiana has. I guess every other
Senator has It would not have been
necessary if the Senator from Lou-
isiana's amendment had not suddenly
popped up on the floor with no copies
available for Senators to read. I am
trying to do the best I can under the cir-
cumstances. I am not trying to hurt the
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana. I am trying to do what is fair.
I think my concept of what is fair and
the Senator's concept of what is fair do
not coincide, but I am sure we are both
sincere.
Mr President, I move the adoption of
my amendment to the amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the ob-
jective of the bill is to create a great
cooperative effort among the Federal
Government and local governments and
private industry to clean up the streams
of America; and nothing should be put
in this bill which has a tendency, or
which could possibly have a tendency, to
defeat the objective of the bill, which is
to create a cooperative effort.
I feel that the amendment offered by
the able and distinguished junior Sena-
tor from Louisiana would have a tend-
ency to defeat the objective of the bill.
The amendment offered by the Senator
from Louisiana would properly fit a pro-
gram in which the Federal Government
-------
694
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
puts up all the money for research. But
it does not fit this particular bill, because
under the bill the Federal Government is
not to put up more than 50 percent of
the money for research. At least 50
percent of it is to be put up by local gov-
ernments and by private industry or
private individuals. To put such an
amendment in this bill, without any
more consideration than we are able to
give to it on the Senate floor and with-
out any more analysis than we are able
to make on the Senate floor as to the
effect of the amendment on the purpose
of this bill, would be a tragic mistake.
We have delayed too long already one
of the most important tasks which con-
front the American people, and that is
the removal of pollution from the
streams of this country.
Certainly it is not just, it is not fair,
for the Congress of the United States
to say to the States, to municipalities,
to private industry, and to private indi-
viduals that the Federal Government is
going to take all of the benefits of any
discoveries made in the course of carry-
ing out this cooperative program.
I do not know what effect the amend-
ment of the Senator from Louisiana
would have on this program, but I think
it might possibly have a disastrous effect.
Certainly, we should pass the bill in such
a form as will enlist the cooperation of
the States and local subdivisions of the
States and the private individuals and
industries who will have to put up at
least 50 percent of the cost of the
research.
Certainly, it would do no harm to pass
the bill m its present form—and it is
in excellent shape—and let the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Loui-
siana be studied by the appropriate
committee to see what its effect might
be, and to give all who are interested in
this matter an opportunity to be heard
by*the committee before such action as
this is taken. Surely the greatest de-
liberative body in the world ought not
to act on the spur of the moment, with-
out previous committee consideration
and without Senators even having copies
of the amendment to read with their
own eyes for the purpose of making an
analysis of it.
The amendment is appropriate in the
ealine water bill, because there the Fed-
eral Government puts up all the money.
It would undoubtedly fit some other
programs in which the Federal Govern-
ment puts up all the money. But it is
not only drawn for a program which
requires at least 50 percent of the money
for research projects to be put up by
States or local subdivisions of States or
private industry or individuals.
Let us not, in a moment of haste and
impatience, jeopardize not only the pas-
sage of a bill which is very meritorious,
but also jeopardize its possible efficacy
to perform the task for which it is
designed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
MILLER] to the amendment of the Sena-
tor from Louisiana [Mr. LONG].
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, the point has been made here that
this proposal has been brought up on
the floor by whim or caprice or without
study. The committee had 2 days to
work on the bill. The Interior and In-
sular Affairs Committee has handled
similar bills and studied the same pro-
posal. The Department which already
handles such matters is already bound
by the same language contained in the
amendment. The Senate has voted on
this question time and time again. It
has voted not to give away to a private
contractor the benefits of Federal
research money.
The Senator made the point that cit-
ies and counties will be contributing
money. If my amendment is not adopted,
we shall be opening the door to letting a
city take Federal money, do the research,
find a way to clean up sewage more
effectively than at present, and then be
able to deny to 180 million people the
benefit of that process for 17 long years
—deny it to the people who paid for that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
695
research with their own money.
Mr. President, it is inconceivable that
we would let that happen. I am re-
minded of Ogden Nash's poem that
"Rape is a crime unless you rape the
voters a million at a time."
It is proposed to give up the taxpay-
ers' money to a private contractor and
permit the contractor to say to a little
mayor: "Mr. Mayor, I was your best
campaign contributor. I put up half
your compaign money. But you have
the money around this contract drawn
up so that if I discover something,
whether it affects the cleaning up of
[p. 1538]
sewage or anything else, I get the bene-
fit of all of it, I can charge the public a
fortune for the 17 years and make a
million dollars, and no one can say any-
thing to me regarding the contract."
The Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS] has just informed me that
Chicago has developed the best method
yet devised for cleaning up sewage, and
that the city would be "tickled pink" if
everyone in America could have the
benefit of that method.
If Chicago is willing to do that, to
make its discoveries available to the
world, why should any other city wish
to take Federal money and give it to a
private contractor who could deny the
public the benefit of it?
Mr. President, I should like to ask for
the yeas and nays—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the amendment of the
Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] to the
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. LONG]. The amendment to the
amendment will be disposed of before
the Long amendment is voted on.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa to
the amendment of the Senator from
Louisiana.
The amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now recurs on the amendment
offered by the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. LONG],
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr ERVIN. Mr. President, I should
like to speak for approximately 1 minute.
I believe that one of the analyses
referred to in the bill is on page 5, lines
3 to 10 which provides:
There are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
196"). and for each of the next three succeed-
ing fiscal years, the sum of $20,090,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section Sums so appropriated
shall remain available until expended
I especially invite the attention of the
Senate to this part:
No grant shall be made for any project
in an amount exceeding 5 per centum of the
total amount authorized by this section in
any one fiscal year
It will therefore be a small amount of
money that the Federal Government will
contribute to each project Yet, we are
about to vote on an amendment to dis-
courage other people from participating
in a program which would require them
to put up the overwhelming bulk of the
money for each project.
.;> * * $• #
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. LANG]. The yeas and nays
have been ordered—
-•i« # * =;= *
The result was announced—yeas 50,
nays 28, as follows:
[p. 1539]
So the amendment of Mr. LONG of
Louisiana was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, on be-
half of myself and my colleague from
New York [Mr. KENNEDY], I send to the
desk amendment No. 4, and ask that it
be stated.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend-
ment will be stated.
-------
696
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment
be not read, but printed in the RECORD.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 5, beginning with line 11, strike
out all through line 17, and insert in lieu
thereof the following'
"SEC 4. (a) Subsections (b) and (c) of
the section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act herein redesignated as section
8 are amended to read as follows
"'(b) Federal grants under this section
shall be subject to the following limitations'
(1) No grant shall be made for any pioject
pursuant to this section unless such project
shall have been approved by the appropriate
State water pollution control agency or agen-
cies and by the Secretary and unless such
project is included in a comprehensive pro-
gram developed pursuant to this Act, (2) ao
grant shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 30 per centum of the esti-
mated reasonable cost thereof as detei mined
by the Secretary. Provided, That the giantee
agiees to pay the remaining cost Provided
further, That in the case of a pioject which
will serve more than one municipality the
Secretary shall, on such basis as he de-
termines to be reasonable and equitable,
allocate to each municipality to be served
by such project Its share of the estimated
reasonable cost of such project, and shall
then apply the limitation provided in this
clause (2) to each such share as if it were
a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made
under this section with respect to each such
share, (3) no grant shall be made for any
project under this section until the ap-
plicant 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 (4) no grant shall be made for
any project under this section unless such
project is in conformity with the State watei
pollution control plan submitted puisuant to
the provisions of section 7 and has been cer-
tified by the State water pollution control
agency (A) as entitled to priority over other
eligible projects on the basis of financial as
well as water pollution control needs, or (B)
for reimbursement pursuant to subsection
(c)
"'(c) In determining the desirability of
projects for treatment works and of approv-
ing Federal financial aid in connection there-
with, 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 rela-
tion 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 appropriated pursuant to
subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be
allotted by the Secretary from time to urne,
in accordance 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 urban population of each State bears i.o
the urban population of all the States.
Sums allotted to a State under the preced-
ing sentence 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 under subsection (b) (4) of this sec-
tion, shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on
such basis as he determines to be reasonable
and equitable and in accordance with regu-
lations promulgated by him, to States hav-
ing projects approved under this section for
which grants have not been made because of
lack of funds Provided, however, That
whenever a State has funds subject to re-
allocaticn and the Secretary finds that the
need for a project in a community in euch
State is due in part to any Federal institu-
tion or Federal construction activity, he may,
prior to such reallocation, make an addi-
tional grant with respect to such project
which will in his judgment reflect an equita-
ble contribution for the need caused by such
Federal institution or activity Any sum
made available to a State by reallotment un-
der 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 and third sentences
of this subsection shall be available, in ac-
cordance 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 proj-
ect constructed in such State after the date
of enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1964 which meets the requirements for assist-
ance under this section but was constructed
without such assistance, such allotments shall
also be available for payments in reimburse-
ment of State or local funds used for such
project to the extent that assistance could
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
697
have been provided undei this section if such
project had been approved pursuant to this
section and funds available For purposes
of this section, population, including urban
population, shall be determined on the basis
of the latest decennial census for which
figures are available, as certified by the
Secretary of Commerce '
"(b) Subsection (dl of such section 8 is
amended by striking out the colon pieceding
the word 'Provided' and all attci such colon
to the period at the end of such subsection "
Mr. JAVITS Mr. President, if Sena-
tors will give me their attention for a
moment, I shall explain the amendment
Mr. President, my amendment would:
First. Eliminate the existing limita-
tion of $600,000 for a single project or
$2.4 million for a joint project involving
several communities on grants for con-
struction of waste treatment facilities
It would also authorize an across-the-
board Federal contribution of 30 percent
of the cost of constructing these facili-
ties.
Second. Eliminate the existing re-
quirement that half of all construction
grant funds be used for municipalities
of 125,000 people or less.
Third. Establish a more meaningful
standard for the allocation of funds for
construction of sewage treatment facili-
ties in urban areas of need. The amend-
ment would set up a standard based on
the ratio of the urban population in one
State to the urban population in all
States, replacing the existing criterion
based on per capita income. Such a
standard would bring about a more
equitable distribution of funds to highly
populated areas where major water
pollution problems exist
Fourth. Authorize the Federal Gov-
ernment to subsequently reimburse
States and municipalities that have spent
their own funds for treatment facilities
when a Federal construction grant,
which has been approved, cannot be
immediately allocated because of inade-
quate Federal funds.
I point out that this proposed new
allocation standard is different from the
present law, which makes 50 percent
available on the basis of population ratio
and 50 percent available on the per
capita income ratio.
Mr. President, the reason for making
these proposals is as follows:
The primary problems in water pollu-
tion in the United States are in areas of
large concentrations of people. I under-
stand the normal feeling of the Congress
with respect to favoring the small places
and the places of sparser population.
But unfortunately that is not where the
major problems reside. As the dangers
of pollution exist far more pressingly in
centers of population than they do in
the less populated areas, it seems most
ill advised— and experience has demon-
strated it—to require mandatorily in the
law, first, a distribution of the funds
which does not bear a relation to the
concentration of the problem and the
need for Federal assistance, and sec-
ondly dollar limitations on individual
projects which limitations inhibit some
of the largest and most meaningful proj-
ects that could be undertaken m the
United States.
For example, my State of New York is
prepared to undertake a $1 billion pro-
gram, provided that certain limitations
are removed, so that the Federal Gov-
ernment may contribute a straight 30
percent share, which in round figures
would be approximately $513 million.
Therefore the amendment would be a
meaningful contribution to the overall
results which this bill, if enacted, could
bring about. Yet efforts like New York's
and those of many other States are in-
hibited by the restrictions which are
imposed by the dollar limitations incor-
porated in the existing Federal law, and
which prevent these States from shoot-
ing at the target, which is where the
water is polluted; namely, in heavily
populated areas.
A single pollution control project in
the city of New York has cost $87.6 mil-
lion. So we cannot even begin to think
about meaningful attacks on the prob-
lem within the limitations of the present
law.
[p 1540]
-------
698
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
However we may feel—and, as I have
said, I know the normal feeling which
generally obtains; some Senators wish
to be sure that the smaller communities
get their share—the fact is that on this
question we would not be hitting at the
complete problem.
I support the increase of the dollar
limitations in this bill. But more can be
done. Governor Rockefeller has pointed
out the enormous scale of works which
can be undertaken in our State if we are
enabled to do it by a law which really
directs itself at the fundamental target
which is involved.
I realize that the proposal represents
a very major and a very important ori-
entation of the impact of the bill. So
I have discussed the subject with the
distinguished Senator in charge of the
bill, and I hope very much that he will
give us assurances that the subject will
have the kind of detailed and earnest
consideration and hearings by his sub-
committee, within a very short time,
which this matter deserves, now that we
have brought the matter so sharply to
the attention of the Senate and the
country.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, speak-
ing for myself, and I believe for the
other members of the subcommittee on
both sides, we have assigned to the prob-
lem which the Senator has raised the
highest possible priority. We intend to
hold hearings during this session, and
early enough so that we can get into
thorough hearings on the question of the
adequacy of the limitation on individual
projects, on the allocations to the States,
and on the overall authorization. What
we are talking about, as I understand the
Senator, is not only the question of how
the present pie shall be divided, but how
can we get a bigger pie to assure that
we deal with the whole problem ade-
quately.
The problems include not only those
stated by the Senator, toward which I
have the utmost sympathy, but also the
problems related to the smaller com-
munities in the cost of the projects. For
example, sewers are not eligible at all.
Many times the cost of sewers is greater
than the cost of the sewage treatment
plant itself. The whole question of Fed-
eral aid in dealing with this problem
financially is pertinent. I assure the
Senator that I share with him the pro-
priety and urgency that he has, and will
press for early meetings. And I believe
I am in a position to assure him that we
will have such prompt hearings.
Mr. JAVITS. Is there any inhibition
—sometimes it is a kind of unwritten
rule which is understood—that the
pending legislation (S. 4) is the only
legislation that there will be in the anti-
water-pollution field at the present ses-
sion? Do we face any such inhibition,
or is the committee virtually free to do
whatever it, in its best judgment, deems
desirable to be done with respect to this
important program, notwithstanding the
fact that we are now about to enact a
set of amendments to the existing water
pollution control law?
Mr. MUSKIE. I cannot, of course,
speak for the attitude of the other body
or even the administration. The Senator
understands that. But so far as the
committee is concerned, the question is
one of the highest priority. When we
began hearings on S. 649, the present
fiscal authorization was only 2 years old.
So we had not had the experience to
justify attempting that problem when
we began.
The bill (S. 4) is merely a reintroduc-
tion of S 649 in the form that it took.
We are now in the 4th year of that
program. I think it is time that we
should get into the questions which the
Senator has raised. As the Senator
knows, we have progressively increased
the ceilings from $50,000 in the original
bill to $500,000 in the 1961 amendments,
and to $1 million in S. 4. Ten percent
incentive for metropolitan areas would
give an effective ceiling of $1.1 million,
and on combined projects, $1.4 million.
So I believe we have made a gesture in
S. 4 that should give relief.
For example, in New York, the in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
699
crease of $600,000 to the $1 million limit
would have brought 17 of New York's
projects up to the 30 percent ceiling if
those ceilings had been in effect when
application was made for assistance for
those projects. So this has a meaningful
relationship: but I believe we must open
up the whole question and come forth
with a meaningful answer. I assure the
Senator from New York of my coopera-
tion.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator
from Maine. As it is very clear to me
that this is an effective way to resolve
the question in terms of getting the most
mileage for the problems which our
State has, on the basis of these assur-
ances which the Senator from Maine has
so graciously given us, I withdraw the
amendment.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the
Senator from New York withdraw his
amendment-
Mr. JAVITS. I do.
[p.1541]
The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be
no further amendment to be offered, the
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, and was read a third
time.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, may I cay
that the proceedings of the past 20 min-
utes make it abundantly clear that we
need a more rigorous rule of germane-
ness in this Chamber than at present
Many Senators are sitting around, wait-
ing to go home. I have already missed
two airplanes, and I am about to miss a
third plane. The entire matter that has
been under discussion has had nothing
to do with the bill.
I would like to ask the Senator from
Maine a question which is pertinent to
the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should be glad to
answer it.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator knows that
one of the witnesses who appeared be-
fore the committee was Mr. James
Wright, executive director of the Dela-
ware River Basin Committee. Mr.
Wright requested the committee to in-
sert a provision in the bill to make it
clear that the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare was not authorized
to promulgate standards applicable
within a river basin which is under the
jurisdiction of a Federal-interstate
agency created by a compact to which
the United States is a signatory party
and vested with the authority to set and
enforce water quality standards for such
basin.
The proposed amendment appears on
page 90 of the hearings. Mr. Wright
gave four rather cogent reasons as to
why that amendment should be adopted.
The committee, in its wisdom, declined
to adopt that amendment. However, in
the report—and it appears on page 10—
the statement is made:
Where the Congress has established multi-
State compacts such as the Delaware River
Basin compact with authority to establish
standards of water quality it is not the intent
of the committee that the Secretary's au-
thority supplant that of the compact commis-
sion Rather the authority in this measure
to set standards should be held in reserve,
for use only if the commission fails in its
responsibilities.
I ask the Senator from Maine whether
it is not clear, and can we not make it
p. 1542]
clear as a matter of legislative history,
that the Interstate-Federal Delaware
River Basin Commission, created pursu-
ant to an interstate compact, in which
the four States of New York, New Jer-
sey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware joined,
be free under this act, as it was before,
to move ahead with all the authority
given it by the interstate compact, to set
its own standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CLARK. May I ask also whether
the only way in which the bill would
affect that authority would be if, in the
opinion of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, the Delaware River
Basin Commission was derelict in its
-------
700
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
duties in setting standards, then the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare
could, under this bill, move in and set
his own standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the Dela-
ware River Basin Commission serves the
Department of the Interior of the Fed-
eral Government. I wonder whether the
Senator would take any exception to my
comment that it would be an unusual
case in which the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare would intervene
to supersede the Secretary of the In-
terior, representing the Federal Gov-
ernment, or an interstate commission,
unless the State members of that com-
mission had gone against the strong de-
sires of the Secretary of the Interior?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think it is a fair com-
ment. I think it •would be useful also for
me to say that throughout S. 4, as in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
there is a clear intention that primary
responsibility for dealing with the prob-
lem shall rest at the State and local level,
and that the purpose of the bill is to
provide incentive, proper safeguards,
and protection, and to stimulate action
in this field, so that agencies, like the
Chesapeake Bay Agency, are clearly
vested with the primary and fixed re-
sponsibility of exercising initiative in
this field.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, there is
no intention to have the Federal Gov-
ernment, acting through the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, su-
persede the existing State and Federal
agency, created by Congress.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I want
to pose a question of the Senator from
Maine, concerning the thoughts ex-
pressed by the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania.
I am sure the Senators from West Vir-
ginia and Virginia and all the States in
the Ohio River sanitation compact are
interested in what the answer of the
Senator from Maine will be to my ques-
tion. The signatories to the Ohio River
sanitation compact are all of the States
in the Ohio River Basin. The U.S.
Government is also a signatory. That
sanitation compact has done an ex-
traordinary job in eliminating pollution
ID the basin.
Following the thought expressed by
the Senator from Pennsylvania, my
question is, Will the Ohio Valley sanita-
tion compact be permitted to go forward
with the elimination of the problem that
is involved in the bill pending before
the Senate without interruption from
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare except when the compact sig-
natories fail to perform their duty?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is my under-
standing.
Mr. LAUSCHE And is the answer of
the Senator from Maine to my question
identical with the answer given to the
Senator from Pennsylvania?
Mr. MUSKIE. The only reservation I
make is that I do not know the charter
of the Ohio River Basin compact, but
if the situation is the same, the answer
is the same.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I assume, considering
the State involved, the purpose is the
same—to create an agency dealing with
waters that cross state lines. It is that
individual States having no jurisdiction
over the waters that are beyond the
State lines may create a regional
compact.
Mr MUSKIE Yes.
Mr. HRUSKA Mr President, the
Department of Health of the State of
Nebraska sent me a copy of a letter dated
January 20, 1955, addressed to the Hon-
orable EDMUND S. MUSKIE, chairman of
the Special Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, and signed by Dr. E. A.
Rogers, director of health, in which it is
stated that the board is unanimously
opposed to S. 4.
I ask unanimous consent that the let-
ter be inserted at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
701
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, it is
my intention to vote against this bill,
not only for the reasons expressed so
well in the letter, but also because of the
fact that the Cooper amendment was
rejected by the Senate, which is highly
essential to a meaningful and wise bill.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Lincoln, Nebr , January 20, 196~>.
Hon EDMUND S MUSKIE,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Air fmd
Water Pollution, U S Senate, Washing-
ton, D C,
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE Information has
been submitted to us that you and several
of your associates have introduced a water
pollution bill identified as S. 4, similar to the
bill S 649 of the last Congress
The water pollution control program in
Nebraska is proceeding at a favorable late,
and is meeting current conditions lo Ihe
satisfaction of both water users and those
persons who are abating pollution by the
construction of waste water treating plants
to serve municipal and industrial wastes At
the present time there are approximately 30
sewer outlets that are discharging into Ne-
braska waters without treatment, and we
have assurance from the municipal officials
of these communities that they will attempt
to meet our target date of July 1, 1966, at
which time all "wastes will be treated
At the same time we have enjoyed a pleas-
ant relationship with industry in the tieat-
ment of their wastes to such degree that no
major source of industrial waste is now being
discharged without treatment
We aie, therefore, fearful of any changes
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
that will change the program that is so well
known to Nebraska citizens, and that is
progressing in a satisfactory manner
Wre are especially concerned over the crea-
tion of a Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration which will administer com-
prehensive programs, interstate cooperation
and uniform laws, enforcement measures, and
pollution from Federal Installations We
realize that these are all important sections
of the Water Pollution Control Act, but we
are of the opinion that the progress that we
have made in the last several years is justi-
fication for maintaining the current program,
and that any changes will, of course, create
new methods of administration, a loss of
communication between the various mu-
nicipalities, industries, and State and Fed-
eral regulatory agencies, and even set up
different means of procedures, all of which
will tend to delay the ultimate goal of stream
pollution abatement
The Nebraska Water Pollution Control
Council has adopted water quality stand-
ards, a copy of which is enclosed These
[p. 1543]
standards are being used continuously, are
accepted, and, again, we are fearful that if
Federal water quality standards are set up
which might be inconsistent with our State
standards, a delay during debate and
explanation will ensue.
The Nebraska State Board of Health, at its
January 18 meeting, considered the new
water pollution bill and is of the opinion
that the operations of Public Law 360, with
its amendments, has been a great benefit to
Nebraska citizens in the various details of
administration, especially the Federal grants
to municipalities
The board is unanimously opposed to the
creation of a new Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, and the pieparation
and adoption of regulations on standards of
water quality, interstate streams, or portions
thereof
Yours truly,
E A ROGERS, M D . M P H ,
Director of Health,
Secretary to the Board
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr President, no
Member of this body is more interested
in clear water, either from the stand-
point of health or recreation, than is the
Senator from Virginia. No one has been
more active in that field Over 40 years
ago I organized an anti-water pollution
commission to try to clean up the
streams in the State, but I think this
effort should be controlled by the States.
I supported the Ohio Valley Compact,
but that was under our control I have
supported research. I would gladly vote
for the bill if it provided for research
and for advice of Federal officials, but I
would not want them to be able to put
a small town out of "business" because
it had a papermill located there or be-
cause they were not satisfied with what
they were doing. If we had adopted the
TOWER amendment, Federal officials
could give research and advice, but the
final action would be for the States, and
I would have voted for the bill. But I
am not voting to put Virginia under
direct Federal control
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am de-
-------
702
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lighted by the speed with which the
Senate Public Works Committee has
acted in reporting S. 4, the water pollu-
tion control bill.
The Senate passed essentially this
same measure in 1963 by a vote of 69 to
11, but the bill died in the House when
Congress adjourned last October.
Since water pollution is of increasing
rather than diminishing national con-
cern, I hope that we will now see prompt
action by both Houses in rising to meet
this problem head on.
No nation has ever risen to promi-
nence, ever built a complex agricultural
and industrial economy, or ever ade-
quately fed its people without a plenti-
ful supply of water. Indeed, wars have
even been fought over this most precious
of our natural resources.
Our country has been generously en-
dowed with great rivers, lakes, streams,
harbors, and a plentiful rainfall. Yet
today we are faced with a serious crisis
in regard to our water supply.
The problem itself is essentially a sim-
ple one: while our water supply remains
basically constant, our needs and de-
mands are increasing very rapidly year
by year. It is estimated that in the near
future our daily industrial, domestic,
and other needs will exceed the greatest
amount of water we can ever hope to
make available through modern engi-
neering and technology. This neces-
sarily means that we must be able to use
each gallon of water more than once.
The present efforts to develop an effec-
tive and efficient means of desalinating
sea water also point to the fact that in
the future we must be able to turn to
an additional source of supply.
While this constructive work is under-
way, the supply of water on which we
now rely has become subject to many
varied and serious forms of pollution.
Municipal and industrial organic wastes,
pesticides and toxic chemicals, infectious
agents, sediments, and radioactive pol-
lution are being discharged into our
waterways. These contaminants reduce
the quality of our water, making it often
unsuitable for reuse, and create a nui-
sance and a menace to health.
We now recognize water pollution as
a serious national problem and have in-
stituted programs of prevention and con-
trol. The 1956 Water Pollution Control
Act and the 1981 amendments have
given important impetus to action by all
levels of government, and to cooperation
between communities, States, and the
Federal Government to combat pollution.
Nonetheless, in looking at our water-
ways across the country, it is evident
that our efforts have not kept pace with
the growing pollution problem.
One does not have to venture far here
in Washington to find visible evidence
o£ this. The beautiful Potomac River,
winding through some of the most scenic
countryside in the Nation, presents one
of our most shameful and serious ex-
amples of this problem.
My own State of Connecticut has
scenic lakes and rivers which are an
integral and necessary part of our in-
dustrial complex. But here too we are
plagued by pollution problems, even
though programs ot prevention and con-
trol have been established and in opera-
tion for some time.
Many people write to me about this,
and I often see similar pleas in letters
to the editors of our many newspapers—
"Please do something to help clean up
our rivers and streams and stop this
shameful waste."
Pollution affects industry, urban and
rural residential areas, sports and rec-
reation areas, and the health and beauty
of the Nation. It is imperative that
greater steps be taken to expand the
existing pollution control program and
to prevent further contamination.
There are these three main aspects of
pollution control which must be given
serious nationwide attention. We need,
first, more funds for the construction of
new waste treatment facilities and the
modernization of old systems; second,
more intensive research into the effec-
tive treatment of new contaminants,
those undesirable byproducts of our con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
703
tinuing technical progress; and, third,
more effective administration and appli-
cation of enforcement programs to con-
trol pollution.
This bill now before us would create a
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, thus
providing a broader base and a national
scope to the pollution control problem.
It would increase the Federal grants
for research and development of new
sewage treatment facilities, and increase
the construction grants to individuals
and municipal areas. These additional
funds would provide the necessary stim-
ulus for more intensive efforts by busi-
nesses, individuals, and State and local
governments in coping with the problem.
The bill would also provide proce-
dures for establishing quality standards
for interstate waters, and would author-
ize certain abatement action when the
shellfish industry suffers economic in-
jury due to water pollution.
The water pollution problem, in the
last analysis, must be dealt with locally.
But it is evident that the seriousness of
the situation and the size and expense of
the project ahead demand national at-
tention. The Federal Government must
expand its efforts, must bear a greater
portion of the costs than before, and
must be in a position to coordinate all
of the work and research in this area.
This bill before us today is one of the
most important and far reaching water
pollution proposals ever considered by
Congress.
I hope and expect that it will receive
overwhelming approval by the Senate,
and that through greater authority for
the Federal Government to set and
enforce standards, through increased
grants and assistance, and through con-
tinued and improved local, State, and
Federal cooperation we will be able to
combat more successfully water pollu-
tion and assure this country an ample
supply of clean water for the future.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
* # # •.- *
[p. 1544]
The result was announced—yeas 68,
nays 8, " * *.
So the bill (S. 4) was passed.
[p.1545]
1.2h(4)(b) April 28: Considered and Passed House, Amended, pp.
8652-8690, 8736-8737
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 339 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
H RES 339
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (S 4) co
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, to establish the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and development,
to increase grants for construction of mu-
nicipal sewage treatment works, to authorize
the establishment of standards of water
quality to aid in preventing, controlling, and
abating pollution of interstate waters, and
for other purposes After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and shall
continue not to exceed two hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the chair-
man 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 with-
out the intervention of any point of order
the substitute amendment recommended by
the Committee on Public Works now in the
bill and such substitute for the purpose of
amendment shall be considered under the
-------
704
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or committee sub-
stitute. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without in-
tervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks and include extraneous
matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 339 provides for considera-
tion of S. 4, a bill to amend and expand
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
It would establish the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and develop-
ment, to increase grants for construction
of municipal sewage treatment works, to
authorize the establishment of stand-
ards of water quality to aid in prevent-
ing, controlling, and abating pollution
of interstate waters, and for other pur-
poses. The resolution provides an open
rule, waiving points of order, with 2
hours of debate, making it in order to
consider the substitute now in the bill.
No more important single problem
faces this country today than the prob-
lem of good water. Water is our great-
est single natural resource. The issue
of pure water must be settled now for
the benefit not only of this generation
but for untold generations to come. The
need for good quality water for all of
our Nation's uses—public and private—
is a paramount one.
The Calumet industrial region of In-
diana comprises the First Congressional
District which I represent in Congress.
It is the No. 1 congressional district in
the United States in relation to indus-
trial concentration in the Gary, Ham-
mond, East Chicago, Whiting area. Three
major steel mills; Carnegie Illinois, In-
land, Youngstown, and a number of
smaller steel and smelter plants along
with refineries of all major oil com-
panies, and several hundred other large
and small industries are located in this
area. During the last quarter of a cen-
tury these industries have expanded
many times in production capacity. The
major pollution to lakes and streams
and especially beautiful Lake Michigan
comes from the industrial waste from
these plants.
[p. 8652]
Adjoining the Calumet region on the
north is the large industrial complex of
the city of Chicago and the same state-
ment can be made regarding the pollu-
tion and waste expulsion into the wa-
ters of Lake Michigan as exists across
the State line in Indiana
The Hammond, Ind., Times reported
recently a speech made by Richard
Woodley of the Indiana State Board of
Health. Mr. Woodley declared:
The people are fed up with pollution and
they "want something done about it right
away regardless if the action is local, State,
or Federal
Mi. Woodley is chief of the industrial
waste section of the Indiana Board of
Health
As examples of the heavy concentra-
tion of pollution in the area waterways,
Woodley reported outfalls were detected
on a daily basis in these amounts: Oil,
108,000 pounds per day of which steel
industries were responsible for 90 per-
cent and the oil refineries the remaining
10 percent; ammonia, 500,000 pounds;
phenols, 5,000 pounds; cyanides, 3,000
pounds.
These examples show why there is a
large-scale effort underway to halt
pollution.
The drinking water supply for approx-
imately 600,000 people in the Calumet
region and millions in the Chicago area
is taken out of the waters of Lake Michi-
gan adjacent to the shores from which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
705
this great industrial concentration is
daily pouring industrial waste and other
contaminating pollution into Lake Mich-
igan. The health of approximately 7
million people in the Chicagoland and
Indiana area is jeopardized and threat-
ened by this inexcusable pollution into
the formerly pure waters of Lake Michi-
gan. Inland lakes and streams not only
in this area but throughout Indiana,
Illinois, and other States m the Union
have already been contaminated by
Government indifference toward enact-
ing legislation to halt this health hazard
to millions of our citizens.
The New York Times of April 18 had
an extended three-page comment in its
magazine section regarding the Raritan
River in New Jersey. The Raritan River
at the turn of the century was known as
the "Queen of Rivers" with pure flowing
waters coming from the mountains and
hills without the least bit of contamina-
tion. An English poet, John Davis,
described this river in the past century
as the "queen of rivers." The article
continued in stating that in the 1920's
with the heavy concentration of indus-
try and its depositing of waste and pol-
lution from the towns and cities along
its 100-mile shoreline, it became known
as the ''queen of sewers "
During the last 6 or 7 years, industries
along this formerly "queen of rivers"
have joined together in an effort to curb
industrial waste from being deposited in
the Raritan River. Great success has
been accomplished by reason of the
installation by these industries of mod-
ern methods to dispose of waste prod-
ucts and the river is gradually being
restored to its former natural beauty
and cleanliness.
The article further states that a com-
plete recovery cannot be made until
effective laws are passed to eliminate
waste products from all industries along
its borders, and it will, in a few years be
restored to its title as "Queen of Rivers"
with swimming, bathing, fishing, boat-
ing, and all the outdoor pleasures which
its adjoining population took such de-
light and satisfaction in former years.
This Congress has made wonderful
progress in legislation for the interest of
millions of Americans so far this session.
One of the real problems to be solved
pertaining to the Nation's health is in-
volved in this legislation pertaining to
water pollution which we are consider-
ing today. It involves the health and
welfare of every citizen in the United
States regardless of whether he lives in
an area that is a victim of pollution or
out in the wide and open spaces where
heavy concentration of industry is not
a threat to outdoor recreations, and the
welfare of wildlife, and enjoyment of
which millions of our citizens have been
deprived.
It has been nearly 9 years since the
Congress, with the enactment of Public
Law 660, 84th Congress, established the
first permanent national program for a
comprehensive attack on water pollu-
tion. The Federal role was fixed as on=
of support for the activities of the States,
interstate agencies, and localities. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
authorized financial assistance for con-
struction of municipal waste-treatmeni
works, comprehensive river basin pro-
grams for water pollution control, re-
search, and enforcement. It provided,
too, for technical assistance, the encour-
agement of interstate compacts and
uniform State laws, grants for State pro-
grams, the appointment of a Federal
Water Pollution Control Advisory Boaru
and a cooperative program for the con-
trol of pollution from Federal installa-
tions.
The impact of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act has been impres-
sive It has taken us in less than 9 years
from a situation in which untrammeled
pollution threatened to foul the Nation's
waterways beyond hope of restoration,
to a point where we are holding our own.
But that is not enough. The unprece-
dented and continuing population and
economic growth are imposing ever-in-
creasing demands upon our available
water supplies. The accompanying
-------
706
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
trends toward increased urbanization
and marked rapid technological change
create new and complex water quality
problems further diminishing the avail-
able supplies. S. 4 is a further and nec-
essary step in continuing efforts to bring
about proper water pollution control and
a full upgrading of the water quality of
our streams, rivers, and lakes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 339.
Mr. Speaker, under unanimous con-
sent, I incorporate with my remarks
excerpts from the April 15 edition of the
Chicago Tribune on the meeting of 68
industrialists, sanitation experts, and
Federal and State officials meeting in
Chicago, 111., March 2-9, to discuss Lake
Michigan pollution:
Sixty-eight industrialists, sanitation ex-
perts, and officials of the Federal Govern-
ment, and of Illinois and Indiana State and
local governments, met from March 2 to 3 in
Chicago to discuss ways to end the pollution
DANGER TO HEALTH
Celebrezze called the conference after de-
termining that polluted water at the lower
end of the lake and the streams feeding it
"endangered health and welfare" in both
Illinois and Indiana
Celebreeze said the pollution of the inter-
state waters of the Grand Calumet River,
Little Calumet River, Calumet River, Wolf
Lake, and Lake Michigan was "caused by
discharges of untreated and inadequately
treated sewage and industrial wastes "
Celebreeze and his staff had found that the
polluted water from the heavily industrial-
ized south end of the lake had crept dan-
gerously close to the intake cribs of the
Chicago water system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. MADDEN] has explained
House Resolution 339 makes in order
the consideration of S. 4, as amended by
the House Committee on Public Works,
under 2 hours of general debate, an
open rule, subject of course to amend-
ments under the 5-minute rule and the
full consideration of the House of Rep-
resentatives.
Mr. Speaker, I have studied this leg-
islation carefully as possible both as a
member of the Committee on Rules and
in my capacity as a House Member in-
terested in the welfare of my own State.
Mr. Speaker, I have had considerable
correspondence with reference to this
legislation. I am convinced that the
House Committee on Public Works has
done a splendid job in rewriting S. 4, and
that is exactly what has been done. The
bill has been rewritten and greatly
amended.
The bill itself would change the name
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to that of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration. It would
further provide grants for research
and development, increase grants for
construction and necessary treatment
works, authorize the establishment of
standards of water quality, and aid in
preventing, controlling and abating pol-
lution of interstate waters, and for other
purposes.
The great difference between the
House and Senate versions of this par-
ticular bill is that the House Committee
bill now before us—that is, amended S.
4—provides that the standards for water
quality shall be fixed by the local com-
munities, working with the State, rather
than by a Federal authority having
jurisdiction over the entire country.
That seems to be a very, very important
difference, because it does keep control
of the standards of water purity and
water quality within the hands of the
people who are the most interested, those
in each locality, in each watershed.
I want to point out also, that this bill
will provide for an increase of $50 mil-
lion a year in the authorizations for the
amount that can be appropriated for the
purpose of making grants, gifts if you
please, to different localities and their
State system for sewage disposal plants,
[p. 8653]
for the elimination of sewage waste and
for the purification of the streams and
rivers affected. That money would have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
707
to be matched by State or local authori-
ties. In other words, while the Federal
Government would put up $50 million,
under the provisions of this bill, the
States or the local communities would
have to put up a like amount, so that
there will be not only a local interest but
a local investment in any project of this
sort.
Of all the legislation I have seen
brought to the floor of the House in re-
cent months, this bill is probably the best
thought-out and best prepared measure
I have seen, and I want to take this
means of publicly commending and con-
gratulating the House Committee on
Public Works for the accomplishments
it brings before the House this afternoon
for consideration.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (S. 4) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and devel-
opment, to increase grants for construc-
tion of municipal sewage treatment
works, to authorize the establishment of
standards of water quality to aid in
preventing, controlling, and abating pol-
lution of interstate waters, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill S. 4, 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.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it was from this com-
mittee, the House Committee on Public
Works, that the first substantial legis-
lation involving water pollution control
originated back in 1956, and one of the
foremost leaders and sponsors of that
legislation is now the distinguished
chairman of our subcommittee, the dis-
tinguished, able and respected gentle-
mar from Maryland [Mr. FALLON].
I yield such time as he may desire to
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
FALLON].
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, no
more important single problem faces this
country today than the problem of good
water. Water is our greatest single
natural resource. The need for good
quality water for all our Nation's uses
—public and private—is a paramount
one.
The Committee on Public Works has
been fully aware of this basic problem
and from the committee came the first
Federal legislation that brought into full
focus the problem of water pollution
control and water quality. The bill, S.
4, which the House will consider today,
is one more step the committee believes
in the continuing efforts to solve the
great problem of water pollution and to
provide for the use of good water.
It has been nearly 9 years since the
Congress with the enactment of Public
Law 660 in the 84th Congress established
the first permanent national program for
a comprehensive attack on water pol-
lution. The opening phase of this pro-
gram saw the Federal role of providing
Federal assistance to local communities
for the construction of sewage treatment
plants. Since that time there have been
further basic changes in the Water Pol-
lution Control Act. At the present time
the Federal Government is active in
offering its good services in an effort to
.bring about proper control of those who
would pollute our Nation's waters.
-------
708
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
This program has proved to be a most
effective one. Many miles of streams,
rivers, and lakes of our Nation are now
free from pollution as a result of the
Federal assistance given during the last
9 years. Much more needs to be done.
Much more will be done because I be-
lieve that we must find the means to
fully and properly use our great God-
given asset—the waters of this earth.
Water is industry's most valuable raw
material and for our population growth,
and by 1980 it will require twice as much
as today. Water recreation has grown
enormously during recent years as the
leisure time and income of the American
people has increased. They need this
recreation outlet, yet each year more
bathing beaches and water sports areas
are closed because of pollution. The
story is the same with sports fishing.
Each year the number of pollution -
caused fish kills grows higher.
There can be only one conclusion.
This Nation is faced with a very critical
problem of water pollution. You see it
reflected in your daily newspapers, in
your daily work, in your home districts,
and here at the doorstep of the Nation's
Capital.
S. 4 is, as I have said before, one more
step along the way to the final solution
to this great national problem. I trust
this bill will pass and that we will con-
tinue to fight vigorously on all levels of
government and in all fields of national
endeavor both public and private until
we have fully solved this problem.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALLON. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I merely want to
express my personal appreciation for the
very solid and thought-provoking analy-
sis of the basic problem which confronts
us in this field. I compliment the gen-
tleman from Maryland who in his quiet
but typically competent manner has
brought to the floor of this House a bill
which does represent very solid progress
in an hour of great need.
I am pleased to be associated with the
gentleman as a member of the commit-
tee which brought forth this bill.
Mr. FALLON. I thank the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act became permanent
law in 1956, bringing the U.S. Govern-
ment into full partnership with the
States and localities in a great national
enterprise—the prevention, control, and
abatement of pollution of the waters of
the Nation. The law was strengthened
5 years later with the enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1961. To make the act
a more effective instrument through
which to stop the issue of pollution into
the waters of America, to save clean wa-
ters from degradation, and to enhance
the quality of waters already defiled is
the purpose of the bill which we consider
today.
S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965,
comes before the House of Representa-
tives with the unanimous favorable re-
port of the Committee on Public Works.
The bill is the product of careful com-
mittee consideration We held 3 days of
public hearings in February of this year,
and had the benefit of the record of 12
days of public hearings on similar legis-
lation in the 88th Congress. The testi-
mony of witnesses presenting different
viewpoints assisted us in our delibera-
tions. The statements of Members of
Congress, administration spokesmen,
State, interstate, and municipal officials,
conservationists, long the staunch advo-
cates of clean water, civic organizations,
industry, and other interests are on the
record. S 4 was introduced in the
other body by the Senator from Maine,
Mr. MUSKIE, for himself and 31 other
Senators, and under his able floor man-
agement, passed that House on January
28 by a roll-call vote of 68 to 8.
The committee amendments to S. 4
were approved after thorough consid-
eration. The active interest of the chair-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
709
man of the committee, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], the dili-
gence of members of the committee of
both parties, and the support of many
colleagues who joined me in introducing
the legislation in the House, have been
of immeasurable assistance in the devel-
opment of the sound bill which we have
reported. A little later in these remarks
I will review the provisions of the bill
and briefly discuss the principal commit-
tee amendments.
The quality of water and the quantity
of water are closely intertwined. Be-
tween 1900 and 1945 total water use in
the United States more than quadrupled
from 40.19 billion gallons a day to 170.46
billion gallons a day. Between 1945 and
1962 it doubled again, to 343.42 billion
gallons a day. The population nearly
doubled from 76,094,000 in 1900 to 140,-
468,000 in 1945, and grew to 186,656,000
in 1962. On the basis of population
growth and industrial production esti-
mates, the Department of Commerce
forecasts total water use in 1985 at 371.7
billion gallons a day, in 1970 at 411.2
[p. 8654]
billion gallons a day, in 1975 at 449 7 bil-
lion gallons a day, and in 1980 at 494.1
billion gallons a day. A higher figure
for 1980, 597.1 billion gallons a day, has
wide acceptance, and experts talk of the
possibility that by the year 2000, total
water use in the country may reach
1,000 billion gallons a day. Our depend-
able supply of fresh water is about 315
billions gallons a day, which we expect
can be increased to 515 billion gallons
a day by 1980, and to 650 billion gallons
a day by the year 2000 through water
resources development projects. Let us
do some simple arithmetic, and we will
see that a water deficit of serious pro-
portions is in prospect, 85 billion gal-
lons a day short in 15 years, 350 billion
gallons a day short in just 35 years Are
we going to run out of water? It is
unthinkable that we should allow such a
calamity to happen. The prospect of a
scientific breakthrough which will make
the large-scale conversion of salt water
to fresh water at a reasonable cost ex-
cites the imagination. There is another
course, less dramatic, which we must ex-
ploit to the fullest. That course is the
control of pollution, so that water can
be used and reused for all legitimate pur-
poses—for drinking water and multiple
domestic uses, for fish and wildlife prop-
agation, for water-centered recreation
such as swimming, boating, water skiing,
and sport fishing, for agriculture, for in-
dustry, navigation and power, and for
the enjoyment beyond estimation of the
sight of a sparkling lake or bay or river.
Now is the time to escalate the war
against pollution. When we enacted the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act not
quite 9 years ago, rampant pollution pre-
vailed in many parts of the United
States. The act authorized a multi-
pronged attack on the fouling of the
Nation's waters—grants for the con-
struction of municipal waste treatment
works, comprehensive river basin pro-
grams for water pollution control, re-
search, and enforcement Technical as-
sistance, the encouragement of interstate
compacts and uniform State laws, grants
for State programs, the creation of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Advis-
ory Board, and a cooperative program for
the control of pollution from Federal in-
stallations have been other components
of the national program.
Progress under the act has been im-
pressive. We have established a beach-
head, but there is many a battle to be
won As we have moved against pol-
lution, the enemy has been aided by
reinforcements—population growth, ur-
banization, industrial growth, new tech-
nology, and the effects on water use of a
higher standard of living Every major
river system in the country is polluted.
Pollution has not spared the Great Lakes,
the largest fresh water source in the
world. Lake Erie, the shallowest of the
five, is so degraded that an enormous
and costly effort will be required to re-
store the quality of its waters.
S. 4, as reported from the House Com-
-------
710
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mittee on Public Works, is a strong
practical approach to water pollution
control. Its provisions are well consid-
ered. Their implementation will have a
decided impact on the nationwide cam-
paign for clean water.
First. The bill adds to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act a positive
statement of its purpose 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.
Second. It gives the national water
pollution control program an adminis-
trative placement commensurate with its
importance through the creation within
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration, elevating
the program from its present division
status within the Public Health Service.
The Secretary is to administer the act
through the Administration, and with
the assistance of an Assistant Secretary,
is to supervise and direct the head of the
new Administration, and the administra-
tion of all other Department functions
relating to water pollution. A new posi-
tion of Assistant Secretary is created.
The Secretary is to designate the Assist-
ant Secretary who shall assist him in the
area of water pollution and to prescribe
what additional functions he shall per-
form. Commissioned officers of the Pub-
lic Health Service now assigned to the
program may be transferred to civil serv-
ice status with the Administration on
their own volition and without loss of
their rights and benefits.
Third. The bill authorizes a 4-year
program of grants to develop projects
which will demonstrate new or improved
methods of controlling waste discharges
from storm sewers or combined storm
and sanitary sewers. This is a complex
pollution problem which has plagued
particularly the older cities of the coun-
try. The new program, to begin in the
current fiscal year, is authorized at an
annual level of $20 million. Federal
grants will be limited to 50 percent of the
estimated reasonable project cost, and
no one grant may receive more than 5
percent of the total amount authorized
in any one fiscal year. Contract author-
ity may be used for the program's pur-
poses, with up to 25 percent of the total
amount appropriated for any fiscal year
authorized to be expended by contract
during this fiscal year.
Fourth. The bill doubles the dollar
limitations on grants for waste treatment
works construction from $600,000 to $1.2
million for a single project, and from
$2.4 million to $4.8 million for a joint
project serving two or more communities.
The present 30 percent of project
cost limitation on grants in existing law
is not affected. For fiscal years 1966 and
1987, the 2 years remaining before the
present authorization expires, the au-
thorized annual appropriations will be
increased from $100 million to $150 mil-
lion. The first $100 million will be al-
located to the States on the basis of 50
percent population and 50 percent per
capita income, as existing law provides.
Amounts appropriated in excess of $100
million will be allocated on a straight
population basis. The requirement that
at least one-half of the funds appropri-
ated for each fiscal year must be used
for grants to projects serving munici-
palities of not more than 125,000 popu-
lation will apply to the first $100 million,
but will not apply to the additional
amounts appropriated. Further, if the
State matches the full Federal contribu-
tion made to all projects assisted from
the additional allotment, grants from
that allotment may be made up to the full
30 percent of project cost, without re-
gard to the dollar ceilings. To encourage
the orderly development of metropolitan
areas, the bill authorizes the Secretary to
increase the amount of a grant by 10
parcent, if the project is in conformity
with a comprehensive metropolitan area
plan.
Fifth The bill requires that in order
to receive any funds under the act, each
State must file with the Secretary within
90 days after the bill's enactment, a let-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
711
ter of intent that the State will estab-
lish water quality criteria applicable to
interstate waters not later than June 30,
1967.
Sixth. The bill requires the Secretary
to invoke the enforcement authority in
certain circumstances to abate pollution
which results in substantial economic
injury from the inability to market shell-
fish or shellfish products in interstate
commerce.
Seventh. The bill strengthens the en-
forcement authority by empowering the
secretary or his designee, at the public
hearing stage of an enforcement action,
to administer oaths, to subpena wit-
nesses and testimony and the production
of evidence relating to any matter under
investigation at the public hearing. The
subpena power does not extend to trade
secrets or secret processes. Jurisdiction
for obtaining compliance is vested in the
U.S. district courts.
Eighth. The bill clarifies the authority
and functions of the Secretary of Labor
respecting the labor standards applica-
ble to the act It requires accountability
for financial assistance given under the
act in accordance with acceptable audit
and examination practices.
Let me discuss some of the provisions
of S. 4 a little more fully and point out
the principal committee amendments to
the bill.
S. 4, as reported, transfers the entire
water pollution control program to the
new administration. As passed by the
other body, the bill requires the transfer
of only selected functions. The impor-
tance of the total program and the inter-
dependence of its parts indicate that it
should be elevated intact to the higher
organizational status, which is compara-
ble to that occupied by other major Fed-
eral water resources activities. The 1981
amendments to the act vested in the
secretary, rather than the Surgeon Gen-
eral, responsibility for the administra-
tion of the act. It was our intention at
that time that it should be upgraded.
In the interests of stronger administra-
tion, and more ready public identifi-
cation, there should be no further delay
in the establishment of the new admin-
istration.
Statutory responsibility for the ad-
ministration of the act will remain in
the secretary. He will administer the
[p. 8655]
act with the assistance of the assistant
secretary of his designation and through
the administration. He will appoint and
fix the salary of the administrator, who
will be in a civil service status.
Water pollution control, as an integral
part of water resources management,
will no longer be conducted within the
service concerned with the public health
of the Nation. Health remains an im-
portant consideration, and the commit-
tee has provided that the administrator
shall consult with the Surgeon General
on public health aspects of the program.
We have provided for the voluntary
transfer to civil service status of com-
missioned officers now working in the
program, with protection of their rights
and benefits. Of the 4,900 commissioned
officers under the jurisdiction of the
Surgeon General, 373 would be eligible
for transfer. To insure their retirement
rights, a maximum of $1,850,000 will be
paid into the civil service retirement
fund.
I do not wish to depart from this sub-
ject without paying tribute to the dedi-
cated staff of the Federal water pollution
control program in the Public Health
Service, which has served so well during
the important development years of the
program. The new administration, to
be established because of the importance
of the work in which they have been en-
gaged, is a recognition of their efforts.
The new 4-year program of research
and development grants which is author-
ized by S 4 will assist in the exploration
of better methods of coping with the
difficult pollution problem of the over-
flow from combined storm and sanitary
sewers. Approximately 60 million people
in some 2,000 communities are served by
combined sewers and combinations of
-------
712
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
combined and separate sewer systems.
Estimates of the cost nationwide of sep-
arating combined sewers run from $20
to $30 billion. Other solutions to the
problem may be technically feasible
and less expensive. Grants to States,
municipalities, or Intel-municipal or in-
terstate agencies to finance up to half of
the cost of demonstration projects will be
of immediate value to the recipient areas,
and will foster the development of knowl-
edge applicable in other areas. The
committee amended this section of S. 4
to permit the Secretary to use up to 25
percent of the funds appropriated for
the program each year to contract with
individuals, private enterprise, research
institutions, or public agencies for dem-
onstration work on the combined sewer
overflow problem. A heavy dose of pol-
lution can be administered to the receiv-
ing stream in a short time from this
source. The new program will encour-
age the discovery of solutions to a par-
ticularly difficult pollution problem.
In recognition of the higher per capita
cost of waste treatment facilities serving
smaller communities, and of their diffi-
culties in securing financing for public
works on favorable terms, the Congress
authorized a program of grants for the
construction of municipal waste treat-
ment works which gave proportionately
more assistance to those communities.
Their less costly projects could receive
the full 30-percent grant provided by
law. The $250,000 ceiling on the amount
of a grant reduced the Federal share of
larger projects to a fraction of 30 percent.
When we passed the 1981 amendments,
we raised the ceiling to $600,000 and
authorized grants to joint projects with
a ceiling of $2.4 million. Large projects
still do not receive Federal assistance
anywhere approaching 30 percent of
total eligible cost. But it is in the metro-
politan complexes of the Nation that the
worst pollution exists. Large projects
control more pollution from more people
In fairness to urban taxpayers, and in
the interest of effective water pollution
control, we should make more realistic
assistance available for these large proj-
ects. The committee has amended S. 4,
to increase the ceiling for single projects
to $1.2 million, instead of $1 million, and
for joint projects to $4.8 million, instead
of $4 million.
When we review the construction
grants program prior to its expiration on
June 30, 1987, we will consider how large
the program should be, and what direc-
tion it should take. We know that it is
not large enough, and so our committee
amended S. 4 to increase by $50 million
the appropriations authorization for
fiscal years 1986 and 1987. We know
that it is not keeping up with the need
in the urban complexes, and so we pro-
vided that the allocations to the States
from appropriations made over and
above the basic $100 million would be on
a strict population basis, and we did not
extend to them the requirement that
half the funds go to communities of 125,-
000 population or less. We know that to
wipe out the backlog of needed facilities,
and to keep up with population growth
and plant obsolescence will take the best
efforts of government at all levels. At
present only a few States participate in
the financing of waste treatment works.
By offering a full 30-percent grant, with-
out regard to the dollar ceilings, for
projects made from the additional allo-
cation in States which match the Federal
contribution, we hope to encourage more
and more States to bear a share of the
cost of these desperately needed and ex-
tremely costly public works.
The committee believes that the ques-
tion of adequate water quality standards
is of high importance throughout the
Nation. We have considered carefully
whether they should be established and
promulgated by the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, or fixed by the
States. There is an urgent need for
standards of water quality applicable to
interstate waters or portions thereof to
insure that there will be water of a qual-
ity high enough to serve the maximum
number of needs demanded by a growing
population or industry. On the basis of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
713
the exhaustive testimony taken this year
and in the last Congress, we have
amended S. 4 to give the States time to
carry out their responsibilities for pro-
tecting the quality of the interstate
waters within their respective jurisdic-
tions. Waters arising entirely within a
State, which do not flow into another
State, and do not form a part of the State
boundaries, are not deemed to be inter-
state waters and would not, therefore,
be subject to any requirements respect-
ing water quality criteria. Within 90
days after the bill is enacted, each State
must file with the Secretary a letter of
intent that the State will establish water
quality criteria applicable to interstate
waters or portions thereof within its
jurisdiction not later than June 30, 1987.
If a State fails to file such a letter of
intent, it will receive no funds under the
act until the letter is filed. We hope that
the States will meet their responsibilities
in this regard. The committee will con-
sider additional water pollution control
legislation in connection with the expira-
tion on June 30, 1967, of provisions of the
act. If the States have in fact met their
responsibilities, they will be able to sup-
ply information of great value in the
resolution of the water pollution
problem.
S. 4 directs the Secretary to invoke the
enforcement authority whenever he finds
that substantial economic injury results
from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products in interstate commerce
because of pollution of interstate or nav-
igable waters, and action of Federal,
State, or local authorities. The provision
would give recourse to persons who sus-
tain economic loss because of a necessary
ban on the shipment in interstate com-
merce of shellfish from polluted waters.
The States must close harvesting areas
found unsatisfactory for certification by
the Public Health Service. The har-
vester, who is injured by necessary offi-
cial action taken because of pollution
which is not of his making and is beyond
his control, should have the protection
of official action in the abatement of that
pollution.
The committee has amended S. 4 to
give new support to the enforcement au-
thority, the function on which the suc-
cess of other program activity may
ultimately depend The Secretary or his
designee will be given power to subpena
witnesses and evidence which relate to
any matter under investigation at the
public hearing stage of an enforcement
action. In the rare instances in which
persons involved in enforcement pro-
ceedings fail to cooperate by furnishing
needed information, the subpena power
will aid effective enforcement. Trade
secrets and secret processes will not be
subject to subpena.
The 89th Congress in its first 100 days
compiled a record of achievement which
is compared to the first 100 days of the
73d Congress. A brave President, Frank-
lin Delano Roosevelt, laid before the 73d
Congress a bold program of far-reaching
measures to bring the United States out
of the depths of the despair wrought by
the great depression. In a time of gen-
eral prosperity, a brave President, Lyn-
don Baines Johnson, has laid before the
89th Congress a program to keep the Na-
tion prosperous, to open opportunity to
all of our people, and to improve the
quality of American life.
Toward the third goal the President
declared that we must act now to pro-
tect America's heritage of beauty. His
brilliant message to the Congress on nat-
ural beauty expressed a sense of urgency
about the massive pollution of the Na-
tion's waters and the need for legislation
to step up the fight to overcome it. In
passing this bill we are stepping up the
[p. 8656]
fight. The American people have thrown
off the fetters of indifference which have
for too long hampered the drive for clean
water.
I recommend to the House the passage
oi S. 4, the Water Quality Act of 1965.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I will be pleased to
-------
714
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
yield to my friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. First of all I want to
compliment the committee on what I be-
lieve is a good bill. However, do I
understand the gentleman to say that you
have now pulled together in one place all
things related to water pollution and to
the supply of fresh water, in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare?
Is that correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir. All the func-
tions that were until now under the
Surgeon General, with the exception of
those aspects which deal primarily with
health. The aspects dealing with health
will be retained, as under the previous
law, by the Surgeon General. However,
there are other aspects of pollution con-
trol which are under the Interior Depart-
ment, the Agriculture Department, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Conserva-
tion Corps, over which we have no
jurisdiction.
Mr. GROSS. There is still some pro-
liferation, then, of these activities?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. We took certain
of these aspects from the Surgeon Gen-
eral and put them under an administra-
tor so that they will now be at a highei
level of administration than they were
before.
Mr. GROSS. But you did take these
activities out from under the Surgeon
General?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir. And we put
them under an administrator who will
be in charge of this feature.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a further
clarification?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am glad to yield to
my colleague from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. The legislation does
require that the Surgeon General be con-
sulted at all times in matters relating to
and concerning health. Therefore, the
Surgeon General does retain jurisdiction
in effect over health matters. I ask the
gentleman from Minnesota, Is that not
correct?
Mi. BLATNIK. That is correct, and I
thank the gentleman from Florida for his
contribution and clarification.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, am delighted to
be able to join with the majority in
unanimous support of this bill. It was
supported unanimously by the majority
and the minority. I think this is a clear-
cut and outstanding example, particu-
larly during this session of Congress, a
shining example, where a committee
when it is given the opportunity to do
so without exterior interference, can do
a good job and can come up with a bill
that deserves the support of everyone in
the House.
Of course, this has not necessarily
been the case on all legislation that we
have had before our committee, but this
is a shining example where we were
given an opportunity to work our will
and we did so and I think came up with
a sound and reasonable approach to what
is admittedly a most serious problem
throughout this Nation.
We are all for clean water, just as we
are all for motherhood. We are all for
doing what can reasonably be done to
prevent water pollution. But as was
stated when the legislation was initially
passed by Congress back in 1958—and
which, incidentally, I and others on our
side cosponsored along with those on the
majority side, which legislation first es-
tablished the water pollution control
program and the sewage disposal plant
Federal grant program—it was specifi-
cally stated, and I believe this concept
to be extremely significant and im-
portant, and must be maintained if this
is going to be an effective program—
that this program is one which must be
participated in to the fullest extent not
only by the Federal Government, in its
proper jurisdiction, but by local and
State authorities as well.
In enacting the initial law, the Con-
gress said, and I quote:
It is hereby declared to be the policy
of Congress to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
715
rights of the States in preventing and
controlling water pollution.
Now, in 1956 we had a bill which we
could all support and did support in the
committee.
In 1981 we had some differences of
opinion as to what was the proper Fed-
eral responsibility in light of this state-
ment of policy.
In 1985 we are coming before this
body, this House, with a bill recognizing
those basic principles and thus we are
able to be in support of it both on the
majority and on the minority sides.
Mr. Chairman, we had some difficulties
with the consideration of the bill. Last
year, of course, a quite different bill was
voted out of the committee. This year
a number of changes were made. There
were some difficult problems with which
our committee had to wrestle, but I am
proud to say that I believe we did so
successfully.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, we had
to deal with the question as a result of
having before us S. 4, the Muskie bill
from the other body, we had to actually
deal with the provisions of that legisla-
tion, and make necessary changes, for
instance, in the field and on the question
of Federal standards. That probably
represented the most difficult problem
with which we had to deal. However, I
feel it was dealt with most successfully.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a
grave mistake for the Federal Govern-
ment to try to set, as was proposed in
that bill, water quality standards on all
streams throughout America, which
amounts to the Federal zoning, which
amounts to the Federal Government de-
termining what use can be made of
streams and lands adjacent thereto, a
responsibility clearly recognized as that
of the State and local communities
throughout the history of America.
This has been avoided in the pending
legislation and successfully so in that the
bill before us, in section 5, provides that
in effect the States should be encouraged
to accept this responsibility themselves
and therefore there was written into
section 5 as a substitute for the Senate
bill the provision that no State is to
receive any funds under this act unless
it files a letter of intent with the Secre-
tary that the State, not the Federal Gov-
ernment—and continuing to quote:
The State will establish water quality
criteria to be applicable to interstate
waters and portions thereof within the
State prior to June 30, 1987.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that is a
sound and reasonable approach. It en-
courages the States to do a job which we
all admit should be done if water pollu-
tion is to be controlled and if we are to
have eventually the necessary clean
water in America.
So, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly—
and so do the minority members of the
committee—endorse not only that sec-
tion but the balance of the pending bill.
We had some problems relating to sub-
pena powers We had the question as
to whether or not the Federal Govern-
ment should have the power to subpena
State and local records, not at the hear-
ing stage but at the conference stage
where discussions are taking place relat-
ing to the enforcement of pollution
abatement.
It was resolved, and I think properly
and rightly so, at the hearing stage
"yes," at the conference stage "no."
And thus the subpena power is properly
given to the new administration at the
hearing stage. That was successfully re-
solved in the committee. We had the
question that was with us in 1961 and
this year: Should the States be encour-
aged to match Federal funds in the
treatment works construction program?
I think it is conceded, and a correct
statement of the gentleman from Minn-
esota, as to how tremendous this prob-
lem is which is facing the Nation. I
think the estimate is something like $5
billion as to what it would cost to catch
up with the needed sewage plant con-
struction program in America, let alone
get ahead. To catch up it would require
an estimated $500 million or $600 mil-
-------
716
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lion a year of local municipal funds
alone to do the job.
This clearly indicates that the States
should be encouraged to get in and help
in this program. At this time it is mostly
the Federal Government and the mu-
nicipalities. The States are not involved
except to set priorities. They are not
required to provide grant money.
Therefore it is plain, as we recorded it
in the minority views on the amend-
ments to the Water Pollution Control
Act in 1961, that—
If there is to be any increase in the amount
of funds appropriated for Federal grants it
should be directed toward providing an
effective incentive to accelerate needed con-
struction by offering an inducement to the
States to respond to their responsibilities and
participate in the cost of treatment plants
If enlargement of the Federal grant pro-
gram to construct local sewage treatment
works is inescapable, then it is high time
[p. 8657]
that the States face up to their responsi-
bilities and assist in defraying the costs of
such facilities.
This was in 1961. We offered amend-
ments we hoped would accomplish that,
but they were turned down in 1981.
Amendments to at least partially accom-
plish that were adopted, and I think
properly so, by the committee on the oc-
casion of the consideration of this bill.
So that the States are being encouraged
to get into the program, to participate in
the program, by the formula that was
written into this legislation, relating not
to the $100 million authorization but
relating to the increased $50 million au-
thorization. If the States want to ex-
ceed the top dollar limit for a project,
which was doubled in this legislation for
both single and combined projects, then
they will be required to match Federal
funds, in that way hopefully to bring the
States into the picture and accept re-
sponsibility in it.
I am personally convinced if the job
is going to be done, it is a bigger job than
either the Federal Government or the
local communities can handle in the near
future. It is essential that the States
participate in the program.
We had also the problem to deal with,
a serious one, of the objection on the
part of many of the State agencies with
regard to changing the administration
setup, taking it out of the Public Health
Service and putting it in the hands of a
new administration. This was resolved,
and I think reasonably so, by the amend-
ment that was adopted that requires the
new control administration to consult
with the Surgeon General on all health
aspects of water pollution control.
Therefore, the Surgeon General and the
Public Health Service will remain in
the picture. They of necessity have to
remain in it, and they have specific au-
thority to do so under the language of
the bill as voted out.
I do not intend to discuss in detail the
bill itself. The gentleman from Min-
nesota has outlined what the bill does.
I do have a couple of other comments to
make.
This is not the last water pollution
control bill we are going to have in the
near future. There is going to be an-
other one in 1987 for the obvious reason
that authorizations run out in 1967 and
additional authorizations will be neces-
sary, probably to be considered in the
early session of the 90th Congress, and
other matters involving water pollution
control can be considered and probably
will be at that time So this is not the
last look at this problem that Congress
is going to have, and perhaps rightly so.
I think it is well for Congress to review
from time to time these basic problems.
We will have an opportunity to do so in
1987, probably.
With the fine work done by this com-
mittee, and I am confident it will be
substantially supported in the House by
the vote of the membership, it would be
my hope that when this bill is passed in
the House and we go to conference, there
will be such an overwhelming vote for
this legislation on the floor of this House
that the hands of the conferees will be
upheld and we will be in a strong posi-
tion to demand of the other body that,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
717
with such overwhelming support of this
view of this legislation, we will be able
to sustain the House position in confer-
ence, it being a sound and a proper posi-
tion to take. So I am asking that this
bill be passed with an overwhelming
vote. I hope it will pass substantially in
the form it is now and be sustained in
conference.
I will now be glad to yield for any
questions.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania
Mr. SAYLOR. I want to take this op-
portunity to congratulate the members
of this great committee on having
worked and produced what I believe is
one of the finest pieces of legislation on
water and the problems affecting water
that has ever been presented to the
House of Representatives. The gentle-
man from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK], the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES],
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
CRAMER], and the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. BALDWIN] are to be particu-
larly commended for what I consider to
be outstanding statesmanship
When you were holding your hearings,
I know you were presented with many
divergent views. When the committee
had completed its hearings, closed the
doors, and proceeded to mark up the
bill, I am satisfied that partisan politics
was laid aside. The Members on both
sides of the aisle were determined to
produce a good piece of legislation.
I sincerely hope there is a record vote
on the passage of this bill, and that it
will be supported unanimously in the
House of Representatives. The other
body should accept without question the
House version and get this law on the
books at the earliest possible date Then
the States and local municipalities will
have more time in which to supplement
this bill, and work on the problems in
their immediate States and localities.
To all members of this great commit-
tee the Navy praise is appropriate. "Well
done."
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. I want to express my
appreciation to the ranking minority
member for his fine statement, and also
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
who for 10 years has been of great assist-
ance in matters of water conservation
and utilization.
Mr. CRAMER I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. BLATNIK. It saddens us deeply
that the most dedicated, devoted, and
honorable man in this body, if not in
the entire Congress, in the field of many
aspects of water utilization, preservation,
conservation, and flood control, our dear
friend ROBERT E. JONES, was so severely
and seriously stricken a month ago.
I would like to point out that it was
on the same evening when we were con-
cluding the resolution of this highly con-
troversial issue on standards and criteria
in which the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr ROBERT JONES] played an impor-
tant role and played a leading part
together with our distinguished Mem-
ber, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
T. A. THOMPSON], that we came to the
conclusion, unknown to him, how seri-
ously ill the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES] was when he was taken to
the hospital for extremely serious sur-
gery from which he is still recovering
He is coming along most satisfactorily
and I know we are all delighted to hear
that. So at this point, Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that the re-
marks of the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES] appear in the RECORD at this
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered
There was no objection.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, we have only to travel a few blocks
to the once beautiful Potomac River to
see that water pollution is an imminent
and pressing problem at our very door-
-------
718
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
step. But, unfortunately, the Potomac
is not the only polluted river in our Na-
tion. The citizens of this great land
find this problem repeated at practically
every doorstep. There is increasing pol-
lution of our water resources by raw
sewage, untreated industrial wastes and
other refuse. It gravely impedes our
Nation's full social, economic, recrea-
tional and community growth.
Voices of concern are being raised by
industries which must have an adequate
supply of clean water for continued eco-
nomic well-being. Anglers are outraged
by fishkills and the diminishing quantity
and quality of aquatic life in streams and
lakes. Water sports enthusiasts are
shocked when they are directed to avoid
certain streams at peril to health and
safety. Housewives cringe at the foul
odor of even hygienically safe treated
water. Conservationists are repulsed
by the disgraceful sights which mar the
streams of our otherwise beautiful woods,
parks, and recreation areas. Civic-
minded groups everywhere are aware of
the need for cleaner waters to meet the
demands of our growing population and
developing industries.
These voices of concern were raised
in a plea for action time after time at
the extensive hearings, over which I pre-
sided as chairman of the National Re-
sources and Power Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Government Oper-
ations last year. We heard similar testi-
mony in the hearings by the House
Public Works Committee on the bill
which is before us today. Hundreds of
concerned citizens, representatives of
industry, and many State and local offi-
cials testified on the needs of improv-
ing our water resources. Their testi-
mony demonstrated that despite some
encouraging successes in the battle to
abate pollution, concerted action must
be taken on all levels of government and
in all sections of the Nation if we are
to hold the progress which has been
made and then turn back the increas-
ing tide of polluted waters.
Mr. Chairman, I endorse S. 4 with the
amendments reported by the House Pub-
lic Works Committee.
[p. 8658]
We need to upgrade the Federal water
pollution control efforts to reflect the
broad problems associated with conser-
vation of our great water resources. S.
4 will do this by establishing a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
to be headed by an assistant secretary
in the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. This agency will be able
to administer all matters under the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. It
will be able to deal with the broad prob-
lems of pollution associated with con-
servation of waters for all uses, includ-
ing municipal water supplies, fish and
aquatic life and wildlife, recreational
needs, agricultural and industrial re-
quirements, and other vital needs. It
will be able to fulfill the purpose of the
act to "enhance the quality and value
of our water resources and to establish
a national policy for prevention, con-
trol and abatement of water pollution."
Our hearings indicate the solutions to
our water pollution problems will not be
simple or easy. The problems are com-
plex and their solution also can be very
expensive. For example, combined
storm and sanitary sewers are a critical
source of pollution in many of our cities.
To eliminate this source of contamina-
tion by physical separation may cost the
cities as much as $30 billion unless new
techniques can be found for handling the
problem. We must provide for research
assistance which is beyond the capability
of the individual States or municipal
governments.
The bill would authorize matching
grants on approved demonstration re-
search on combined sewers by States,
municipalities, intermunicipal, or inter-
state agencies. These grants could be as
much as $1 million per project, and total
$20 million per year for 4 years. Fur-
thermore, under the committee amend-
ments, up to 25 percent of the same
appropriation could be used for contracts
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
719
with various private or public agencies
for research on this subject.
It was encouraging at our hearings to
learn of the thousands of municipal sew-
age treatment facilities fostered by the
Federal construction grant program. In
the past 9 years, Federal grants of $640
million have stimulated local govern-
ments to provide treatment facilities
costing more than $3 billion. Every dol-
lar of Federal aid resulted in $4 of local
spending. This aid went to 6,028 proj-
ects which serve 48 million people The
rate of treatment plant construction has
been almost doubled since the Federal
program was begun. But as impressive
as these figures are, our cities are still
woefully short of the needed sewage
treatment facilities. The backlog of
needed facilities grows every day. Re-
cent figures show that 1,470 applications,
totaling $181 3 million, are now pending
for treatment projects that will cost
$904.1 million.
Population is increasing rapidly. Our
cities are growing even more rapidly.
Great demands are made on these mu-
nicipal governments for improvements of
services. And, whether we like it or not,
city officials who are besieged by many
problems are often tempted to give sew-
age treatment facilities a low priority.
After all, the city can dump the sewage
downstream where it presents no im-
mediate threat to its citizens. Then only
the water users farther downstream have
to worry.
Limitations of existing legislation were
pointed out in our hearings. Dollar ceil-
ings of $600,000 on individual project
grants and $2.4 million on multimunici-
pal project grants have inhibited local
action in the larger cities where the cost
of adequate facilities runs to many times
the Federal portion. The ceilings also
have tended to encourage smaller, some-
times less efficient, plants where larger
facilities would have meant savings in
the long run.
To advance this needed treatment
plant construction and stimulate munic-
ipalities to end this source of water pol-
lution, S 4 as reported, will double the
maximum construction grants to $1,200,-
000 for a single project and $4,800,000 for
multimumcipal projects, provided the
grant does not exceed 30 percent of the
reasonable project cost.
The grant program has 2 years re-
maining under this act. If we are going
to make a dent in the backlog of needed
treatment facilities, the appropriation
for these grants must be increased. S. 4
will authorize additional appropriations
of $50 million a year for the next 2 years
and bring the total authorized to $150
million annually. I believe these in-
creases are not excessive. Indeed, they
are truly minimal in light of the great
national needs. The first $100 million in
grant money will continue to be allocated
under the existing formulas which insure
more grant money for the smaller and
medium-sized cities. Funds over $100
million will be allocated to the States on
a population basis and thus allow for
more substantial grants to the larger
cities where the greatest need for im-
provement exists.
The main purpose of these grants is
to stimulate local action. The bill, as
reported, provides extra inducement
where a State provides funds to cities,
matching the Federal grants, for treat-
ment plants. In such cases, the dollar
ceiling limitations on grants, up to 30
percent of project costs, would be re-
moved from the appropriation of the
extra $50 million.
To encourage further economies and
efficiencies, the bill provides a 10-percent
increase for projects certified by State or
regional planning agencies as conform-
ing with the comprehensive plan for a
metropolitan area when the President
determines the area is appropriate for
such increase.
S. 4 also takes a first step toward the
establishment of critically needed water
quality standards. As passed by the
Senate, S 4 would give the Secretary of
Health. Education, and Welfare authority
to establish standards for interstate and
navigable waters. However, during our
-------
720
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hearings, many witnesses representing
many industries and many State agencies
testified that such additional power on
the Federal level is unnecessary and un-
desired; that it would be time consuming
and costly to establish such standards;
that the standards might be unrealistic
because every stream, and even every
segment of a stream, varies in its uses
and in the amount of waste it can safely
absorb; that these considerations require
great familiarity with a multitude of 'di-
versified factors; and that the individual
States should have greater proximity to
these problems.
The reported bill, therefore, places on
the States the responsibility for estab-
lishing the criteria for water quality
within the State.
The acceptance by the States of this
responsibility will be of great value in
helping to solve the water pollution
problem and will provide valuable infor-
mation for consideration of new legisla-
tion when important provisions of the
existing law expire in 2 years. Any
State which fails within 90 days to file a
letter of intent to establish such criteria
before June 30, 1967, would not receive
any Federal grants for its water pollution
program.
At our hearings, representatives of the
shellfish industry, which is highly de-
pendent on clean waters, have repeatedly
urged additional Federal action on inter-
state or navigable waters to curtail pol-
lution which is cutting into the liveli-
hood of the industry. This will authorize
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to take action when he finds
that substantial economic injury results
from the inability to market shellfish in
interstate commerce due to health
threats resulting from pollution of these
waterways.
To strengthen abatement efforts, the
bill also empowers the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to sub-
pena witnesses in matters under inves-
tigation when the procedure reaches the
public hearing stage.
Mr. Chairman, our hearings demon-
strated that many industries are taking
steps, often at great expense, to end or
reduce the polluting effects of their man-
ufacturing processes. The detergent in-
dustry is an excellent example of how
self-regulation can shortstop the need
for more Government regulation With-
in the year, the industry will have
changed from stream polluting hard de-
tergents to a new product which can be
handled in existing sewage treatment
facilities. The end of the unsightly foam
on our streams from these hard deter-
gents may be anticipated in the near fu-
ture. I strongly urge all industries to
step up their antipollution efforts. The
need for the control of industrial wastes
is a great and pressing national problem.
Mr. Chairman, the scope of the water
pollution problem is so great as to re-
quire the enthusiastic cooperation of all
official and unofficial segments of our
society. S. 4 as reported by the House
Public Works Committee, seeks that co-
operation, especially in regard to greater
State participation. Some groups have
urged stronger and more sweeping Fed-
eral powers than are included in this bill.
Some have urged less. I believe that S. 4
as reported, is an equitable, workable,
and necessary step if we are to attack
this single most desperate natural re-
sources problem facing the country
today.
I urge adoption of this bill.
[p.8659]
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not
associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Minnesota not only in
regard to this legislation but in regard
to his remarks about the Honorable ROB-
ERT E JONES of Alabama.
I do not know of a man who is pos-
sessed of more of the qualities of lead-
ership in this body and who can be more
persuasive and who is possessed of a vast
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
721
knowledge gained over many years of
experience than our colleague, the gen-
tleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES], I
am happy to have the opportunity to
work with him, and I am happy also to
report that he is doing so well that he is
back in Washington today and, of course,
we all hope that he will certainly con-
tinue to be with us for many, many years
to come.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from
Minnesota will yield further, I do want
to say, too, as a Louisiaman, that our
State of Louisiana is a recipient State
when we speak of this problem of water
pollution because, as a matter of fact,
two-thirds of all the water that flows in
this Nation and whatever pollution is in
it flows through my State. So you can
well see that if anyone or any State is
interested in the abatement of pollution
and the control of pollution, my State of
Louisiana certainly is greatly interested
Water pollution is a serious threat to
the welfare of our country, and the criti-
cal need for clean water in our Nation's
rivers and streams has been brought to
the forefront with sober emphasis We
of the Public Works Committee, after
long hearings and lengthy deliberation,
feel that the bill as we reported it pro-
vides the best solution to the pollution
problem. The House committee version
includes a provision which allows the in-
dividual States to establish water quality
control criteria, in lieu of having nation-
wide Federal standards.
Our extensive hearings clearly demon-
strated the necessity for upgrading the
Federal water pollution control effort.
To satisfactorily eliminate the existing
problems will require full and close co-
operation between local, State, and Fed-
eral Governments. In recognizing that
the problems within the various States
are different, the House version points up
the important responsibility of the States
in the matter of pollution control and
gives them an opportunity to establish
water standards most suitable to their
specific needs and problems I believe
the States can, and will, effectively as-
sume this vital task, and actually, the
Federal Government could not proceed
as quickly as individual States can under
this bill in establishing a National Inven-
tory of Water Quality.
Another aspect of this bill authorizes
a 50-percent increase in the total funds
which may be appropriated for grants to
States for construction of sewage treat-
ment plants in cities, and would double
the dollar ceilings on both municipal and
multimumcipal projects. Recently there
has been a noticeable increase in the
number of such plants constructed
throughout the United States, and there
is a tremendous number of applications
currently pending for municipal sewage
treatment facility grants. These appli-
cations greatly exceed the amount of
funds available. By increasing the ap-
propriation and providing a greater
availability of funds, treatment plant
construction would be stimulated in all
industrial areas where the most serious
pollution problems exist. In Federal-
State matching fund projects the bill
would provide a 30-percent grant from
the increased funds for treatment plant
construction.
I believe that the bill as reported—
placing the authority for water control
criteria in the States, along with the
other provisions made by the House
Public Works Committee—is the most
desirable means of reaching the goals we
realize are vitally necessary and prove a
giant step forward in the attack on, and
the eventual elimination of, the water
pollution problem.
My people in Louisiana are satisfied
with this approach that is being made
through this legislation As a matter of
fact, they have already commended me
and all of the membership of this com-
mittee and have so advised me. Our
Governor is working on this matter
through our stream control commission.
They have done a splendid job and they
have asked me to extend to the entire
membership of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works of the House of Representa-
tives their appreciation of what has been
-------
722
9527—EPA
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
done.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this legislation
could not have gone through without the
bipartisan approach that was taken. I
have great pride in being a member of
the House Committee on Public Works.
For many reasons, but especially because
this legislation which approaches this
problem in an attempt to attain the same
goals that the other body is seeking, I
hope inasmuch as our committee has ap-
proved this legislation and sent it to the
floor of the House by a unanimous vote
that the House would take the same
action.
I also want to say that this legislation
as it is now presented would not have
been possible without the help of the
hard working and enlightened staff that
we have on our Committee on Public
Works.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank my colleague
from Louisiana.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to my very dear friend, the gentleman
from New Jersey.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I think the Members of this
body are indebted to the great Commit-
tee on Public Works, which enjoys a
unique distinction in that, at least in the
years I have had the honor of being a
Member of this body, the committee has
never lost a piece of legislation. This is
a great tribute not only to the commit-
tee's parliamentary skill but to the thor-
oughness with which it approaches legis-
lation. I think also the tributes to our
colleague, the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES], who has been ill, are par-
ticularly well deserved. There is not in
this body a more sophisticated or more
persuasive or more knowledgeable nego-
tiator than ROBERT E. JONES of Ala-
bama. I find myself not always in agree-
ment with that distinguished gentleman,
but I find myself without exception ad-
miring of him and really too many times
persuaded by his enormous skill which
was demonstrated earlier in the handling
of the Appalachia legislation and in this
particular area in which we are legislat-
ing today. ROBERT E. JONES has made
great and lasting contributions to Ala-
bama and the Nation in many fields. He
is this body's leading expert on the TVA,
on Appalachia, and in water resources
legislation.
In this particular area in which we
are legislating today, he has a back-
ground of many years of service,
especially with respect to technical
knowledge of the subject, which he has
so well at his command. I am sorry he
has been ill, but am delighted by his
recovery. He deserves the thanks of all
of us. ROBERT E. JONES is one of the truly
great public servants of our time.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentle-
man from New Jersey. I appreciate his
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. RANDALL] worked very
closely with Mr. JONES and several
others, particularly those on the Sub-
committee of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations. They have held, with-
out question, most intensive public
hearings in several major areas of the
United States.
I am pleased to yield at this time to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RANDALL].
Mr. RANDALL. Mr Chairman, I ap-
preciate being granted some time by the
floor manager of this bill, the gentleman
from Minnesota.
I rise in support of the Water Quality
Act of 1965 and in tribute to a member of
the Public Works Committee who was
also my chairman in the Subcommittee
on Natural Resources of the Committee
on Government Operations, the gentle-
man from Alabama [Mr. JONES].
Under delegation of authority by the
chairman of the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations, the gentleman from
Illinois, our dear friend BOB JONES con-
ducted 2 full years of hearings both here
in Washington, D. C., and from coast to
coast in 1933 and 1984. These hearings
and his other activities properly put
BOB'S name in the forefront of the fight
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
723
for pure water. It was my privilege and
honor to have served as a member of that
subcommittee. We held hearings in
Trenton, N.J.; Hartford, Conn.; Chicago,
111.; Seattle, Wash.; Austin, Tex.; Muscle
Shoals, Ala., and Kansas City, Mo.
We all know that BOB JONES has been
stricken as a result of a serious opera-
tion, but it is good news to know that he
is now recuperating. I know that every
Member is pulling for his speedy recov-
ery and his quick return to his duties
here in the House.
To dramatize the harsh fact that we
are soon going to have an acute shortage
of pure water in this country, the gentle-
man from Alabama had a simple illus-
trative formula. He said there were
three factors involved which could be
three
[p. 8680]
factors involved which could be treated
like an ordinary, simple division prob-
lem. In the first place, he said, there
is a divisor—and that is the population
The dividend is the fixed quantity of
water, and it cannot easily be increased.
As the population increases, the divisor
goes up and is divided into the dividend,
which remains static. As a result the
quotient becomes smaller and smaller.
That quotient is the amount of pure
water each of us will have to use over
the years ahead.
It was such clear and simple logic as
that which pinpointed attention and
focused the interest of the people from
coast to coast on the importance of this
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to sum-
marize a few of the findings and accom-
plishments of the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources, but I first wish to
compliment the gentleman from Minne-
sota on the thorough and competent job
his committee has performed in improv-
ing through amendment S. 4. the bill sent
here from the other body. The problems
of drafting equitable Federal legislation
to assist in abating and controlling water
pollution are complex and controversial.
It is evident the Public Works Commit-
tee has negotiated these problems with
great skill and has reported a bill which
will foster genuine progress in the field
of pollution control and yet will not
overstep the proper limits of Federal
authority.
If I had to characterize the accom-
plishments of the Subcommittee on
Natural Resources in just a few words,
I would say that Mr. JONES' subcommit-
tee gave the people of the United States
a picture in proper perspective of Fed-
eral, State, and local water pollution
abatement efforts.
In the first place, the Natural Re-
sources Subcommittee created a forum
in which citizens all across the country
could express their concern about water
pollution and in which responsible pub-
lic and private officials had to justify
their actions in the field of pollution
control. Those who testified included
Federal, State, and local officials or rep-
resentatives, sportsmen and wildlife en-
thusiasts, and members of several civic
organizations including the ever present
League of Women Voters.
The fact that these hearings were held
by an arm of the legislative branch of
the Government added to the impor-
tance of the forum. We were able to
make this forum effective because as a
subcommittee, we were an agency of the
Congress working on a problem of
national importance. For this reason we
gained attention and response that no
administrative official could have com-
manded.
In the second place, the subcommittee
was able to pinpoint some of the diffi-
culties connected with the concept of
national water quality standards. At
first some of the members were sur-
prised to find out most of the areas in
our country were opposed to the estab-
lishment of a Federal water standard,
but as the hearings continued reasons
began to develop why the areas must
have a voice in establishing the stand-
ards of pollution control applicable to
them. We found that each local area has
-------
724
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
its peculiar problems. In some places it
was acids in the water from the mines,
in other places it was wastes from the
steel mills; and in still other areas it was
refuse from the pulp and paper indus-
try. In the Southwest, the problem was
salinity and pollution from the natural
salt content of the soil.
I can assure my colleagues that we
did not shirk our duty of putting offend-
ers on the spot and that at least to some
degree we were able to dispel compla-
cency and apathy. But I can also report
that we found many occasions to com-
mend and congratulate those who had
already achieved some measure of ac-
complishment in solving their own local
problems of water pollution Indeed, if
anything, the subcommittee came away
from its hearings with the impression
that much more was being done in this
area than we had previously imagined
In the third place, we were able to
identify the multiplicity of Federal
agencies that have been involved in
protecting and securing pure water. We
established the contributions to pollution
control and abatement made by such
agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey,
the Department of Agriculture in its Soil
Conservation Service studies and its
studies of the effects of water on farm-
ing and irrigation, the Bureau of Fish-
eries, the Bureau of Mines, the Corps of
Engineers, and the Public Health Serv-
ice.
Finally, we like to think that through
these hearings the subcommittee and its
able chairman were enabled to promote
a number of concrete accomplishments
in reducing the impact of water pollu-
tion. There were no miracles performed,
but some important first steps were
taken. I should like to list just a few
of them for the benefit of my colleagues:
First. An Executive order was issued
giving the U.S. Geological Survey pri-
mary responsibility for establishing and
maintaining a national network to meas-
ure quantity and quality of our water-
ways.
Second. Federal agencies and ship-
builders are finally developing re-
quirements for treating sewage of ships,
including those owned by the U.S. Gov-
ernment.
Third. Interagency conflict has been
reduced among some of the Federal
agencies working on the problem of
water pollution.
Fourth. The results of research done
by Federal agencies will now be more
generally available to those who might
have a need for them.
Fifth. It is likely that in the future
Federal agencies and Federal installa-
tions will make more adequate provi-
sions for waste treatment facilities. In
particular, military installations have
been made to realize that they will not
be exempt from, but must comply with,
the program of pollution abatement.
Sixth. The Bureau of Mines is really
going to get to work on the problem of
acid mine drainage, instead of just talk-
ing about it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
some brief comments on the two sections
of S. 4 which relate to establishment of
water pollution standards and to admin-
istration of Federal water pollution con-
trols. Both provisions have a history of
extended public controversy; and in both
instances the Committee on Public
Works has made marked improvement
over the version of S. 4 as passed by the
other body. We can only hope that the
views of the House will prevail when
the conferees meet to resolve differ-
ences between the two bills.
For my part, I was delighted to learn
that the committee had stricken from
the bill coming over from the other body
the authority granted Federal agencies
to set Federal standards for water qual-
ity. The hearings in which I partici-
pated provided ample evidence that the
primary responsibility for abatement of
water pollution must reside in the areas
affected, if all relevant factors are to
be given their proper weight. Our Pub-
lic Works Committee did a real service
to the people of this country by sub-
stituting for a mandatory water standard
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE- HISTORY
725
the provision that individual States must
within 90 days file a letter of intent that
they will establish not later than June
30, 1967, water quality criteria, if they
are to be eligible for Federal grants un-
der provisions of this act. This provision
leaves primary responsibility for water
quality standards to the States, yet
because the act will again be reviewed
by the Congress when it expires in 1987,
they are given strong incentive to put
their own houses in order with dispatch.
Let me say I was a little disappointed
to learn of the creation of a separate
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration within HEW, because I came
away from these 2 years of hearings with
the distinct impression that the U.S
Public Health Service had been doing a
commendable job. However it is not
always possible to have everything one
would prefer in a bill, and some clauses
are included which limit the potential
dangers from such a change in admin-
istrative structure.
It is noteworthy that only those func-
tions of the Surgeon General relating to
the water pollution control program will
be transferred to this new Administra-
tion. As was pointed out in debate a few
moments ago, even with the changes, the
Surgeon General must be consulted by
the head of the new Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration in all
cases of pollution involving public
health.
In addition, I am delighted to know
that the bill was drawn in such a way
that several hundreds commissioned offi-
cers now under the jurisdiction of the
Surgeon General will be eligible for
transfer to the new Pollution Control
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, it is a happy occasion
for all of us who served on the Natural
Resources Subcommittee with the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Alabama to
see this day arrive when we can join in
support of the Water Quality Act of
1965. It makes one proud to think he
may have had just a small part in this
ever-continuing fight to prevent, control,
and abate water pollution and to take
this next step in amending the water
pollution control statutes of 1948, 1956,
and 1931. It is a great day in this House
to see some action taken to provide ade-
quate amounts of pure, potable water
[p. 8661]
which is so essential to life's processes.
Fresh water is America's most precious
natural resource.
Mr. BLATNIK Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GRAY].
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, S. 4 which
has been reported unanimously by the
Committee on Public Works, is good
legislation.
I have a deep and abiding interest in
the subject of water pollution and, as a
member of the committee, have followed
with a great deal of interest the public
hearings on this bill and related bills.
I think this legislation, which is being
considered today, is another giant step
forward in our efforts to solve this prob-
lem of water pollution.
It brings about a number of major and
necessary changes in our approach to
the overall problem of control of waters
and the development of pure waters.
First It upgrades the administration
of the water pollution control program
within the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare. This is a needed
and necessary step. It places the pro-
gram as it should be in a separate status
so that full time can be given to it by ex-
perienced members of that great agency.
Second. The program for the first
time is a beginning in solving the prob-
lem of storm mtercepter sewers. It
provides for $20 million for 4 fiscal years
for research work in this most important
field. As a result of this research I hope,
and the committee hopes, that a pro-
gram will begin to fully and completely
place the storm intercepter sewers on
their way to completion.
Third. For the first time by providing
an additional $50 million distributed on
the basis of population in addition to the
-------
726
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
regular authorizations and providing for
the fact that if they wish they may par-
ticipate in this phase of the program. It
brings into being a concept which we
have long sought—a local-State-Federal
relationship to control this great na-
tional problem and finally, the bill pro-
vides for a requirement that the States
by June 30, 1967, submit to the Secretary
of Health. Education, and Welfare water
quality criteria for the several States
With this information at hand both the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the Congress will have the
opening steps, if needed, to still further
classify some form of standards for all
our streams in the years to come.
I am proud to have been associated
with the formulation of this legislation.
In closing, I want to commend the
father of the Water Pollution Control
Act, the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Rivers and Harbors, my good friend
and highly able colleague, Mr. BLATNIK,
of Minnesota. I also want to commend
our able colleague from Alabama, Mr.
JONES, chairman of the Subcommittee on
Flood Control, who has worked dili-
gently for this bill as well as other im-
portant public works programs and I
certainly want to commend our distin-
guished and able chairman of our full
Committee on Public Works, Mr. FAL-
LON, of Maryland, for his valuable assist-
ance in connection with this important
bill.
I strongly recommend its passage.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Montana [Mr. OLSEN], a
member of the committee.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I wish to compliment the author of
this legislation, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK], for his lead-
ership of our committee in bringing this
legislation to the floor. I agree whole-
heartedly and support most wholeheart-
edly the efforts of the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK], the gentle-
man from Alabama [Mr. JONES], and
the leadership of the committee.
Probably the most important problem
in respect to water and water control in
America today is the problem of secur-
ing good water. Thus, most strongly I
support this legislation.
Our greatest single natural resource
is "good water." On a Federal level we
commenced nearly 9 years ago to face
the issue of pure water. We came to
realize then and more certainly we real-
ize now that the issue of pure water must
be settled soon for the benefit of this
generation and certainly for the benefit
of generations to come. There is a para-
mount need for good quality water for
all the Nation's uses—public and private,
human consumption and industrial use.
With the enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1961 the program was strength-
ened in several important ways.
Appropriations for waste treatment
works construction grants were in-
creased. Research function was
strengthened. Appropriations for State
program grants were increased. Then
the administration for the program was
vested in the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, rather than the
Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service, and the enforcement authority
was extended to navigable as well as
interstate waters.
The impact of the Federal program
has been impressive. But it has not
been enough. It has taken us not less
than 9 years from a situation in which
untrammeled pollution threatened to
foul the Nation's water beyond hope of
restoration to a point where we are hold-
ing our own.
However, accelerating population and
economic growth are imposing ever-in-
creasing demands upon our available
water supplies. Therefore, in this act
we increase the available funds for each
and every phase of the program. And
this time we issue a warning and an en-
couragement to the States. For, 2 years
hence, we are demanding that the States
pledge that they shall establish State
classifications of water. Failing this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
727
pledge, they shall receive no assistance.
If the efforts of the States are found in-
sufficient upon review, 2 years hence,
then it will be our purpose to discuss the
establishment of Federal standards on
all navigable waters and upon all waters
which are found to contribute to the pol-
lution of navigable waters.
In my State of Montana I think we
can meet the challenge. I think that
our State can establish genuinely pure
water standards so that water flowing
from our State will be pure water. I sin-
cerely hope that the other States to
whom we contribute such an abundance
of water will as well meet this challenge
I think that States and communities
and individuals should join in this great
crusade to purify and then to preserve
pure water.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentle-
man from Montana.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California, the distin-
guished dean, the chairman of the great
Committee on Science and Astronautics
[Mr. MILLER].
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I want
to congratulate the Committee on
Public Works for bringing out this leg-
islation. I want to congratulate Mr.
BLATNIK, the gentleman from Minnesota,
for the long fight that he has made in the
field of obtaining pure water and the
elimination of water pollution Likewise
I wish to congratulate Congressman
JONES, who is not here today, unfor-
tunately, but who has done an outstand-
ing job in this field.
Mr. Chairman, I have some knowledge
of water pollution and the meaning of
water, especially pure water, in this
country, because before I came to Con-
gress I was executive officer of the Cali-
fornia division of fish and game for 4
years. One of the duties of that commis-
sion is the enforcement of water pollu-
tion control in our State. We can see
and sometimes we can smell the pollu-
tion that goes into our rivers, but how
about the underground waters of the
United States and their pollution?
These are just as important as the waters
that flow in our rivers. The continuous
use of pesticides, of chemical fertilizers,
which are taken underground into our
waters, is something which is not only
polluting these underground waters but
is also polluting the land itself. In going
into this field we have to be very care-
ful that we do not treat the symptoms
for the disease. There has never been a
time when it has been more necessary to
get on with this job, but this is a multi-
disciplinary scientific problem as well
as a practical problem. It is a problem
which requires the full cooperation of
engineers and scientists throughout the
country. It is a bigger job than we
seek to do through this legislation,
which, as important as it is, is only one
facet of the problem of water pollution,
which is becoming a very popular thing,
too. Nevertheless, the real solution for
this problem is one which we have not
yet found and which will not be found
until we apply the same intensive study
to the matter of preserving the waters
of this country as we apply to developing
atomic energy or to the exploration of
space. It is going to take almost the
same type of effort to accomplish our
goal in this field.
The record of the testimony before the
Committee on Public Works on water
pollution legislation reveals a curious
almement between State agencies and
industry in opposing the significant
water quality standards provision. Cre-
ative opposition, of course, is always
beneficial and heartily welcomed It is
difficult, however, if not impossible to
discern any creative opposition in these
statements.
The formulation of effective Federal
water pollution control legislation has
[p. 8662]
been beset by this kind of irrational op-
position from agencies fearful of loss of
authority and from powerful self-inter-
est groups. These same State agencies
loudly denounced proposals for Federal
financial assistance to their municipal!-
-------
728
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ties for waste treatment works construc-
tion when these were first made. We
have only to look at the record of im-
partial and highly successful adminis-
tration of this particular Federal Water
Pollution Control Act program to meas-
ure how far wrong the initial opposition
was. The strongest proponents now for
extending and further liberalizing this
program, as proposed in the pending
legislation, are the State agencies.
Federal authority to enforce the abate-
ment of pollution was just as vehemently
opposed. Yet the States themselves
sought and received Federal enforce-
ment assistance in abating 13 pollution
situations which were insufficiently re-
sponsive to their own efforts.
Let us examine the proposed Federal
standards authority. It can easily be
seen that this is not a grant of exclusive
Federal jurisdiction to the detriment and
weakening of State rights. The provision
requires consultation with the State and
local interests right from the start in the
preparation of the standards before they
are ever formally promulgated. Here
again the Federal standards may not be
imposed without affording the States a
reasonable time for establishing consist-
ent standards under their own authority.
Administrative procedural safeguards
are incorporated to give the utmost pro-
tection against arbitrary decision or
action. We can only conclude that the
State agencies resent being placed in a
bad light for having abdicated their
responsibilities. There is nothing to be
gained in acceding to their assertions of
State authority and willingness to dis-
charge their obligations whether a period
of 2 years, 5 years, or even 10 years is
fixed for them to take action. They have
not done the job and it is well nigh cer-
tain that they will not do the job except
in conjunction with cooperative Federal
authority and assistance.
The basis for industry's opposition to
Federal standards authority can be read-
ily understood if not appreciated Re-
sponsible Federal action is much more
inclined to further the ultimate public
interest as against a short-term eco-
nomic benefit. The polluted condition
of the Nation's waters dictates that this
kind of responsible action be taken now.
There is little merit to arguments
against Federal standards which con-
tend that the necessary knowledge and
technical information requisite to the
setting of standards is not yet available.
It would appear that we should wait
until the cause of death is determined by
a post-mortem examination before we
act to apply any kind of preventive
medicine. And preventive medicine is
exactly the appropriately correct term
for standards of water quality. Estab-
lishment of already-developed standards
on our interstate waters and strong en-
forcement of the standards once they are
established is the soundest approach for
preventing pollution from arising in
those few streams that have not yet been
dirtied. The standards will also demon-
strate to municipalities and industries
the potential for improving the quality
of waters now despoiled by setting rea-
sonable guidelines for effective waste
disposal practices. This does not imply
that standards are, in effect, a license to
pollute. Conservation spokesmen, who
have in fact experienced this in certain
areas, are to be commended for their
forthright demands that this not be
allowed to happen. The Congress, of
course, can make certain that it does not
by carefully watching the administration
of this authority if it is provided as it
should be.
The strong endorsement and support
of the President in behalf of this provi-
sion is expressed in his message on
natural beauty. As indicated in my pre-
vious remarks, there is a total lack of
convincing reasons why the Congress
should not grant the requested author-
ity There is every reason, however, as
only a look at the Potomac which flows
past the Nation's capital will confirm,
why the Congress should and must
provide the Federal standard-setting
authority so that pollution of the Na-
tion's valuable water supplies may be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
729
effectively prevented.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. RODINO] may
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I am
very happy today to have the oppor-
tunity to speak in support of S 4, to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
For a long time I have advocated new
legislation to control and correct the pol-
lution of our water supplies. And as a
member of the NATO Parliamentarians'
Conference Scientific and Technical
Committee I have been active in promot-
ing studies of environmental health
problems, such as air and water pollu-
tion. It is for these reasons that I intro-
duced, on January 4, 1985, my own bill,
H.R. 151, and that I am proud today to
express my strong support for the
administration's bill, S. 4.
We can sum up what is happening to
the streams throughout our country in
just two words America's shame. Wa-
ter pollution in the United States has
become a menace to our health and an
economic problem which robs us of the
water we need. It destroys fish and
wildlife, threatens outdoor recreation
areas, and is often an esthetic horror.
We are daily pouring filth into our
lakes, oceans, and rivers from the Snake
and Columbia in the Northwest, to the
Mississippi and Ohio in the Midwest, to
the Passaic and Raritian in the North-
east. In addition to ordinary sewage,
outfalls are discharging slaughterhouse
byproducts, lethal chemicals, and radio-
active matter in our waterways. Polio,
infectious hepatitis, and more than 30
other live viruses carried by sewage
effluent have been isolated by Public
Health Service officials. These germs
have even been found in sewage that
has already been treated.
It should be of concern to all of us
to realize that, because of the neces-
sity of reusing water, there is an almost
50-50 chance that the water we drink
has passed through someone else's
plumbing or an industrial plant sewer.
The adverse effects of water pollution
are much broader than health. Some
industrial plants reject water as unfit for
their uses. Swimming is forbidden on
many beaches. Radioactive wastes are
found in drainage basins. Floating gar-
bage and other filth clog water supply
intakes of some cities that take their
water from open streams. Detergent
foam rung from the faucets in several
States. Mine acids pollute streams and
kill wildlife. Oil spills kill birds and
spoil beaches.
The first Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, passed in 1948, authorized co-
operative studies of the problem The
1£58 amendments authorized Federal
grants for a small portion of the costs
of sewage treatment plants. This pro-
gram was strengthened and enlarged in
1951, but it is still not enough. We need
to take a more positive approach to the
whole problem along the lines of thc
provisions of S. 4, and we need to do this
immediately The longer we wait, the
greater the dangers and the larger the
problem.
Our greatest need is for a new na-
tional policy for the prevention of water
pollution as well as abatement of pollu-
tion already created. The passage of
S. 4 will enable us to establish such a
policy through the efforts of a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
directly responsible to the Assistant Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare charged with supervision of all
water pollution control functions. It will
also provide more money for research,
development and construction of mu-
nicipal sewage treatment works.
The pollution of our waters is the
worst in our history, most experts
agree And our future water needs are
staggering. We are already using more
than 390 billion gallons of water a day,
-------
730
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and by 1980 we will be using 600 billion
gallons each day. By the year 2000, a
trillion gallons. It is clear that we are
going to have to reuse our water time
and time again.
Water pollution is not an insurmount-
able problem, but it must be worked on
immediately. We must invest more
money in city and industrial water
treatment plants and provide more re-
search facilities for the development of
efficient techniques of waste treatment.
The bill now under consideration is a
step toward the achievement of the
cleaner water supply needed to promote
good health and to serve vital functions
in the areas of industry, agriculture and
recreation.
President Johnson has said that:
A prime national goal must be an en-
vironment that is pleasing to the senses
and healthy to live in.
Passage of S. 4 is certainly crucial to
achievement of this objective, and I urge
its prompt and unanimous approval.
[p. 8663]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. STALBAUM] may
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Chairman, the
poisoning of America's waterways is a
growing scandal. This pollution of our
great natural resources is reaching the
point where it is getting late.
An overwhelming mail response to a
recent newsletter describing the urgent
need for the preservation and restora-
tion of this Nation's resources seems
timely proof that our citizens are finally
becoming alarmed over these shocking
developments. My esteeemed Wisconsin
colleague, Senator GAYLORD NELSON,
joined me in pointing out the steadily
worsening problem of pollution of our
waterways.
The bill before us today to strengthen
the Federal water pollution control pro-
gram is most necessary in the current
battle for conservation; the grim picture
of the destruction of this great natural
resource is all the more reason to do
something now.
We must take action immediately or
the green velvet countryside and glitter-
ing blue lakes will become so devastated
as to deprive our children and succeed-
ing generations of a land of beauty.
Continuation of this critical poisoning of
our waters will do untold damage, too,
to the utilitarian aspects of this resource.
The lakes and streams of our country
not only serve people as a source of
water supply but provides everyone with
ideal recreation and sport, and remain as
a big part of this Nation's economy. I
feel a great urgency in requesting our
consideration and action in moving to
stop pollution and provide protection for
our country's waters.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. KEE].
Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise at
this time to pay tribute to the bipartisan
leadership of the House Committee on
Public Works for their dedicated work,
which is based on experience, in drafting
and bringing to the floor of the House
this afternoon the Water Quality Act
of 1965.
Water, clean water, is the most im-
portant domestic problem facing the
American people today. This bill which
we are now considering, as written, is
one of the finest and most important
pieces of legislation ever presented be-
fore the House of Representatives.
Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
I strongly recommend and urge Mem-
bers of the House to see to it that
this bill may unanimously pass without
amendment. America needs this legis-
lation. America needs clean water.
Thank you very much.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Kansas [Mr. MIZE].
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
731
Mr. MIZE. Mr. Chairman, this is an
excellent program. I live on the Mis-
souri River. We call it the Big Muddy.
I am happy to support this excellent
program.
I want to remind Members of the
House that we are being asked to spend
$150 million in connection with cleaning
up our rivers, and yet, before long, we
are going to be asked to sustain a cut of
$120 million in the agricultural con-
servation practices program. I hope we
will all be consistent and restore that
cut because permanent agricultural con-
servation practices contribute to the
cleanliness of our streams and rivers.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the bill S. 4. It was my
privilege to support the original Water
Pollution Control Act when it was passed
through our committee and by the House
in 1956. It was also my privilege to sup-
port the extension of the act in 1961.
This is a further step toward the basic
objective of cleaning up undue pollution
in the streams of America. This is one
field that the people of the United States
fully understand. I do not think there
is a person in this country who has any
doubt whatsoever that there is a need
to do something to control stream pol-
lution, because every person can see
with his own eyes the adverse results
of pollution in streams throughout the
Nation.
We have tremendous public support
for legislation along these lines. I am
very pleased to have been a member of
the committee in their deliberations on
this bill. It has my full support and I
hope it will have the unanimous sup-
port of the House of Representatives
today.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the gentleman's remarks. I
should like to express for myself and for
the gentleman's many, many friends on
this side of the aisle our great delight in
welcoming back this modest, dedicated
and devoted Member of the House. He
has been through an ordeal far beyond
normal. Again, we welcome him with
great enthusiasm and delight.
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to join in the comments made
by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK]. There is probably no more
dedicated member of the Committee on
Public Works, no one more capable
member, than the gentleman from Cali-
fornia. We are certainly delighted to
have Mr. BALDWIN back doing his cus-
tomary sterling job.
Mr. BALDWIN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the
gentleman from California [Mr. DON H.
CLAUSEN].
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of this legislation.
I am pleased to follow the very able and
distinguished gentleman from Califor-
nia [Mr. BALDWIN] who has certainly
provided the committee with great lead-
ership. I join the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. CRAMER], in their
expressions of pleasure at having him
back with our committee. We need his
wise counsel and advice on many of
these matters. He is certainly one of the
finest Members of the House, and I have
been pleased to be able to serve with
him on this committee.
I was especially pleased with the de-
liberations on this bill, on this very im-
portant matter of improving the quality
of water in the streams throughout
America, the discussion was fully bipar-
tisan. All of the comments relating to
-------
732
9527—EPA
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the exceptional cooperation of this com-
mittee that have been made here today
are true and are certainly to the credit
of the committee.
As was previously mentioned, during
the committee hearings, there was never
an ounce of doubt in the minds of the
participating members that we were
purely objective. There was no parti-
sanship. I think the fact that the bill
has come out of the committee with
unanimous support is evidence of that
point.
We must certainly move to improve
the quality of water in all of the States.
And, of course, as the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] said, we have
used the carrot as well as a prod to the
States and local government primarily
responsible for water pollution control
programs.
I would like to refer to this frankly
as the motivated voluntary effort. How-
ever, I would want to admonish the
States themselves that if they do not
want Federal controls or Federal stand-
ards that certainly they are going to
have to take the lead themselves, work-
ing in unison with all local units of gov-
ernment, to resolve some of these
problems.
Mr. Chairman, this has been the great
problem of America, the lack of leader-
ship, the lack of ability sometimes to
move forward and resolve problems in
the environment where they exist.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is designed to
provide the additional authorization and
in 1967 we will again review this impor-
tant subject. I •would hope that we can
see progress that follows the intent and
objectives of the committee itself, as we
have worked diligently and with dis-
patch to further the improvement of
water quality throughout America.
I urgently request all Members to sup-
port this legislation and make this a
historic day in the orderly development
of adequate conservation measures.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
15 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. HARSHA].
Mr. HARSHA Mr. Chairman, water
is one of the most important of our nat-
ural resources, and the entire fabric of
our society is dependent on it. The wise
and proper use of this great asset is
essential to the growth and welfare of
this Nation's fish and wildlife, our com-
mu-
[p. 8664]
nities, our industries, our agriculture,
and the very well-being of man himself.
Because the social and economic de-
velopment of this country is so entwined
around an adequate supply of clean
water, the pollution of this Nation's
streams, lakes, and waterways is one of
the gravest domestic problems confront-
ing us today.
Admittedly, significant progress has
been made in combating pollution in the
last few years, but a great deal remains
to be done. We are far from having
conquered the problem. Actually we
have only begun—the war on pollution.
The struggle to preserve and restore the
waters of the Nation is a struggle which
will not be won within the next few years
or even within the next few decades. It
is a struggle which will require the com-
bined effort of Federal, State, and local
governments. S. 4 as reported by the
House Public Works Committee provides
us with some of the tools to wage this
war on pollution. For the first time in
the history of Federal water pollution
control legislation in this Nation, the bill
before us today, S. 4, as reported, takes a
step toward a cooperative effort among
the three levels of government to share
in the costs of construction of sewage
treatment works. It has become obvious
that a solution to the water pollution
problem can be found only through the
concerted action of all levels of govern-
ment.
Despite the conviction of the minority
on the Committee on Public Works that
action to solve our water pollution prob-
lems was and still is urgently needed, it
was our belief that many of the bills be-
fore our committee this session on the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
733
subject of water pollution control, con-
tained unwise, undesirable, and unac-
ceptable provisions.
After public hearings were held on
these bills, lengthy deliberations of the
committee were conducted in a bipar-
tisan atmosphere. As a result of these
deliberations, the committee has re-
ported an amended bill which we do
support. Even though it still contains
sections about which we have reserva-
tions, such as the establishment of an
additional Assistant Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and the estab-
lishment of a separate Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration within
the Department, we feel the bill makes a
great contribution to the struggle to
combat pollution.
S. 4, as reported, is an acceptable and
workable bill, and it is my hope that there
will not be any attempt to amend the bill
on the floor today to reincorporate those
unwise, undesirable, and unacceptable
provisions which the committee struck
out.
I refer specifically to that section in
S. 4, as passed by the other body, which
would have given the Secretary of HEW
the authority to promulgate regulations
setting forth standards of water quality
to be applicable to interstate waters or
portions thereof. These standards would
have been promulgated and would have
been mandatory if, within a reasonable
time after being requested by the Secre-
tary to do so, the appropriate States and
interstate agencies had not developed
standards found by the Secretary to be
consistent with the stated purpose of the
bill.
We, and evidently a considerabJe num-
ber of the majority on the committee, are
strongly opposed to such a provision.
Standards of water quality may be badly
needed, but they should be established
by the State and local agencies which are
most familiar with the matter in a given
locality, such as the economic impact of
establishing and enforcing stringent
standards of water quality.
The water pollution control program
has traditionally been one of Federal-
State cooperation, and while there can be
no question of wishing to have the high-
est possible standards, I believe that the
authority authorized by the other body
would be contrary to the Federal-State
cooperative relationship which has here-
tofore existed, and in fact do violence to
that relationship and cooperation. Max-
imum progress in this field will only be
achieved through cooperation between
State and Federal agencies and to en-
danger this cooperation would be to hin-
der the objective of maximum progress.
Authorizing the Secretary of HEW to
promulgate and enforce such standards
to the exclusion of the States would ob-
viously discourage the States and local
agencies from developing their own plans
and standards for water quality and
purity. It would give a single Federal
official the power to control the economic,
recreational, industrial, agricultural, and
municipal uses of all interstate waters
and subsequently lands adjacent to those
waters in all parts of the Nation A Fed-
eral bureaucracy would actually have
the control of economic life or death over
any given area within this Nation. It
does not take a very vivid imagination to
realize the ramifications of vesting such
authority in the Federal Government.
Such power over local affairs has never
been vested in a Federal official, and we
are opposed to doing it now.
After exhaustive consideration of this
proposal, the committee approved a sub-
stitute provision which requires a letter
oi intent from the State that it will "es-
tablish water quality criteria applicable
to interstate waters" by June 30, 1967.
This is an acceptable provision and a vast
improvement over the Senate version.
The existing law declares that it is the
policy of Congress to recognize, preserve,
and protect the primary responsibilities
and rights of the States in preventing
and controlling water pollution, and this
new provision is consistent with that
policy.
Mr. Chairman, public health is one of
the primary objectives in any pollution
-------
734
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
abatement effort and the committee has
provided that the Surgeon General must
be consulted on the health aspects of
water pollution by the new administra-
tion. As all of the Members know, the
State authorities desire to keep public
health in the pollution abatement pic-
ture and this should be done—since the
necessity for insuring an adequate supply
of pure water is based on human needs.
A compromise was made in the
amounts of Federal grants for construc-
tion of sewage treatment works, as well
as in the increased annual appropriation
authority. The Republican position for
years has been that the States should be
encouraged to join in the construction
of sewage treatment works, and this is
accomplished under section 4, which per-
mits Federal grants above dollar ceiling
limitations only when the States match
the Federal grants,for such projects.
One other important revision in the
law that is authorized by this bill before
us today is the subpena power. At the
outset it was suggested that this author-
ity be applied to all phases of the en-
forcement sections, but realizing that
this might lead to unnecessary harass-
ment, the committee wisely limited this
power to the public hearing stage with
the provision that no trade secrets or
secret processes need be divulged.
Mr. Chairman, those are the major
revisions. S. 4, as reported, is supported
by the minority of the committee, and
we hope that this body will have the
good judgment to pass this bill in the
form it has been submitted by the
committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such time as he may
desire to the gentleman from Hawaii
[Mr. MATSUNAGA].
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of S. 4, the Water Quality
Act of 1985.
It is often said that pure water is man's
greatest asset. The truth of the state-
ment is self-evident. The important
corollary to that statement, one that we
too often do not fully appreciate, is that
pure water is water that is free of harm-
ful impurities, in other words, water
that is not polluted. And the problem
of preventing pollution of water is in-
tricately interwoven with the problem of
controlling the discharge into any waters
of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other waste.
These are problems which experience
shows that our States, cities, and towns
are not able to resolve without Federal
assistance. This bill will not only con-
tinue to provide that assistance, but it
will increase the volume and widen the
scope of that assistance.
Noteworthy, for example, are the pro-
visions in the bill which would increase
the amount for a single municipal grant
from $600,000 to $1.2 million and raise
the ceiling for multimunicipal sewage
treatment works from the present
amount of $2.4 million to $4.8 million.
As our Committee on Public Works has
pointed out, this increase is expected to
induce communities with larger popula-
tions and, therefore, larger costs to un-
dertake construction of needed sewage
treatment works.
While providing for the needs of larger
communities, the bill also takes into con-
sideration the pressing needs of the
smaller communities. This it does by
the allotment of the first $100 million on
the basis of the existing formula that
takes into account population and per
capita income. The smaller communi-
ties are also protected by the provision
that at least 50 percent of such $100 mil-
lion is to be used for grants to projects
servicing municipalities of 125,000 popu-
lation or under.
[p. 8665]
In my own State of Hawaii, these pro-
visions which assure aid to smaller com-
munities will provide much needed
asistance to our smaller cities and towns
in the construction of sewage treatment
works.
Mr. Chairman, the need for upgrading
our pure water program is imperative,
and I urge a vote in favor of this bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
735
[p. 8666]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. PICKLE].
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, there is
no doubt in my mind that this Nation—
and, indeed, the entire world—faces a
deathly disastrous water shortage un-
less immediate steps are taken to plan
for future needs.
The time can certainly come when
the booming population's growing de-
mands for clean water will greatly ex-
ceed the available supply. I say "clean"
water, Mr. Chairman, because the vastly
abundant supply of available water we
have is not all good water. The oceans
are the best example of this, as well as
the huge underground supplies of brack-
ish, unusable salt water. But more
threatening to future generations is the
ever-swelling supply of polluted sewage
waters and the increasing contamination
of our streams and rivers.
As the population explodes, the amount
of polluted water becomes greater, while
the demand for additional pure water in-
creases. This puts a continual strain on
existing supplies and, as time passes, the
situation can only become worse.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is
time we in Congress began to think in
terms of water quality. And it is time
we took effective action now to meet the
pressing problems of water pollution.
I am convinced that the measure now
before us, S. 4 by Mr. MUSKIE, as
amended and submitted to the House by
the Honorable JOHN BLATNIK from the
Committee on Public Works, should be
enacted without delay as an effective
means to assure future generations of an
adequate and ample supply of clean
water.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HOW-
ARD] has already demonstrated his capa-
bilities in representing the citizens of the
Third Congressional District of his State.
In addition, he has become a valued
member of the Committee on Public
Works. I wish at this time to make the
remarks which he prepared for presen-
tation during the committee's recent
public hearings on S. 4, the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965, a part of the record on
this important legislation. Through in-
advertence, his statement failed to be in-
cluded when the hearings went to print.
The following remarks were prepared for
delivery at 9:30 a.m, Friday, February
19, by Congressman JAMES J. HOWARD,
Democrat, Third District of New Jersey,
before the House Committee on Public
Works at its hearings on water pollution
control.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The remarks referred to are as follows:
Mr HOWARD. Mr Chairman, as a new
Member of Congress and of the Committee
on Public Works, I am honored to have this
early opportunity to express my support for
H R 3988, the Water Quality Act of 1965
The members of this committee, under ihe
strong leadership of its chairman, have al-
ready made great and farsighted contribu-
tions to conservation in this country The
Water Quality Act of 1965 will give this Na-
tion new tools with which to conserve that
resource which may soon become our most
precious—water In commenting on H R 3988
today, I should like particularly to discuss
one aspect of it, the creation of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
The Third Congressional District of New
Jersey—Ocean and Monmouth Counties—is
a very water-conscious district The lessons
of the need to combat pollution have been
learned the hard way by the residents of
this area Raritan Bay, which separates
Monmouth County from Staten Island and
Long Island, N Y , may be this country's
worst instance of the pollution of salt water
Recently a Federal study of Rantan Bay
pollution, with the help of some economists,
has been able to estimate in dollars the dam-
ages actually inflicted by the pollution of
Raritan Bay The hard clam industry, once
a major source of income in the bay towns,
has had to be closed almost entirely, due to
the presence of fecal bacteria m the shellfish
which caused a serious hepatitis epidemic in
1961 The present value of the remaining
shellfish industry is $40,000 a year; the oro-
jected value of the industry if the water vvere
to be cleaned up is $3 million a year The
fin fish industry is currently worth only
$200,000 a year; it is estimated that figure
-------
736
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
could be doubled if the water were clean
Many of the popular bathing beaches have
had to be closed The current yearly income
from businesses associated with bathing
beaches is $500,000, economists estimate that
with the literally limitless demand for rec-
reational opportunities in the New York
metropolitan area, these businesses could be
worth $10 million if the water were clean
The boating industry, including marinas
and other docking facilities, is now worth
three-fourths of a million dollars a year, it
could easily reach $1V2 million
These figures on the value of fishing and
recreation, do not, of course, and cannot in-
clude the inestimable value of safety for oui
people and, particularly their children. Al-
though beaches and shellfish beds are
closed, it is well known that children do
swim in them and that unscrupulous clam-
mers do take clams from polluted beds, and
that the job of patrolling these waters
adequately to prevent these dangerous
incursions is beyond the power of State
authorities.
New Jersey residents have, due to the
financial inability to cope with a rapidly
expanding population, failed to adequately
treat their wastes, both municipal and in-
dustrial, before discharging them into public
waters But residents in the Raritan Bay
vicinity have been equally, if not more, dam-
aged by discharges of untreated and inade-
quately treated sewage from New York
Everyday, Manhattan alone discharges over
50 million gallons of raw sewage into New
York Harbor, and more than half of the
pollution of Raritan Bay comes into the bay
from New York Harbor This amounts to
interstate pollution of the worst sort, pre-
cisely the interstate pollution that the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 was
designed to correct.
President Johnson, in his message on
natural beauty, spoke of the need for a new
conservation The old conservation, of pro-
tection and development, will no longer do
the job, he said What is needed now is a
firm, regulatory hand There must be no
more procrastinating Staff of the Depart-
ment have prepared a priority list of 90
polluted interstate rivers which may require
enforcement action; this action must be
taken as expeditiously as possible
For Federal enforcement to be fully effec-
tive, there must be continued popular sup-
port for the cause of pollution control The
creation of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, in addition to freeing
the program from some bureaucratic slow-
downs, will also serve to make the public
more aware of the urgency of ending the pol-
lution of our Nation's water resources The
country's demand for clean water is rapidly
approaching the limit of its current supply,
and unless action is taken to reclaim pol-
luted water immediately, the year of 1980
may see our water supply inadequate to meet
demands.
The Senate has passed a water pollution
control bill, similar to H R 3988, by a non-
partisan vote of 68 to 8 I hope that, under
the able leadership of the chairman of this
committee, the House of Representatives will
pass the excellent measure proposed by the
chairman quickly and with as great a
majority
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
HOWARD] such time as he may desire.
Mr. HOWARD Mr. Chairman, I am
privileged to speak today in support of
one of the key pieces of legislation in the
Nation's conservation program, the Fed-
eral Water Quality Act of 1935. Presi-
dent Johnson's Great Society program
is, in a sense, a giant conservation pro-
gram: a plan for making the most of
human, natural, and economic resources.
This Congress, in passing the Appalachia
bill and other pieces of legislation in the
war on poverty, has determined to end
the anomaly of a wealthy nation, the
wealthiest in human history, permitting
a large fraction of its population to be
damaged and degraded by poverty. It is
equally anomalous for a wealthy nation
to permit its natural resources to be
damaged and degraded. The amend-
ments to the Water Pollution Control
Act of which I am proud to be a cospon-
sor aim to put an end to the abuse of
needed resources. We have become
great by using our resources; we must
see that we do not now undermine our
greatness by destroying them through
careless waste and mismanagement.
The legislation we will pass today is
designed to attack -water pollution from
all sides. We will attack it by means of
a stronger enforcement program; by in-
creased and better distributed Federal
grants for construction of waste treat-
ment facilities; by Federal grants for re-
search and development.
The administrative provision of the
bill, which forms the basis for all its
other functions, is the creation of a Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Admmis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
737
tration within the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. The new Ad-
ministration will demonstrate the ur-
gency of the need to abate pollution in
America and at the same time provide
[p.8667]
the necessary machinery to do it. Today
the Federal pollution control program is
buried deep within the bureaucracy of
the Department—branches within a divi-
sion within a bureau within an office
within an agency. With such an opera-
tion it has been difficult to inform the
public of how crucial our threatening
water shortage may be. It has also been
difficult, for a program hindered by the
redtape that accrues to a program so low
in the chain of authority, to take imagi-
native, rapid, and forthright action to
stop pollution. The new Administration,
when supplied as it must and will be with
an able Administrator and an expanded
and capable staff, must at the very least
triple the current pace of pollution
abatement.
The bill provides for an important
increase in authorization for Federal
construction grants. The amount author-
ized in the new bill, $150 million a year,
could be doubled or tripled and still be
well spent. But this 50-percent increase
should do much to stimulate construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities.
The bill also strengthens the enforce-
ment arm of the program by providing
subpena power to the Secretary in con-
nection with the hearings that may be
called if there is no compliance with con-
ference recommendations. This power
will enable the Administration to obtain,
for example, data on industrial waste
discharges, when such data is not forth-
coming in the normally cooperative way.
The bill recognizes the growing con-
tribution of storm-caused overflow of
sewage and municipal wastes to polluting
our streams. Grants for research and
development work on this problem are
provided with a total authorization of
$20 million a year.
Finally, the bill recognizes particularly
the damage inflicted by water pollution
on the country's shellfish industry. I
should like to expand somewhat on this
point, for it is worthy of particular at-
tention. Shellfish, particularly clams
and oysters, are adversely affected by
many pollutants. Research done by the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare is beginning to demonstrate that
papermill wastes are toxic to oysters. It
has long been known that both clams and
oysters are sensitive to bacterial contam-
ination, and that shellfish from polluted
waters can cause serious illness, in-
cluding hepatitis, in man. As a result of
pollution, many beds that were once
leading producers of shellfish have had
to be closed by State and local author-
ities. Even more worrisome is the fact
that the patrolling of closed beds is
usually not adequate, and in many North
Atlantic bays the poaching of shellfish
from polluted beds and marketing them
illicitly is a lucrative business. I am
sure that my colleagues are aware of the
several disastrous instances in which
severe hepatitis epidemics have been
caused by shellfish.
There are several factors that make
pollution a particular hardship for shell-
fishermen. Stationed at the mouths and
estuaries of rivers, they must watch an-
grily as year by year their upstream
neighbors make of their river a dirtier
and dirtier stream. Not a particularly
powerful political force, shellfishermen
have had little success in pleading their
cause to State legislatures. Furthermore,
Federal law itself discriminates against
them: the Public Health Service is re-
quired to prohibit the movement of
shellfish taken from polluted beds in
interstate commerce, thus confiscating
the product of the fisherman for no fault
of his own. Yet no Government agency,
as of today, is required to act to abate
the pollution that ruined the fisherman's
crop.
The shellfish provision in this bill will
attempt to protect the economic interests
of the shellfish industry, as well as the
safety interests of the general public, by
-------
738
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
making "substantial economic injury
from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products" grounds for a water
pollution control enforcement action.
An additional tool in this many pronged
attack on water pollution, the shellfish
provision should correct a particular in-
justice that has been done to-a small but
priceless industry.
I would point out that my own district
of Monmouth and Ocean Counties in the
Third District of New Jersey lies along
the Atlantic Ocean between the Raritan
Bay on the north and extending below
Barnegat Bay to the inlets south of Long
Beach Island.
In my district the hard clam industry,
once a major source of income in the
bay towns, has had to be closed almost
entirely, due to the presence of fecal
bacteria in the shellfish which caused a
serious hepatitis epidemic in 1961. The
present value of the remaining shallfish
industry is $40,000 a year; the projected
value of the industry if the water is clean
will rise to some $3 million a year. The
fin fish industry is currently worth only
$200,000 a year and it is estimated that
this figure will be doubled if the water is
cleaned.
The Federal Water Quality Act of 19S5
is indeed a conservation milestone for
which a major share of the credit must
go to JOHN BLATNIK, Congressman from
Minnesota. Author of the 1956 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, this ardent
lover of Minnesota's beautiful waters has
not rested since that time. He has cease-
lessly inquired into the operations of the
water pollution control program, con-
cerning himself with the smallest details
and the largest policies. As a result of
his efforts, we now have a bill carefully
and expertly tailored to fit the task. I
am confident that the House will endorse
it overwhelmingly.
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOWARD. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to associate my-
self with the remarks of the gentleman
in regard to shellfish and other foods
of the ocean. Coming from a coastal
State which is one of the great producers
of oysters and shrimp and other sea-
food, we have had problems of pollu-
tion over the years. We have cleared
up some of these problems through our
own State initiative, but it also goes to
show that the States that are desirous
of solving their own problems and clean-
ing up this water pollution need the
helping hand of big brother, that is the
Federal Government.
Mr. HOWARD. I thank the gentle-
man from Louisiana and I imagine the
gentleman agrees that it is difficult for
the poor shellfishermen to stand idly by
while upstream pollutants, possibly from
other States, pollute the water in his
area and he is helpless to do anything
about it.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND].
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman,
before making my formal remarks in
support of this legislation, I have a ques-
tion I would like to ask the distinguished
chairman of this subcommittee that con-
sidered this legislation, the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK]. This
has reference to subsection (h) of sec-
tion 4, which is found on page 24 of the
bill S. 4, as reported.
Before asking this question of our dis-
tinguished colleague, I would like to
commend him as I would like to com-
mend my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida, for the bipartisan manner in
which this bill was handled in commit-
tee. I think it is a stronger bill than it
was and a better bill.
My question to Mr. BLATNIK is this:
Under the provisions of subsection (h),
which adds the new subsection (f) to
the basic legislation—I have specific
reference to the type of situation which
might occur in the northern part of my
district, where are located the head-
waters of a river—if two or three towns
got together and set up a regional plan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
739
ning agency for sewage control, if this
were properly certified by the Governor
of the State and otherwise came into
conformity with this section, would the
community qualify for this extra 10 per-
cent of assistance? I am a little confused
by the use of the word "metropolitan."
In my district the towns involved are
quite rural in nature. That is why I am
concerned.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. In the opinion
of the subcommittee chairman the areas
would qualify. The intent was not to
place any rigid interpretation on the
word "metropolitan" even though the
bill later, on page 25, line 7, does state:
For the purposes of this subsection, the
term "metropolitan area" means either (1)
a standard metropolitan statistical area as
denned by the Bureau of the Budget—
The key language, I call to the atten-
tion of the gentleman, is at the bottom
of page 24—
or regional planning agency empowered un-
der State or local laws or interstate compact
to perform metropolitan or regional plan-
ning for a metropolitan area within which
the assistance is to be used—
And the following is the key language:
or other agency or instrumentality designated
for such purposes by the Governor (or Gov-
ernors in the case of interstate planning) —
It was our purpose to make that flexi-
ble. In my opinion the situation the
gentleman referred to would be covered,
and that area would be eligible.
Mr. CLEVELAND. I thank the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Minnesota.
[p. 8668]
His words are most reassuring. We
should all bear in mind that although
many of the water pollution problems
faced by the Nation are found in the city
areas, by clearing up pollution of head-
waters of some of our rivers there will be
a great public benefit not only to the
cities themselves, for water supply, but
also for recreational benefits accruing to
many people in the country.
I know the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota is aware of this, but we
must also remember that in the head-
waters areas where the pollution occurs
the communities generally are smaller
and their capacity to construct sewage
treatment facilities and to pay the proper
share of them is less.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recom-
mend S. 4, as amended, to the House.
As a member of the Public Works Com-
mittee, I took an active part in the hear-
ings on the bill and in the committee.
This measure represents the best bi-
partisan, constructive effort. Substan-
tial improvements have been made in
the bill as it came to us from the Senate.
Our country has made great strides
forward in the campaign against water
pollution begun when the first national
program was established under the
Eisenhower administration, nearly 9
years ago. The program was strength-
ened further by amendments enacted
during President Kennedy's first year in
office.
As the committee report states:
The impact of the Federal Water Fo'luticn
Control Act has been impressive It has taken
us in less than 9 years from a situation in
which untrammeled pollution threatened to
foul the Nation's waterways beyond hope of
restoration, to a point where we are holding
our own.
Greater efforts, made possible through
these current amendments, however, are
needed. It is not enough to hold our
own at present levels. The pressures of
population growth, the growth of our
cities, and the changes in industrial
technology make it imperative to step
up the program.
It goes without saying that water is
one of our most precious resources. Al-
though it exists in tremendous quantity
in a variety of ways, the time has past
when we can use it carelessly. Through
many years of direct experience and leg-
islative work in New Hampshire, I have
become intimately familiar with prob-
lems of water conservation and pollution
in northern New England.
EXPERIENCE GUIDED AMENDMENT
It was on the basis of this experience
-------
740
LEGAL COMPILATION—-WATER
that I vigorously opposed a provision in
S. 4 as it was passed by the Senate that
would have authorized the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to pre-
pare regulations setting forth standards
of water quality to be applicable to wa-
ters covered by the bill. Under this
provision, the Federal agency would
establish standards that would be man-
datory on the States. Happily, this
provision has been changed by the com-
mittee and the bill now places respon-
sibility for setting standards on the
States.
High standards of water quality are
essential but they ought to be set by
those local agencies that are familiar
with the local conditions including eco-
nomic factors. There are places in New
Hampshire, for instance, where a manda-
tory Federal standard set by a remote
official could, conceivably, restore a river
to its natural purity but only by ruining
paper mills, which are the main or even
the sole industry for an entire region.
This is a problem that exists in various
forms throughout the country. In legis-
lating on the problem, we must take care
to provide for a careful balancing of
community interests. S. 4, as we have
amended it, provides for this in the only
practical way it can be done, that is, by
working through the State and local
governments.
FEDERAL ZONING CONTROL OPPOSED
The Senate version of the bill actually
would discourage State and local govern-
ments from developing their own plans
for water quality control. Moreover, it
would give the Federal Government ef-
fective power to establish zoning meas-
ures by which to control the use of land
within watershed areas in every part of
the country. Such power over local af-
fairs never has been vested in a Fed-
eral official and should not be. The
drift toward centralization in this Nation
is serious enough without accelerating
it deliberately and unwisely.
Accordingly, the committee has re-
moved this provision and instead has in-
serted a requirement for the States to file
letters of intent setting forth their
standards of water control. States that
do not do so within a specified time limit
would not receive any funds under this
act.
The bill has been amended further to
increase the authorization for grants to
States for construction of waste treat-
ment facilities and new incentives for the
States to participate in the costs have
been written in. The bill does not go as
far along this line as I would have liked
but it provides an important step
forward.
CLEVELAND AMENDMENT EXPLAINED
It is a matter of keen regret to me that
the Public Works Committee would not
accept my proposed amendment to this
bill, which would have given an extra
boost to hard-pressed communities in
disadvantaged and depressed areas. Un-
der the provisions of my proposed
amendment, communities in depressed
or disadvantaged areas would receive an
extra 15-percent contribution from the
Federal Government provided they were
located in States that matched equally
the basic 30-percent Federal contribu-
tion. My reasons for proposing this
amendment are, of course, clear. When
we consider that in Appalachia, com-
munities there may receive up to 80-
percent Federal assistance for sewage
treatment plants, it seems only fair that,
in northern New England, communities
should be entitled to at least 45 percent
Federal assistance. Many of our head-
water communities simply do not have
enough taxable property to support large
sewage treatment plants, the purpose of
which is to ultimately benefit larger and
more prosperous communities located
down river, and, indeed the entire Na-
tion, by improving our water resources
and recreational opportunities.
In this connection, I am proud of the
leadership in New Hampshire's General
Court that have proposed to increase
New Hampshire's share upward from the
present level of 30 percent as high as any
in the Nation. I applaud their construc-
tive proposal, but, in certain rural areas
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
741
of New Hampshire, I think it only fair
that the Federal Government should do
more.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I repeat
my statement, this measure is the prod-
uct of careful, bipartisan deliberation.
I urge its adoption.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. MCCLORY].
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to speak briefly on this bill and to
join with others who have commended
the chairman and ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Florida, as
well as all members of the committee,
who have considered this subject in
great detail and have come forward with
the legislation.
I had the privilege of serving with the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES]
as the ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee on Natural Resources and
Power, which, as the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. RANDALL] indicated earlier
conducted the most extensive hearings
ever conducted by a committee of the
House on the subject of water pollution.
I wish to emphasize the fact that there
are many competent and experienced
local and State water pollution agencies.
In addition, there are a great many
responsible individuals and groups
throughout the States who are working
in behalf of cleaner water for our
Nation.
I realize that there are differences of
opinion as to some details of this bill.
I testified on two occasions before the
committee, giving my suggestions, not all
of which are being followed. Never-
theless, I want to indicate my desire to
support this legislation. The differences
of opinion which I have are being recon-
ciled in support of this measure which I
regard as a forward step in the battle
to reduce water pollution.
I would certainly like to join in the
comment which was made earlier by the
gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER]
in suggesting that the pollution of our
underground water supply is threatened
also. This is something which should be
of great concern to the Federal, State,
and local agencies of our country. More
and more we are tending to dispose of
our waste waters underground by pump-
ing the used water below the surface. In
this way we are contaminating, in many
instances, the great underground water
supplies. Underground water reserves
amount to many times the supply of the
surface waters, I might say.
I also want to indicate the good co-
operation that has developed between
the Federal, State, and local agencies in
behalf of this subject of water pollution.
Great progress has been made in this
field. We should not underestimate the
progress that has been made by the
State and local agencies as well as by
many industries and communities under
the existing legislation. While this bill
[p. 8669]
calls for the establishment of a new ad-
ministration to be in charge of water
pollution, I would certainly not want to
suggest that the existing administra-
tion has not done an effective job, be-
cause, indeed, it has. Many other evi-
dences of progress have been witnessed,
including the coordination of data
gathering of water quality and the
coordination of water research activi-
ties Many of these things have come
about not just by legislation or by
chance, but by virtue of the fact that we
in the Congress and the public generally
have focused attention on the need for
cleaning up the waters of our Nation.
The Congress and the public have pro-
moted the most efficient possible employ-
ment of the limited number of expert
hydrologists and other scientists whose
talents are needed in reducing water
pollution.
A continuing problem is that of our
Federal installations. Our Subcommit-
tee on Natural Resources and Power is-
sued a report with regard to the problems
of the Federal installations. We also
produced a significant report with re-
gard to municipal sewage and certain
-------
742
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
other subjects. These subjects may re-
quire additional legislation which we
may have occasion to consider later.
With respect to the subjects covered by
the bill and with respect to the immedi-
ate needs we are considering here, I can-
not help but feel that this is a great
forward step in our national task of im-
proving the quality of the waters of our
Nation.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Moss].
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, an effec-
tive Federal water pollution control pro-
gram is essential to the preservation and
protection of our Nation's waterways.
However, no water pollution control pro-
gram can be truly effective unless water
quality standards are a part of that
program.
Water quality standards are a recog-
nized tool in pollution abatement pro-
grams throughout the country. Not
only have official standards of water
quality been established by a number of
State and local agencies, but standards
have been used by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare in its
pollution abatement program.
These standards, however, are not offi-
cial standards of water quality set by
the Department, but rather are those
which are established at the conference
stage of enforcement actions by the
States concerned and the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. At
these conferences the conferees review
the sources of effects of interstate pollu-
tion, usually agree upon water quality
standards, and recommend a program of
remedial action which will improve the
quality of water to meet the standards
they have established. This method has
proved effective in a number of instances,
such as the Colorado River and its tribu-
taries and certain areas of the Missis-
sippi River, to name but a few.
The most recent enforcement confer-
ence held by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare on March 2-9,
1S85, concerning the interstate waters of
the southern end of Lake Michigan and
the Calumet River, Ind. and 111., is again
illustrative of the use of water quality
standards. At this conference the con-
ferees unanimously agreed to use as a
guide for water quality at Chicago
waterworks intakes the "Recommended
Quality Criteria Goals, Lake Water at
Chicago Intakes" presented by the De-
partment of Water and Sewers of the
city of Chicago, at the conference. These
standards were adopted by the conferees
for the purpose of initiating a program
of remedial action to protect water qual-
ity in the area for the maximum number
of legitimate uses.
Although it is apparent that the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare can, and does, use water quality
standards in its pollution control pro-
gram, and these standards are an effec-
tive tool in pollution abatement action, I
believe that the Federal pollution control
program could proceed more rapidly and
effectively if water quality standards
were established separately, and not as a
result of each individual enforcement
action.
In most of the 34 enforcement actions
taken by the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare since 1957, water
quality standards have been established
by the conferees, or when necessary, rec-
ommended by the Secretary. There are
at least 90 more areas where the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare has evidence of interstate pollution.
If enforcement action is taken on these
polluted streams, and if the Federal and
State agencies must wait until each con-
ference is held before establishing water
quality standards, it will be many long
years before this pollution is abated.
However, if the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in cooperation
with the State agencies, can act now to
establish water quality standards for in-
terstate streams throughout the country,
I believe that the course of remedial
action would be clear to all, and pollution
abatement could be accomplished more
swiftly on the local, State, and Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HlSTORY
743
levels.
Certainly water quality standards are
an effective tool in pollution abatement
programs, but even more important, they
can be an effective measure in preventing
pollution. Our scientists and engineers
have developed almost miraculous tech-
niques for reducing pollutants in waste
discharges, but with all their technical
knowledge and skill they cannot com-
pletely restore a filthy stream to its
former freshness and beauty. The
Potomac River is a good example of the
deleterious effects of pollution on a once
beautiful and clean stream. There is
now an abatement program in force on
the Potomac which will end the pollution
of this river. But even with the tre-
mendous efforts being put forth to clean
up the Potomac we know that the effects
of the many years of pollution will not
vanish overnight.
The present approach of the Federal
water pollution control program is nega-
tive. The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare under provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
can act to abate interstate pollution only
after health or welfare is endangered.
In other words the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare can act only
after serious and sometimes irreversible
damages have occurred.
If the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare were able to set water
quality standards, the Federal Govern-
ment and the States could act to pre-
vent the water quality from falling below
these standards. Action could be taken
before health or welfare was endangered
and serious damages occurred. This is a
positive, effective, and beneficial ap-
proach to preserving our water resources.
If clean water is our goal, it is essential
that the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare be empowered to set
standards of water quality not only to aid
in the abatement of existing pollution,
but to aid in the prevention of the fur-
ther needless destruction of our remain-
ing clean streams.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. OTTINGER] may ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of S. 4, the Water Quality
Act of 1965, and I want to congratulate
my distinguished colleague, the gentle-
man from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK], for
fighting the good fight to end pollution
of the Nation's waterways. I only re-
gret that his fight was not a bit more
successful.
This bill purports to carry out the re-
quest of the President for a concerted
attack on water pollution. It is to be
a first step on the road to a Great
Society in the area of meeting the Na-
tion's pure water needs and ending the
poisoning of our lakes, rivers and
streams.
I hail the direction. But this bill is
only a faltering, baby step in the right
direction.
This bill does not begin to provide the
funds necessary to do, or even stimulate
State and local governments to do the
job. It adds $50 million a year to the
$100 million already authorized, and I
am certainly grateful for that.
However, one sewage treatment plant
for New York City alone cost $86 mil-
lion. The State of New York has two-
thirds of its population living in areas
affected by polluted waters. It has 1,167
communities that are pouring either in-
adequately treated wastes or raw sew-
age into rivers, lakes and streams. I
am sure that the problem in other
States is of comparable proportions. The
funds authorized by S. 4 will cure but
a drop in the oceans of polluted water
flowing through this land.
I testified before the Committee on
Public Works to request additional funds
to attack the pollution problem and I
firmly believe that an effort of great
magnitude will be required to resolve
-------
744
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I and 10 of my col-
leagues have introduced legislation to
[p.8670]
establish a Hudson Highlands National
Scenic Riverway in New York. One of
the prime purposes of this legislation
is to make land along the banks of the
Hudson River available for recreational
purposes—for swimming and boating and
the like.
The benefits of this legislation will be
beyond realization, however, regardless
of what is done to preserve the shore-
line, unless something is done to clear up
the pollution that makes the river vir-
tually useless for recreation the entire
length of the Highlands.
New York City alone pours more than
600 million gallons of raw sewage into
the Hudson daily. Since the Hudson is
a tidal estuary, this sewage is a major
factor in pollution reaching as far north
as Poughkeepsie. To clear up this prob-
lem alone will require more money for
New York City than S. 4 provides for
the entire Nation.
The New York metropolitan area has a
water shortage crisis this year. People
will be prohibited from watering their
lawns except for a few hours one day
a week. Restrictions will be imposed on
car washing and even on bathing. Hy-
drants will be sealed in New York City
so that children will not be able to enjoy
their usual summer play.
The most obvious way to meet this
shortage would be to use the plentiful
waters of the Hudson to supplement the
watershed supply. This is feasible since
the river is not saline north of Pough-
keepsie. But many communities are
revulsed at the idea of using Hudson
River water for drinking purposes be-
cause of the pollution. To gain public
acceptance of the idea of using Hudson
water, we will have to clean up the river,
and the cost will be far in excess of the
funds S. 4 authorizes.
New York City newspapers recently
carried a story about typhoid cases which
resulted from children drinking Hudson
River water. This certainly demon-
strates the urgency of attacking the
problem forcefully and immediately.
Governor Rockefeller has proposed a
$1.7 billion water pollution control pro-
gram for New York State. This pro-
gram makes the Federal proposal we are
considering today insignificant by com-
parison. In testifying before the Public
Works Committee I supported Governor
Rockefeller's request for an advance
commitment formula so that States may
plan ahead and commit funds for long-
term programs of pollution control and
abatement and take their share of Fed-
eral funds over a period of years. Such
a formula would be a worthwhile addi-
tion to this legislation, for the cost of
building sewage treatment facilities is
ever rising, and it will cost both the
States and the Federal Government far
less to complete the necessary facilities
as soon as possible.
In my view, there is also an urgent
need for Federal standards for water
pollution control. The State encourage-
ment formula under S. 4 makes a start,
but a real problem arises on interstate
waterways when one State's inadequate
practices nullify another State's worthy
efforts. The results are particularly dev-
astating when the lax State happens to
lie upstream.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that before too
long we will add the teeth necessary to
make this legislation truly effective. I
hope we will provide funds adequate to
make a real dent in the water pollution
problem, and I hope we will add Federal
standards.
I support S. 4 as a first baby step in
the right direction. I hope the baby's
growth will be rapid and healthy.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. WRIGHT]
has been one of the real sparkplugs in
this field. At times when we needed him
we called him our running quarterback
and at other times we called him our
blocking halfback with respect to this
water pollution control legislation for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
745
many years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. WRIGHT], such
time as he may require.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this
undoubtedly is one of the most vitally
necessary bills which will be presented
to Congress this year. It builds upon
the highly successful experience of the
basic Water Pollution Control Act of
1956 and branches out onto new fronts
in our continuing battle to preserve and
pass on to the American posterity a heri-
tage of clean water.
Certainly no informed person can deny
the importance of the problem or the
vital urgency of the need.
Within the past 8 years, through the
program begun by this Congiess and
pioneered primarily by the vision of our
colleague, the gentleman from Minne-
sota, JOHN BLATNIK, we have begun to
make a dent in the problem. But there
is much remaining to be done. During
the past 8 years, 5,994 grants have been
made to that many separate and distinct
municipalities for the purpose of assist-
ing them in the struggle to abate the
pollution of our Nation's streams.
At the cost of approximately $500 mil-
lion, we have stimulated local construc-
tion in the amount of more than $3
billion.
It probably is fair to say that we have
reached the point where we are on the
verge of holding our own against the
onrushing tides of pollution. But this is
far from adequate. The bill presently
before use would expand this activity in
several very meaningful ways.
First, let us get a broad general picture
of the problem itself. Thousands of local
crises are merging rapidly into one na-
tional crisis. A general cross-section of
the national scene would include the
following vignettes:
In a Connecticut public school, a new
student tries the drinking fountain and
steps back in horror as a milky substance
froths up in bubbles from the faucet.
A classmate explains that it is a bad time
of day to get a drink, since detergents are
working their way back through the
city's water system.
Along the flooding Mississippi River
this week, untreated sewage is washed
up through storm sewers into the streets
of several towns.
In the Nation's Capital, a father
proudly takes his young daughter for a
ride in a sv/an boat on the beautifully
landscaped tidal basin where cherry trees
form a delicate pmk wreath beneath the
Grecian grandeur of the Jefferson Me-
morial. He looks away in frantic em-
barrassment, a bit sick to his stomach
and suddenly changes the subject when
his little girl asks "What are all those
odd looking things" on top of the brown-
ish water.
Lake Erie is dying. It has a "dead
spot" covering several thousand acres
where a cesspool of pollution robs the
water of its life-giving oxygen.
Dead fish float up to the banks of Town
Creek in a small midwestern community
after a local shelling plant dumps its
refuse, laden with tannic acid, into the
stream.
A dry west Texan town hauls water 50
miles in tank trucks for its citizens to
drink while an east Texas town fever-
ishly fights a flood.
In a New York suburb, a salesman of
distilled water reports a fantastic boom
in the sale of bottled drinking water.
A southern city is turned down by the
third industry in a week because it lacks
a "dependable" water supply.
International crisis looms as an official
Mexican delegation tells the U. S. Con-
gress that our Colorado River irriga-
tion system is dumping crop-destructive
salt on the best farming lands in the
Mexicah Valley.
All these are but facets of the most
rapidly growing domestic headache in
the United States—We are running out
of usable water. The problem, at first
parochial, very rapidly is becoming na-
tional in scope.
There are many reasons clean water
is becoming increasingly important. The
first is that there are more and ever more
-------
746
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
people drawing upon the fixed supply.
One of the most crucially significant facts
of our time may be read in the statistics
of population growth—both in the United
States and throughout the world.
In the beginning, the world's popula-
tion grew very slowly. At the start of
the Christian era, there were only some
250 million people on the entire earth.
It took 1,500 years for that figure to
double or reach 500 million. But then a
sudden and dramatic upswing began
which has continued over the past 400
years to increase by geometric progres-
sion. There were 1 billion people in
1835, 2 billion in 1935, 3 billion in 1985.
If this pace is maintained, there will be
6 billion—twice as many as we now have
—in the year 2000.
Here in America, when we sit down
to dinner each evening, there are 7,000
more of us than on the evening before.
Every year we add the population equiv-
alent of a new Philadelphia. The same
amount of land, air, and water must be
made to serve more and ever more
people.
More alarming still is the fact that
our society each year is using more water
per capita. While the whole nation re-
quired only 40 billion gallons daily in
1900, we used 360 billion gallons a day
last year. If the present trends continue
this figure will double by 1980 and triple
before the beginning of the 21st century.
Block by block, acre by acre, section
by section, new housing projects sprawl
[p. 8671]
inexorably outward, denuding the for-
mer countryside of its natural cover.
Where trees and native plantlife once
found ample succor from the rainfall,
today neat rows of houses march in line
behind their inevitable green carpets.
With typically more leisure time, the
suburbanite waters his shrubbery, his
flower beds, his lawn. The thirsty lawn
grasses which have become a status
symbol in American suburbia often soak
up water at four and five times the pace
required by the native grass and shrub
life.
Washing machines with enamel plated
efficiency put the clothes and dishes
through several rinsings, extravagantly
squandering the water supply and dis-
charging insoluble detergent suds into
the disposal lines. Fly by plane over a
new top neighborhood in any south-
western city and count the private swim-
ming pools which sparkle in the sun.
In one such typical neighborhood, the
loss to evaporation is counted in the
thousands of gallons daily.
Increasingly in the past few years,
pollution has become probably the most
critical of our water resource problems.
No major section of the country is
immune. Streams which once ran clean
and sparkling pure have become clogged
by organic and industrial wastes which
can transmit disease, by toxic detergents
and pesticides, by inorganic chemical and
mineral substances which result from
mining, manufacturing, oil and chemical
plant discharges. A prime example is
the Potomac on whose banks sits the
Capitol of the United States. There also
is a relatively new problem arising from
radioactive wastes.
When demand exceeds supply, the re-
use of water is a necessity. A special
U.S. Senate study recently pointed out
that the total dependable fresh water
supply available to the country by 1980
will be only about 515 billion gallons a
day. But our total daily water require-
ment will have climbed to more than
600 billion gallons. Even with maximum
engineering and purification works, the
study concludes that the most we can
hope to make available is about 650
billion gallons. And by the year 2000,
our forseeable water needs will exceed
1,000 billion gallons a day.
The pollution problem in spite of our
best efforts has been growing at least as
rapidly and probably more rapidly than
our solutions. At the end of 1959, the
municipal sewage released into our
streams was equal in pollution effect to
the untreated sewage from 75 million
people, three times the amount in 1900.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
747
The bill before us offers a greatly ex-
panded opportunity to fight pollution
effectively. It is a substantial improve-
ment over existing law. It is worth not-
ing that, almost uniquely among major
legislative matters this year, it has the
unanimous endorsement of the Commit-
tee on Public Works, including Mem-
bers from both sides of the aisle.
This bill is the product of many weeks
of public hearings last year as well as 3
weeks of additional hearings this year,
plus 3 long arduous days in executive
session. Many Members contributed
creative thought to shaping its provi-
sions.
Here basically, is what it will do:
First, it will upgrade administrative
control through the creation of a
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration. This will consolidate numer-
ous scattered activities under one
effective head, give the program an
identity commensurate with its impor-
tance, and facilitate action. Heretofore,
this significant activity has been rele-
gated to the status of a division within a
bureau within the Public Health Service
within the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare.
Second, subpena power will be given
to the Administrator to strengthen his
hand in enforcing already existing
standards. This can greatly facilitate
compliance. This subpena power is
available at the hearing stage.
Thirdly, more money will be made
available for the practical battle against
pollution. This is considerably more
important than the adoption of theo-
retical standards. Existing pollution
cannot be abated simply by court order,
since the effluent from treatment plants
flows through gravity into rivers. This
bill provides $150 million rather than the
existing $100 million annual authoriza-
tion. The original Senate bill made no
gain in this regard. For a battle of this
crucial importance, we feel that $150
million a year is little enough indeed. It
amounts to less than $1 per year for each
citizen to preserve and protect the one
commodity without which no citizen
could live.
In the fourth place, realistic help for
the big cities is available for the first
time in this bill. This is where most of
the pollution originates. Ceilings on in-
dividual matching grants have made ex-
isting law relatively ineffective as a
meaningful help to the metropolitan
cities. These ceilings are raised in this
bill to a workable level. The original
Senate bill offered no solution to this
very real problem.
Finally, each State is required for the
first time to develop a set of water qual-
ity and quantity criteria. This is a mean-
ingful advance. It is the first step in
making a national water inventory,
which we have desperately needed. The
States are given 2 years in which to
prove that they can and will develop,
apply, and enforce water quality criteria.
This bill is crucially important to the
future of America. It deserves a truly
overwhelming vote from the membership
of this House. I hope and trust that we
will demonstrate by the number of our
votes today the determination of this
body to win the continuing battle against
pollution of the Nation's streams to the
end that future generations may have as
their heritage an abundant and usable
supply of this most precious and most
indispensable of all the earth's resources.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin [Mr LAIRD],
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, it is a
great pleasure for me to rise and support
this legislation before the House today.
As a Representative of the Seventh
Wisconsin District, I have long been
aware of various attempts to meet the
problems to which this legislation ad-
dresses itself. The Seventh Wisconsin
District is composed of many papermills,
and I am familiar with the good inten-
tions of this industry with regard to
water pollution control and abatement.
The paper industry in my district is the
largest single employer. Employers and
employees in our Seventh District sup-
-------
748
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
port this bill as amended by the House
committee.
The pulp and paper industry has, of
course, been specifically involved with
the problem of pollution.
They are aware that the problems of
control are both intricate and complex.
On the one hand, the paper industry
must have process water of adequate
quality. On the other hand, the industry
is aware that the users downstream must
have suitable water also.
It is certainly safe to say that while
much remains to be done, more than lip-
service should be paid to the paper
industry efforts in this area.
I would like to pass on one very im-
pressive fact to my colleagues. During
the past 20 years the total organic pollu-
tion load, as measured by biochemical
oxygen demand, has actually been re-
duced by the paper industry, despite the
fact that this major industry's produc-
tion in tons has more than doubled in the
same period.
And there are other noteworthy facts
that could be mentioned at this time. A
recent survey by the National Council
for Stream Improvement indicates that
75 percent of the pulp and paper mills in
the United States have waste treatment
facilities in operation. This compares
with only 37 percent in 1949. Thus it is
obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the paper
industry has recognized the need for
water pollution control and that it has
been taking concrete steps to alleviate
the problem.
Through discussions with those con-
cerned with various paper mills in my
district, I have found that the efforts and
achievements of the pulp and paper in-
dustry to combat water pollution are on
the increase.
The whole problem faced by this leg-
islation is exceedingly complex. The
finger cannot be pointed at any one
group. For at this critical time industry,
government, and all involved groups
have a stake in working toward a mu-
tually beneficial solution to the water
pollution problem.
I think the impressive story and the
attitude of the paper industry is some-
thing which needs to be stated today.
This is a story, Mr. Chairman, which
relates to the thinking of everyone in
these Chambers. While some would con-
tend that additional efforts could have
been taken by the paper industry, the
fact remains that they have made a sig-
nificant beginning. I wish, for example,
that I could present a similar array of
facts for our Government installations.
In glancing through the hearings in the
House, I discovered a great deal of con-
cern expressed by the members of the
committee regarding pollution by Gov-
ernment installations.
[p. 8672]
This, however, is not the subject before
the House today and will probably be
dealt with, I hope, in the future. I stress
this only to indicate that in the case of
one specific industry—the paper indus-
try—there are significant efforts under-
way. As a Member of the Congress
representing an area which includes
many outstanding papermaking facilities,
I feel dulybound to spell out their efforts
during a consideration of the Water
Quality Act of 1965.
In conclusion, I think that the legis-
lation as reported by the House commit-
tee emphasizes the continuing need of
cooperation by all agencies concerned
with the problems of pollution. I am
certain, Mr. Chairman, this legislation
will definitely enhance the quality and
value of our water resources. I envision
a future of cooperation and respect be-
tween all concerned groups, and particu-
larly because of their past record, the
various paper industries of the United
States.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to a
distinguished and important member of
our committee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. JOHNSON].
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of the pend-
ing legislation, S. 4. As a member of
the Committee on Public Works and a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
749
member of the subcommittee that has
dealt with this problem in the legisla-
tive session of 1961 and again in 1985 I
want to say that all of the people of my
State from whom I have heard are
very much interested in the passage of
this bill. Representing the watershed
area in the West that I do I know how
important it is to keep our streams clean
and clear and free of pollution. We in
California have many pollution prob-
lems. With the growth that is taking
place in our State we are confronted
with more of the problem of pollution
which is causing concern all the way
back to the mountainous areas where the
streams arise. It is also a problem in our
valleys and in the delta and great San
Francisco Bay area. I know that this
legislation is going to do a lot to clear
up the rivers, lakes and bays of our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK],
as well as the minority members who
have worked very hard with the major-
ity in perfecting this bill and also, Mr.
Chairman, I want to commend the chair-
man of the full committee, the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], for
bringing this fine piece of legislation to
the floor for final passage.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. PEPPER].
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I want
to ask the able gentleman from Minne-
sota and also my distinguished colleague
from Florida, the ranking member of
the Committee on Public Works [Mr.
CRAMER], whether there is any language
contained in this bill which would
afford any assistance to this sort of a
situation which exists in the congres-
sional district which it is my honor to
represent.
There are three municipalities which
wish to combine to connect with an out-
fall, that is, a system of emptying im-
pure water into the Atlantic Ocean, way
out far enough so that it could not pos-
sibly pollute the beaches of the mainland
areas. Under the public works program
that sort of an effort cannot obtain as-
sistance because that program is limited
to sewage treatment plants.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these people want
to accomplish the same purpose, that is
to say, safely to dispose of impure water.
I just wanted to know whether or not
any assistance might be possible for that
sort of program under the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. BLATNIK. In response to the
gentleman's inquiry, we had been hope-
ful, at least some of us had the opinion,
that perhaps under the research and
planning section there was provision for
combining storm and sanitary sewer
projects, and that would be eligible.
However, in further checking on the
matter, I am informed that it would not
be eligible. Funds with which to pro-
vide facilities for the treatment plants
themselves certainly are eligible, but I
do not believe this would apply to a
project such as the outfall extension
which the gentleman from Florida has
described.
Mr. PEPPER. As the gentleman from
Minnesota knows, it was I who advised
the gentleman with reference to this
matter for I called just a few minutes
ago the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, and one of the repre-
sentatives there told me that he thought
the use of an outfall in the disposal of
waste was already well established and
the proposal of my constituents, as I
reported it to him, might not be eligible
on an experimental or research basis.
The language, however, of this bill is
broad enough to cover the proposal of
my constituents if there is anything
unique or distinctive about the proposal
so that it would contribute something of
value in disposing of impure water or
sewage.
Mr. BLATNIK. If the gentleman will
yield further, I would like to elaborate a
little further. The problem of the gen-
tleman from Florida [Mr PEPPER] is a
bona fide problem and one which is
-------
750
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
entitled to assistance. We have inland
municipalities which need assistance by
way of extensions of interceptor sewers
in order to reach their treatment plants.
There is an awareness of this need
among the membership of the Commit-
tee on Public Works for a general public
assistance program for community facil-
ities. We do intend to hold hearings—
at least I shall make every effort to do
so—on this matter. It represents an
important and justifiable area of explor-
ation and we do hope that that program
will be of assistance to the situation
which the gentleman from Florida has
described.
Mr. PEPPER. May I make some in-
quiry with respect to the same subject
of my able colleague, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CRAMER], the ranking
minority member of the committee?
Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will
yield, we had a discussion of this, of
course, in the Rules Committee and I
think it was generally conceded, as the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK] has conceded, that there is no grant
money but that which is limited to suit-
able disposal treatment plants. The
only possibility would be under 6(a)
relating to grants for research.
I believe the key phrase there is
whether or not this is a new or im-
proved method. On line 16, page 20; and
line 18, page 21, there is some reference
to the matter, but these grants are
limited to new and improved methods.
If this is a new and improved method for
waste water, then it could be included
and that would be a decision for the
Secretary to make.
Mr. PEPPER. I thank very much the
able gentleman from Minnesota and my
able colleague from Florida for those
remarks.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, water
pollution is a problem of nationwide
dimensions. Unfortunately, not enough
of us are aware of its many disastrous
consequences for municipal and indus-
trial water supplies, for fish and wildlife,
and for recreational areas. That is why
this bill is so important—important to
our Nation and especially important to
those who live on the Great Lakes. To-
day I wish to speak particularly as a
representative of the people of the 9th
District of Illinois, which is located in
the city of Chicago.
Chicago's development has been large-
ly determined by its surrounding waters.
Early ship traffic did much to make it
an economic and communications cen-
ter, the Nation's second largest haven
for immigrants of many nationalities
and a pioneering city for inventors, ar-
chitects, and businessmen of all kinds.
Blessed with a great diversity of people
and talents, and the space and resources
in which to develop those talents, Chi-
cago became the largest city of the Great
Lakes.
Our city's focus, its particular charm,
its very life, have always been its beauti-
ful lakefront, which has provided a pop-
ulation for more than 5 million people
with unparalleled opportunities for de-
velopment. After some fearful epidem-
ics of cholera and typhoid fever at the
end of the last century, the city of
Chicago spent a great sum of money and
performed extensive research to develop
techniques of water treatment to assure
a continuing safe water supply. In 1889
the city embarked on one of the engi-
neering wonders of the world: reversal
of the flow of the Chicago River. And
in 1922 the same was accomplished with
the Calumet River, in order to protect
the lake.
Chicagoans are not oblivious to Lake
Michigan's vulnerability. However, for
many years they avoided taking meas-
ures sufficient to reduce the threat to the
lake.
The Great Lakes comprise the greatest
fresh water resources in the world. It is
unforgiveable that our children should
be deprived of the lakes' benefits. Yet
that is what is happening.
This was demonstrated most clearly
at the conference held under the exist-
ing Federal Water Pollution Control
[p. 8673]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
751
Act provision at Chicago March 2
through 9 this year. Though I was un-
able to attend the conference, I followed
it closely. At its conclusion, three State
and two Federal conferees unanimously
concluded that Lake Michigan and its
tributaries are polluted, that bacterial
counts are too high for same swimming,
that phenols are causing tastes and odors
in the drinking water, and that nutrient
discharges are accelerating the irreversi-
ble aging of the lake.
Damage to Lake Michigan probably
represents the most unpardonable en-
croachment of water pollution in the
United States. When our Great Lakes
start to deteriorate, river pollution be-
comes routine. Pollution should never
have been allowed to advance this far
At this pace we are losing the battle to
pollution. Scientists studying the ecol-
ogy of large stagnant bodies of water,
such as Lake Michigan, are pointing to
the phenomenon of eutrophication, or
aging, as the most serious problem.
Eutrophication refers to the fertiliza-
tion of the water by steady addition of
organic matter. It can be natural, from
the deposits of dying creatures, but in
the lakes it is greatly accelerated by arti-
ficial discharges of nutrients. Eutro-
phication is irreversible. In Lake Erie,
a shallower body than Lake Michigan,
it has proceeded to the point where it
may be necessary to dredge the entire
lake bottom to keep the lake from be-
coming a bog.
The particular contaminants of Lake
Michigan illustrate the need for speed in
stemming the aging process. The Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act has
been amended several times already, and
it may well be amended further. Many
proposals have been made for further
provisions, including licensing, stand-
ards, stopping pollution before it occurs,
taxes on polluters, and incentives for
industrial waste treatment.
The bill we are now considering is
most conservative. It is designed to ex-
pedite and strengthen the existing pro-
gram, to enlarge it slightly and give it
the separate identity it needs if public
opinion is to support us in this most
important of all contemporary conserva-
tion struggles. It aims at essentials.
It separates the three basic tools we
require to protect water quality, and it
sharpens all three: technology, incen-
tives, and enforcement.
In pursuit of better technology, the
Federal Water Quality Act of 1965
provides not only for continuation of
existing grants for State water pollution
programs and fellowships for training
and investigation, but for a new program
of research and development in the field
of storm water overflow. I may say this
is an increasingly important source of
pollution as direct discharges of raw
sewage begin to be eliminated. Grants
can be made out of a total authorization
of $20 million annually to pay up to 50
percent of any project also approved by
an official State water pollution control
agency.
More incentives for the construction
of treatment facilities are provided
through a 50-percent increase in the
Federal construction grants program.
The total authorized amount will be
$150 million yearly, and the maximum
for any one grant will be $1.2 million—
$4.8 million for a project involving more
than one municipality. These funds will
now be distributed more consistently
with real needs with more of the funds
earmarked for large population centers
where pollution problems are greatest.
Enforcement is tightened in three
ways. First, the bill removes the entire
program from the Public Health Service,
which has not proved particularly effec-
tive in pursuing the abatement of pol-
lution of interstate rivers. Second, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare will have subpena powers for
hearings on pollution of interstate or
navigable waters. This will enable Fed-
eral investigators to examine data on
waste discharges, to inspect industries
or other installations suspected of dis-
charging damaging wastes and require
the attendance of polluters at such
-------
752
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hearings. Finally, the bill gives the
Secretary the responsibility to initiate
enforcement action when he finds that
substantial economic losses are result-
ing from pollution damages to shellfish.
Shellfish contamination, one of the most
destructive and hazardous consequences
of pollution, has long merited this atten-
tion.
Mr. Chairman, it is said that nothing is
so local as a drop of water, or so national
as what we do with it. Our distin-
guished colleague the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and the Public
Works Committee have presented us
with a worthy measure.
There is no doubt that these amend-
ments will be affirmed by this House.
We are summoning forth the means to
restore our damaged water resources
and to protect our still healthy streams.
Water, our most valuable national com-
modity, is now one of our greatest
national problems. I wholeheartedly
support this bill, and I urge the House
to endorse it as a worthy response to
that problem.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, the
present state of the Nation's polluted
waterways mirrors the long shameful
years of neglect and permissive disre-
gard which preceded our aroused con-
cern for protecting and improving the
quality of the Nation's precious water
resources. Instinctively our initial efforts
to halt the pervasive besmirching of our
streams have been directed to the clean-
up of the most serious pollution situa-
tions. An impressive start has been
made through the application of the
Federal enforcement authority in ap-
proximately 34 instances. The continuing
existence of almost 90 equally serious
pollution situations calls for further in-
tensifying and accelerating the enforce-
ment momentum, which received its
most meaningful impetus after the
change of administration in 1961. We
have made and continue to make sig-
nificant strides in controlling pollution
from municipal sources. The provision
of Federal grant assistance to munici-
palities for construction of waste treat-
ment works has rolled up an imposingly
successful record. The struggle against
water pollution has thus far proceeded
on these two fronts of control and
abatement.
In committing the Nation to an all-out
effort in this field, President Johnson
calls on us to take up the challenge on a
third front—prevention of pollution be-
fore it happens. We can no longer af-
ford to complacently allow pollutants to
enter our streams, waters, and beaches
except under strict and careful regula-
tion. This is doubly true in the case of
the newer wastes increasingly spawned
by our rapidly growing and fast-chang-
ing technology.
The enormously complex character of
these newer wastes and their potential
effects on the quality of water is either
inadequately understood or totally un-
known. Their wholesale disposal into
our waters amounts to another variation
of the deadly game of Russian roulette
with the difference that we are risking
the health or welfare of entire popula-
tions.
Necessary authority or measures for
preventing the inception of pollution
are lacking in the enforcement pro-
visions of the existing Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. State laws, the
great majority of them, contain such
authority in provisions for establishment
of standards of water quality. For what-
ever reasons, the States have not effec-
tively implemented these provisions of
their own laws. Their failure is reflected
in the countless miles of polluted water-
ways and beaches throughout the Nation.
The need for Federal action is urgent,
especially in regard to interstate water
areas where Federal responsibility is
clear cut.
Current proposals for Federal estab-
lishment and enforcement of standards
of water quality on interstate waters
fully safeguard State and local interests.
They do not represent in any way an
infringement of States rights but instead
are designed to encourage the States to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
753
face up to the problem realistically.
Practical standards will serve to prevent
our few remaining clean waters from
becoming polluted. These same stand-
ards applied to waters already afflicted
with the scourge of pollution will pro-
vide guidelines for improving the quality
of these waters to serve all useful pur-
poses. Standards fairly applied will
help in eliminating the unwholesome
competitive advantage for industry en-
joyed by those States which are willing
to sacrifice a noble heritage for an illu-
sive and temporary economic benefit.
Temporary, yes, for once the indus-
try has fouled these waters to the extent
that it cannot use it for its own needs, it
too, will move out.
Time has long since run out for the
purely "voluntary persuasion" policy
that has marked State and local efforts
to deal with the problem of pollution.
The mounting volume of wastes gen-
erated by our advances in population,
urbanization, and technology, require
determinedly forceful measures. Strong
leadership has been asserted by the
President in behalf of the Nation. We
in Congress can do no less than to leg-
islate the strengthened and improved
authority that is necessary to implement
this leadership, under which Federal,
State, and local action can confidently
join in the knowledge that their con-
certed efforts will successfully control,
abate, and most importantly, prevent
water pollution.
[p. 8674]
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. MONAGAN] may
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and include extraneous matter.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MONAGAN, Mr. Chairman, I
urge the adoption of S. 4, the Water
Quality Act of 1985, as it has been
amended and reported to the House by
the Committee on Public Works. For
the past 3 years the Natural Resources
and Power Subcommittee of the House
Government Operations Committee on
which I serve has been conducting,
under the chairmanship of the gentle-
man from Alabama [Mr. JONES] an ex-
haustive survey of our Nation's water
pollution and from this study I have
become convinced that there is great
need for a stepping up of Federal assist-
ance, greater local enforcement proce-
dures, and a pattern of local, State, and
Federal cooperation to abate and stamp
out pollution. I have been taking an
active interest in the legislative effort to
bring about these improvements and I
have in the last three Congresses filed
bills to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act for this purpose. The
bill which I filed in the 89th Congress is
H.R. 3716.
I am convinced that the bill we have
before us today is an improvement over
the bill passed by the Senate and I note
that this belief is shared by the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Con-
trol Commission.
Water pollution is a problem which
affects every community and every State
in the Nation. It is increasingly acute
because water demand and water pollu-
tion are mounting sharply at the same
time.
Local communities and States cannot
or will not bear the cost of abating pol-
lution. It is my feeling that the Federal
Government must step up its participa-
tion without further delay if we are to
meet the crisis confronting us in the
shortage of usable, clean water Some
efforts have been made and are contin-
uing, but we must be shamefully aware
that in spite of these efforts all our major
streams, rivers, and lakes are suffering
increasing pollution. On the basis of
the study of our subcommittee I am of
the opinion that, apart from foreign
problems, water pollution is the Nation's
single most serious hazard.
The House Public Works Committee
in its examination of this problem con-
-------
754
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sidered, among others, my bill, H.R.
3716, and I was privileged to have the
opportunity to testify in support of my
bill before the committee on February
19, 1965.
On the evidence, one must concede the
importance of establishing water quality
standards, increasing grants for sewage
treatment projects, improving adminis-
tration of the Federal water pollution
control program, and setting up a re-
search and development program to cope
with the problem of storm and sanitary
sewage. President Johnson supported
these objectives in his recent message on
natural beauty. He also advocated an
increase in ceiling for grants to State
water pollution control programs. These
provisions have been incorporated in
the House committee's bill and I note
with satisfaction that the committee has
also given its endorsement to my recom-
mendation to increase the authorized
appropriation for sewage disposal plant
construction grants from $100 million to
$150 million for fiscal years 1966 and
1967. Actually, I had requested an in-
crease to $150 million in 1966 and $200
million in 1967.
Mr. Chairman, without going into full
details of this proposed legislation, since
they have been fully explained by the
able committee chairman, I want to state
my support of the inclusion in the act of
directive to the Secretary of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare to initiate Federal
enforcement action when he finds that
substantial economic injury results from
the inability to market shellfish or shell-
fish products in interstate commerce
because of pollution and action of Fed-
eral, State, and local authorities.
I also favor the bill's requirement that
Federal pollution control funds be with-
held from any State which fails, within
90 days after enactment of the act, to
file a letter of intent with the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare un-
dertaking that the State will, prior to
June 30, 1967, establish water quality
criteria to be applicable to interstate
waters within the State.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we are
to preserve the greatest of our national
resources and afford an essential meas-
ure of protection to the future health,
welfare, and economy of a nation which
obviously has been remiss in meeting
its responsibility in this regard, we must
act now, and the enactment of S. 4 as
recommended by the House Public
Works Committee would be a mighty
effective step in the right direction.
In support of this legislation I shall
include a very timely article which ap-
peared in the Hartford, Conn., Courant
of Sunday, April 18, 1965. The article
entitled "War Against Water Pollution
Is Lots of Talk, Little Action" by E.
Joseph Martin.
WAR AGAINST WATER POLLUTION Is LOTS OF
TALK, LITTLE ACTION
(By E. Joseph Martin)
Once upon a time Connecticut cared about
keeping its rivers and streams clean.
Time was when people were stirred up
enough to act.
But as the years go by, more and more
people are talking about water pollution
while fewer and fewer people are doing
something about it
Rivers continue to be polluted Fish con-
tinue to die from industrial wastes dumped
into waterways Instead of drinking water
more and more families draw detergent suds
from their wells.
As the problem grows, Connecticut's initial
commitment to act has become stagnated
Connecticut's war against pollution was
declared when the general assembly passed
a law in 1925, but the battle has since be-
come an extended skirmish and 40 years later
victory is still 20 percent unrealized
The law created a new agency to eliminate
and control dirty rivers and streams. There
were about 1 4 million people in Connecticut
when the law creating the State water com-
mission was passed The population has since
nearly doubled, the number and variety of
industries continues to mount, and the num-
ber of contaminated wells also continues to
increase.
However, with this increase in potential
water polluters, the manpower in the State
agency responsible for keeping the rivers and
streams clean has remained about the same
and has even diminished
The State water resources commission was
formed in 1957 to take over the duties of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
755
the State water commission and other agen-
cies. Today, the commission has a staff
of 10 engineers and 3 secretaries, the same
number the water commission had 30 years
ago.
Besides the additional number of staff
help needed to keep pace with the growing
problem, this same understaffed commission
is responsible, in addition to water pollution,
flood control, shore and beach erosion con-
trol, supervision of dams, structures and
dredging in navigable waters, water resources
inventories and other duties
Today, 1,192 plants are treating waterborne
wastes from industries, municipalities and
institutions. Some 975 of these are treating
sewerage and sanitary wastes and 217 are
treating waste water from industries
William S Wise, director of the Water Re-
sources Commission, says the State needs
235 more plants to treat industrial wastes
and 46 more sewerage treatment plants.
Ten years ago, his staff started operations
by projecting how long it would take to com-
plete the water pollution control plants
The projects were placed into two phases
Phase 1 was to complete sewerage treat-
ment plants and was scheduled for comple-
tion this year. Phase 2 was the time needed
to complete all industrial waste treatment
plants Target date was set for 1970
However, because of the serious deficiency
in the number of staff personnel, the sewer-
age treatment schedule was advanced to
1970 and the industrial treatment schedule
advanced to 1975
Five years ago, a commission study showed
it needed a staff of 29 to do the work, more
than double the number it now has A
Federal study later indicated the same com-
mission would need a minimum of 46 and a
maximum of 57. Wise, however, still thinks
the figure of 29 is more realistic
Budget requests for more staff have con-
tinually been cut back
Can it be that the State administration
and the general assembly wish to give only
token attention to water pollution13 If it did
not so wish, why did it overburden the com-
mission with so many other added duties'
Is it possible that a deliberate attempt is
underway to slow down this State's initial
drive against dirty water?
Wise has been reluctant to blame anyone
for the apparent legislative and administra-
tive apathy He says the commission's record
"points to notable progress But," he says,
"it also shows that we still face complex
problems."
These complexities he enumerates:
The many suburban residential develop-
ments building beyond sewerage facilities
and in inadequate drainage areas near small,
clean streams
Estuaries and tidal rivers complicating the
receiving of outward flow from waste treat-
ment facilities.
Ground disposal and treatment of various
types of sanitary and industrial wastes and
the treatment of disposal of wastes result-
ing from the production and the use of toxic
substances, chemicals and pesticides, etc.
Besides these added so-called complexities,
Wise and his staff do not have the manpower
to regularly inspect the waste treatment
plants already built How can the commis-
sion expect the treatment plants built io
continue to do the job if no staff is provided
to see that they do9
[p. 8675]
Last month residents from East Hampton
complained about the red color of the
Salmon River.
The color came from paper fibers dis-
charged from a paper company. Wise and
his commission have had the plant under
observation for 20 years Different pollution
control devices were tried with varying
degrees of success.
After 20 years, paper company officials
were threatened with formal commission ac-
tion if the company did not find a satis-
factory remedy by Monday. And after 20
years, a plant apparently equipped with a
waste treatment facility is still polluting the
Salmon River.
Is it enough to rationalize the problem
away by admitting to complexities and the
huge amount of work still left undone9
Wise admits his staff has been slowed down
by many obstacles These he said were the
money hurdle and getting public and private
officials to put pollution control on a priority
list of importance
But there must be a limit to buck pass-
ing. If enough money cannot be raised to
pay for an adequate staff after the problems
and complexities have been clearly stated,
who is actually responsible? Or has the
problem actually been clearly stated9
If the administration does not consider
water pollution an important enough prob-
lem to solve effectively, who is responsible for
making them recognize the importance?
Forty years ago, Connecticut thought the
problem was serious enough to pass a law
to solve it. Forty years have passed and ad-
ministrative apathy has all but thwarted the
law's directive.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to express my support for the water
pollution bill which is now before the
House.
This legislation, S. 4, the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965, will provide effective
pollution prevention and enforcement.
The bill has provisions for:
-------
756
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
First. Setting water quality stand-
ards.
Second. Increasing the Federal grant
ceilings for multimunicipal construction
projects and State pollution control
programs.
Third. Promoting research into the
problems of mixed storm drainage and
sanitary sewage systems.
We were once a nation that was proud
of the beauty and majesty of our
national resources. Today every major
river system is polluted. Millions of
Americans are denied the use of recrea-
tional areas because of widespread pol-
lution. Furthermore, this pollution is
detrimental and costly to our economy.
It is very expensive to treat polluted
drinking water.
The passage of this bill is essential if
we are to return America to the beauti-
ful Nation that it once was and can be
once more. We must all be aware of
the quiet crisis that we face with regard
to the preservation of our natural re-
sources. Industry and government at all
levels work closely together in the area
of pollution control. The passage of the
Water Quality Act is important to in-
sure that the Federal Government does
its share to preserve our most precious
resource—water.
Mr. GRABOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, it
is a great pleasure for me to join with
my distinguished colleagues in support
of the legislation before the House.
With a great many Americans I have
always been concerned with the quality
of water resources. For many years I
have believed that our Nation's streams
constituted the lifeblood of the Nation's
health.
Our people require clean water in
every respect whether we are referring
to drinking water or to those leisurely
hours when we vacation with family and
friends near a cool lake. It is important
that the quality of the water be of the
highest possible standard.
In supporting this legislation, I am
aware of the great efforts that have been
made by the members of the House Pub-
lic Works Committee, and by various
Members in the other body. I have fol-
lowed this work and I have read through
the hearings that have been held in each
body. I have been convinced that their
work merits our great admiration. And
I want to take this opportunity to praise
the distinguished gentleman from Min-
nesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and all other
Members who have worked so diligently
on this legislation to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended.
This legislation has many, many inter-
esting features. It establishes the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration. It provides grants for signifi-
cant R. & D. matters and increases the
grants for construction of municipal
sewerage treatment works.
It is a time worn cliche to say that
water is our greatest resource. As we
look across the broad expanse of the
globe, we can readily see that water con-
stitutes a much wider area than land.
We have been particularly fortunate
here in the United States and it is abso-
lutely imperative that we begin now on
the course to settle the issue of pure
water for all time. As was stated so
poignantly in the House committee re-
port to accompany S. 4, "the issue of
pure water must be settled now for the
benefit of, not only this generation, but
for untold generations to come,"
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, the
legislation before the House today will
start us on the road to substantial and
necessary improvement of our Nation's
waterways. In two brilliant messages
since January our distinguished Presi-
dent has called for improvement of our
Nation's waterways. And back in the
mid-thirties another great Democratic
President said:
To some generations much is given, to
others much is expected This generation
of America has a rendezvous with destiny.
These memorable words of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt apply to the present
problem at hand.
Mr. Chairman, I know that other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
757
Members of this distinguished House
will speak to the specific aspects of this
legislation. I want to conclude my re-
marks by simply saying that I believe—
that in terms of water quality improve-
ment—this generation of Americans has
a challenge and a moral commitment to
start the long process of cleaning up
our streams. I also know that repre-
sentatives of the local governments and
industry are prepared to begin together
the long and difficult task that lies ahead.
The legislation before us, as approved
unanimously by the House Committee on
Public Works, will start the ball rolling.
I urge its immediate enactment. It will
be of lasting benefit to all residents of
the Sixth Connecticut District.
Mr. HELSTOSKI. Mr. Chairman, in
my own district we have two major riv-
ers, and I am sorry to say we cannot
boast today of the beauty of either one.
The Passaic and Hackensack Rivers at
one time, however, were pure and beau-
tiful. They once served our area not
only for transportation but for recreation
as well.
The encroachment of industry, uncon-
trolled until recent years, has changed
that picture. Today, no one would bathe
in either river because of heavy pollu-
tion and there are few fish able to sur-
vive the contents of the tidal areas in
either stream.
This has become a growing problem,
long overdue for correction. It has
reached a point where many homeown-
ers are affected directly—by peeling
paint, unpleasant odors, and unsightly
waterfronts.
It is my belief that the proposed
amendment to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act will begin to correct
these shortcomings in my district and in
similarly affected communities through-
out the Nation.
This bill is a necessary forward step in
our national effort to solve our water
pollution problem and to bring about
proper water quality. It upgrades the
existing program; provides incentives
for the participation of States in assist-
ing local governments to finance the
construction of necessary waste treat-
ment works, and requires the establish-
ment of water quality criteria by the
States.
The creation of a Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration within the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare by this legislation will lead to a
strong national policy for the prevention,
control, and abatement of water pollu-
tion.
The question of water quality stand-
ards, Mr. Chairman, is one of prime
importance in my own district. Large
portions of New Jersey and neighboring
States are now faced by the results of a
4-year period in which we received less-
than-normal rainfall. Our reservoirs
have been drained to dangerously low
points at times and many of our areas
have had to ration water during hot
summer days.
Cleaning up our rivers under this act
could lead to finding and developing new
sources of water for consumption.
This bill will open new areas of coop-
eration between the States and Federal
Government. In this program, States
and local agencies will benefit from
research, investigations, training and
information programs developed by
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration. And since waterways do
not recognize State boundaries, local
efforts could result in providing purer
water for large areas.
This amendment also provides the
means for communities—particularly
our older cities—to find the means to
combat problems caused by antiquated
sanitary and storm sewers
This bill will aid many additional
communities by doubling the dollar ceil-
ings limitations for construction of waste
[p. 8676]
treatment works from $600,000 to $12
million for an individual project and
trom $2.4 million to $4.8 million for a
joint project in which two or more com-
munities participate. This dollar in-
-------
758
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
crease will still limit the Government to
30 percent of the total cost of the project,
but is a more realistic figure based on
present total construction costs. It will
provide the degree of help necessary for
larger cities and for those once-small
communities which suddenly have found
themselves mushroomed into city-like
proportions. Their sewage treatment
problems have grown at the same pace.
These, Mr. Chairman, I consider to be
necessary services and aids for our com-
munities. I strongly support this fight
to combat water pollution and urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for
passage.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of S. 4 as reported by the Public
Works Committee.
In the 9 years since Congress first en-
acted a permanent program for an as-
sault on the growing problem of water
pollution, we have made important
strides in the improvement of water
quality. In 1961, I supported legislation
to broaden and expand this program and
was particularly pleased that the re-
search function would be emphasized to
a greater degree.
The efforts to date have borne fruit,
but as the Public Works Committee has
pointed out, we are just holding our
own—we are not really getting at the
root of the problem.
For this reason, I think that the bill
before us today is necessary. If we wait
much longer to intensify our attack, the
battle may be lost.
It is estimated that we will be doubling
our water consumption in the next two
decades. It is clear that we have got to
develop far more effective means of
reusing water if we are to meet the rap-
idly rising demand for water for home,
industrial, and scientific use.
This bill contemplates such an effort
by including funds for projects to de-
velop new means of waste disposal and
control of discharge from sewers. Water
treatment also will benefit. The cost of
pollution control is expensive. But how
much greater is the cost if we measure
it in terms of lost opportunities for in-
dustrial development, or in terms of
the health and happiness of our com-
munities.
This legislation properly removes the
limit on grants for waste treatment
plants. At the same time, however, it
provides incentives for State and local
initiative and participation.
In short, it creates the opportunity
for real partnership in this field.
In New England and particularly in
Massachusetts, we have been blessed
with an abundance of water for power
and recreational purposes. I believe that
this legislation can provide us with an
opportunity to preserve that precious
resource and open up a new era of eco-
nomic growth and give our people the
pure water they need for health and
recreational use.
I urge the passage of the pending
legislation.
Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, the
pending bill, the Water Quality Act of
1955, can represent a major advance in
one of the most critical problem areas
facing the country—the need to clean up
our waterways and assure our people of
adequate quantities of clean water.
I strongly support this legislation, and
I am pleased to note that it has come to
the floor of the House with broad bipar-
tisan backing.
New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, is no
stranger to water pollution or to water
shortages. As the most heavily popu-
lated and most intensively industrial of
all the States, we have greater need for
good water and face greater danger from
polluted water and from inadequate sup-
plies of clean water than most others.
In recent years, several of our com-
munities have been forced to ration their
water during periods of drought, while
along sections of our seashore wide-
spread pollution, at least temporarily,
destroyed much of the shellfish industry
and rendered useless miles of beaches
for recreation purposes. Few of those
who have been affected are likely ever
to forget the role in their lives played
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
759
by clean water.
More immediately, Mr. Chairman,
northern New Jersey faces the most seri-
ous water shortage in its recent history.
State and local officials are warning that
3 years of drought have reduced the
huge reservoirs serving Newark and
other major communities in the State to
their lowest levels on record for this
time of year. Last week, for instance,
the two principal reservoirs in the area
were down to 56 percent and 31 percent
of capacity, respectively, whereas this
time last year they were filled at 95
percent and 75 percent of capacity,
respectively.
This impending emergency has not
been created solely by inadequate rain-
fall. New Jersey, like most of the rest
of the Nation, has plenty of water. But
too much of it, including some of our
biggest rivers, is so thoroughly polluted
that it cannot be utilized as a source of
public water supplies or even, in many
cases, for industrial purposes.
Controlling and reducing and, finally,
eliminating pollution from our lakes and
streams is the only certain way of guar-
anteeing our people the water we need.
About 9 years ago, Mr. Chairman,
Congress established the first compre-
hensive and permanent program for con-
trolling water pollution. At that time,
as the House Public Works Committee
noted in its report on the present bill,
"untrammeled pollution threatened to
foul the Nation's waterways beyond
hope of restoration."
Gradually, the committee believes, we
have reached a point where we are just
about holding our own. But that is not
enough. In the face of unprecedented
population growth, economic expansion,
and rapid urbanization, the only way to
keep up is to stay ahead. It is most sig-
nificant that the committee was unani-
mous on this point. Both Democrats
and Republicans—without exception—
recognized this fact of life and voted to
report the bill favorably. Since the bill
was reported, the House Republican pol-
icy committee has joined in calling for
its enactment—an excellent example of
a bipartisan response to a national need.
The first water pollution control bill
in 1956 defined the role of the Federal
Government as primarily one of sup-
porting and strengthening the activities
of State, interstate, and local agencies.
The program was improved in 1961, and
the present bill will carry it forward
again. But in all cases, Congress has
recognized that nothing less than whole-
hearted cooperation between all levels of
government will do the job. Congress
and the executive branch can prod, en-
courage, advise, and help support the
States and local communities. But it
cannot step in and take over full respon-
sibility for a problem that must, by its
nature, be handled where it exists.
In 1962, the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, on which I
serve as one of three House Members
and which is responsible for promoting
greater Federal-State-local cooperation,
recommended several improvements in
the water pollution control program.
The Commission proposed, among other
things, that greater public investment
in water supply and sewerage treatment
facilities be encouraged; that the dollar
ceilings be increased for individual
grants for construction of sewerage
treatment facilities so as to provide more
help for larger cities; that grant ceilings
be increased to encourage construction
of joint projects serving two or more
communities; and that an added incen-
tive be provided to encourage the con-
struction of waste treatment projects in
conformity with regional or metropoli-
tan area development plans.
Having introduced legislation in the
previous Congress to implement these
recommendations, I am especially
pleased to note that the committee has
included each of those I have mentioned
in the bill now before us.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the com-
mittee bill would also do these other
important things:
Improve administration of the pro-
gram by means of the proposed Federal
-------
760
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Water Pollution Control Administration,
the sole responsibility of which would be
the prevention, control, and reduction of
water pollution. Presently, this objec-
tive is only one of the many different
jobs of the Public Health Service and
this fact may help account for the rather
unimpressive record of enforcement to
date.
Encourage the development of new
methods of controlling the discharge
from storm sewers.
Promote the construction of larger
waste treatment projects serving more
people.
Require States to establish standards
of water quality for the rivers, lakes, and
other waterways they share with neigh-
boring States, so that one State will not
be polluting waters which also belong to
others.
In connection with water standards,
Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate to
echo the cautionary hope expressed by
the League of Women Voters of the
United States that the setting of water
quality standards will not lead to protec-
tion of the status quo where existing
conditions are poor or to further delay in
[p. 8677]
making improvements. Such stand-
ards can and must be employed to up-
grade continuously the quality of the
waters concerned. There is no other
justification for standards.
Water, Mr. Chairman, does not make
headlines until there is too little of it.
By passing this bill, the House will help
to keep water out of the headlines and
in the homes and industry of America.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, water
pollution in our country is not being
halted at a pace fast enough to protect
our water supplies. The amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
being offered today represent the next
major step in the fight to control this
pollution. In formulating these amend-
ments, concerned Congressmen have
been searching for the combination of
programs, responsibilities, and jurisdic-
tions that would best enable us to halt
the growing pollution of our streams.
I hope that Congress will soon decide
that the only way markedly to step up
the pace of pollution abatement is to
allow the Federal Government to set
standards for water quality in interstate
streams.
Water quality standards are neither
new nor radical. They are a device that
the Federal Government is copying from
the States. In 1962, at least 40 out of 50
States had water pollution control laws
which provided for the establishment of
standards, criteria, objectives, or other
similar schemes to preserve water qual-
ity. I believe that there is very little
argument among water pollution control
officers about the necessity for guidelines
and standardization of requirements for
water quality. Without them, regula-
tory programs can become arbitrary and
difficult to enforce. The only argument
is about how to make such standards
work.
The States have had numerous diffi-
culties in prosecuting their standards.
Out of those 40 States with power to
establish standards, 10 have never actu-
ally promulgated any standards at all;
10 have standards which apply only to
certain rivers; and many have only ob-
jectives, vague and with little legal force.
Most State water pollution control
programs are greatly understaffed, with
insufficient appropriations even for in-
spection and enforcement, not to men-
tion funds to help municipalities and
industries build waste treatment facili-
ties. As a result, State standards, despite
the good intentions of State officials,
have been of little help in abating pollu-
tion.
One reason for this failure is the vari-
ability of standards from State to State.
It is difficult for a State official to insist
that an industry improve its treatment
facilities to meet standards if that indus-
try can threaten to move to a neighbor-
ing State where standards are lower.
Furthermore, there is little incentive to
clean up a stream to meet standards if
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
761
upstream neighbors are allowed to dis-
charge wastes within a much lower
standard.
Another reason is the difficulty of
arriving at reasonable standards. In
most States, the process has involved
lengthy hearings and technical services,
costs which he heavily on State budgets.
Particularly in those States which em-
ploy classification of streams, that is,
determining the legitimate uses of the
stream before prescribing necessary
waste treatment, the procedure is inor-
dinately lengthy. Finally, when stand-
ards are set from an exclusively local
level, with budget problems and heavy
opposition from industries and munici-
palities with a vested interest in being
allowed to continue polluting, there has
been a tendency to set standards or
classifications very low, with little im-
provement over the current condition
of the stream required. Where classi-
fication is employed, for example, we
have seen many streams actually classi-
fied as suitable primarily for the trans-
portation of sewage—that is, condemning
a river to be a sewer. I do not believe
that this country is so poor or so callous
toward its beautiful, but limited water
resources that we need to condemn
entire reaches of rivers to be nothing but
sewers.
Opponents of water quality standards
have, I believe, tended to obscure the
issue by bringing up arguments that
actually have no relevance to the pro-
posal. Standards, as I have pointed out,
are nothing new; almost all the States
have found them necessary. Standards
can never be universal, applying with
equal severity to all streams regardless
of size or use. Standards can, of course,
be amended upwards or downwards at
any time; they are, of course, subject to
judicial review like any other adminis-
trative ruling; and they can, of course,
only be laid down after proper consulta-
tion with all parties concerned. These
are assumptions never questioned by
those of us who support a provision for
Federal water quality standards.
The only real argument is whether we
will continue to place the entire burden
of setting the goals for our country's
biggest conservation cause on the already
overburdened shoulders of the States.
Much aid would be rendered to the State
programs by a Federal standard-setting
procedure. In many cases, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare would
put the weight of his Department's
program behind already existing State
standards, making them easier to en-
force. The Department could also be
of particular help to downstream water-
users, who have attempted pollution
control but have had their efforts undone
by their upstream neighbors. In States
where permits are issued to waste-dis-
chargers, a Federal standard-setting
procedure would help in reviewing and
issuing permits judiciously.
From the Washington vantage point,
as Congressmen of the United States, we
have the opportunity to view as a total-
ity the immense worth of the country's
water resources. We must make use of
our nationwide view of the problem to
provide the inspiration and leadership to
step up the fight against pollution. Con-
gress has recognized the responsibility
of the Federal Government to lead the
Nation in other conservation battles,
and I am sure it will assume the same
responsibility in this case.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
commend this hard-working committee
and its diligent chairman for their labors
on this crucial measure. There is no
group more keenly aware of the severe
nature of the problems of water purity
and supply than the chairman and his
committee.
This bill will aid immeasurably in our
fight to preserve our water supplies. Un-
der the 4-year $20 million project devel-
opment program new methods will be
discovered to control storm sewer sys-
tems and sanitary sewage treatment.
These efforts are an invaluable part of a
total water pollution control program.
By doubling the ceiling of grants to in-
dividual projects to $1.2 million and
-------
762
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
twice that amount for joint projects in-
dividual locales are further assisting in
the realization of projects which have
been long overdue. The 10 percent in-
centive above the ceiling has merit since
it is based upon the development of a
comprehensive plan for a metropolitan
area.
The several States must take the initia-
tive of participating in this program by
filing a letter of intent within 90 days to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare that the State will establish
water quality criteria applicable to inter-
state waters before June 30, 1967. It is
my hope that my State of Ohio will not
delay the implementation of this law by
waiting the maximum time allotted.
As matters stand now the State of Ohio
has refused to acknowledge that the
critical problem of pollution of the
waters of Lake Erie is a matter for the
Federal Government to treat. The sev-
eral States have neither the capacity
nor manpower to effect a meaningful
comprehensive program. The failure to
act by the States has cost millions to
those who depend upon Lake Erie and
the other Great Lakes for fresh water,
commerce, and recreation. The moneys
already lost have been multiplied mani-
fold as lake-related businesses have been
stunted, decreasing jobs and tax revenue.
Therefore, it was my hope that the Fed-
eral Government will have the oppor-
tunity to act when there is inaction by
the States.
At the present time, Lake Erie is the
largest body of contaminated fresh water
in the world. Rich oxides and chemicals
have permanently settled in the lake
bottom and the level of this "life-killing"
pollution is steadily rising and widening.
Attractive marine life has all but van-
ished. Recreational values of the lake
have diminished. The Lake Erie shores
through three States between Detroit
and Buffalo are replete with evidence
of contamination. The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare has
nevertheless determined that while there
is serious and unquestionable pollution,
it has not yet been proven to be inter-
state in nature qualifying Federal entry.
In the meantime, the Governor of
Ohio has called for a Great Lakes Water
Pollution Conference for Monday, May
10, at which he has invited other Gov-
ernors of the Great Lakes area to con-
sider the water pollution problem. On
March 26, 1965, I wrote the following
letter to Governor Rhodes:
It is with great interest that I learned to-
day of your decision to call for a conference
on Lake Erie pollution. The problem was
certainly not understated and the plea for
joint consideration of this matter by the
[p. 8678]
Governors of all the States of the Great Lakes
Basin is laudatory.
However, I am gravely concerned that the
organization of the Great Lakes Water Pollu-
tion Compact and the development of studies
and recommendations alone by that compact
would serve to delay the direct solution of
the problem.
An interstate compact among the several
States would take an extended period of time
to organize and would duplicate, in effect,
the comprehensive studies which are cur-
rently being completed by the Public Health
Service.
As matters stand now, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare of the United
States is ready, willing and able to schedule
immediately a conference on Lake Erie pollu-
tion if you formally request it. Secretary
Anthony J Celebrezze told me last Monday,
that a Federal conference on Lake Erie could
not take place unless you request it.
Under Federal statutes a Federal Confer-
ence on Pollution is a mandatory prerequisite
for the development of recommendations for
pollution abatement and control. If these
recommendations are not followed the Fed-
eral Government is then authorized to pro-
ceed to the courts to compel compliance with
the "cleanup" directives.
It is my hope that the Governor's confer-
ence will not delay Federal entry into the
solution of this problem.
I therefore urge that you request Secretary
Anthony J. Celebrezze of Health, Education,
and Welfare to proceed forthwith with a
Federal Water Pollution Conference to
meet simultaneously with the organization
of a Governors' compact so that no time is
lest in approaching effective solutions to the
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I would interpret the
vote on the legislation we consider today
to indicate the tremendous public reac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
763
tion and support to the Federal Govern-
ment's activity in this field. It is my
further hope that the Cleveland Water
Pollution Conference called by Gov.
James A. Rhodes will result in a call for
a Federal water pollution conference on
the Lake Erie problem so that the Fed-
eral machinery implemented by this bill
may be put into motion.
Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, there
can be no denial of the existence of a
water pollution problem in our Nation.
If there was no problem we would not
be considering the legislation before us
today.
There are other Members here who
can claim and will, I am sure, exhibit
a more detailed knowledge of this most
serious subject than I can set forth. I
wish to comment briefly on the urgency
of the matter with which we are faced.
Time is a relative matter and 20 years
can, from one point of view, appear to
stretch out into the future in a seem-
ingly interminable manner. But on this
subject of water pollution, and the need
to reduce and eliminate it, the end of
the 20-year period is tomorrow.
By 1985 our Nation's population will
have increased by 75 million people.
This number is equal to the present pop-
ulation of the area extending from New
York and New Jersey on the east to
Illinois and Wisconsin on the west.
If we continue the present pace of at-
tack on the water pollution problem on
through the next two decades we will
find ourselves almost hopelessly behind.
It is imperative we upgrade our pro-
cedures and our efforts if we even hope
to stand still in this area of need. The
measure we are considering today will
lend much-needed strength to the efforts
of our States and cities and towns to
combat this problem so vital to the
health of our people.
We ourselves and our ancestors have
grossly mismanaged this most precious
heritage of clean water. It remains for
us to insure this heritage will be handed
on to those who come after us if we are
to meet our responsibilities. We can do
no less than to make certain the prob-
lem will not increase. We should do
more so that the clean, clear streams,
rivers, and lakes of yesteryear will be
restored to their original state.
Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Chairman, it is
our opportunity today to take effective
steps to safeguard the greatest of all
natural resources, which is pure water,
for all generations to come.
That we have this opportunity is due
in large measure to the farsightedness
and dedication of an astute colleague,
the gentleman from Minnesota, the
Honorable JOHN A. BLATNIK, which is a
State with problems much like those of
my own Michigan, a State aptly called
"The Water Wonderland."
As long ago as 1956 he helped build the
base upon which the able Committee
on Public Works, through its distin-
guished chairman, the gentleman from
Maryland GEORGE H. FALLON, has helped
him bring to the floor this bill so vital
to the future of our nation.
It is of great importance, it seems to
me, that primary responsibility for much
of the effort to prevent, control, and
abate water pollution is placed with the
respective States and that promptness
in action is encouraged through the re-
quirement that each State to receive
funds must demonstrate within 90 days
after the day of enactment intent to
establish water quality criteria appli-
cable to interstate waters.
Let us hope that each of the States
will take this local initiative to solve
locally its own portion of the most press-
ing national problem facing us in the
years immediately ahead.
It is important, of course, in the realm
of the practical to underline the im-
portance of the problem through estab-
lishment of a Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration within the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
It is time indeed that we have an
agency that will devote its total energies
to attacking the pollution problem.
Increasing the amount of a single
-------
764
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
grant for municipal sewage treatment
from a maximum of $600,000 to $1.2
million is certainly a step in the right
direction as is the provision which grants
of up to $4.8 million when two or more
community applications are combined.
Passage of this bill will be a great step
forward in building the America those
who come after us will enjoy. With it
we help to undo the mistakes of the past
and restore the wonderful continent that
our forefathers found when they came
seeking liberty and the pursuit of "hap-
piness on these shores.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Chairman, first,
I want to extend my heartiest congratu-
lations and my highest commendation to
my dear friend and esteemed colleague,
the outstanding chairman handling this
fine bill on the floor, the gentleman from
Minnesota, Congressman JOHN A. BLAT-
NIK, and all members of the committee
for the effective manner in which the "bill
has been prepared and presented to the
House. I also want to thank the admired
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK], in particular, for the fair, balanced,
informed and most impressive way in
which he conducted the debate.
This bill is one of the most important
that the Congress will be called upon to
approve this session. First, because it
relates to the health and well-being of
the American people; second, because,
as I have so often stated on this floor
and elsewhere, the use, utilization, and
control of water are of utmost impor-
tance to the American people and to this
Government; and, thirdly, because this
measure attacks the evil of pollution of
our water supplies which is threatening
us in so many ways these days; and
fourthly, the issue of pure water must be
settled now for the benefit of this gen-
eration and untold generations to come.
The need, both public and private, is
paramount.
This bill is one of several on the sub-
ject of water and pollution which this
Congress has considered and approved
within recent years. It is designed to
enhance the quality and value of our
water resources, and to set a national
policy for the prevention, control, and
abatement of water pollution. The bill
authorizes a four-year program starting
this fiscal year at an annual level of $20
million for grants to develop projects
which will demonstrate new or improved
methods of controlling waste discharges
from storm sewers, or combined storm
and sanitary sewers and provides con-
tract authority for these purposes.
Federal grant participation is limited
to 50 percent of the estimated, reason-
able project cost, and may not exceed 5
percent of the total authorized annual
amount for any one project. There is
also a 25 percent limitation of the total
appropriation on the funds which may
be expended by contract during the fiscal
year.
The bill doubles the dollar ceiling lim-
itations on grants for construction of
waste treatment works from $600,000 to
$1.2 million for an individual project,
and from $2.4 to $4.8 million for a joint
project, in which two or more communi-
ties participate. The bill also gives the
Secretary discretion to increase the basic
grant by an additional 10 percent, if the
project conforms to a comprehensive
plan for a metropolitan area.
The bill also provides enforcement
procedures to abate pollution resulting in
a substantial economic injury from the
inability to market shellfish or shellfish
products in interstate commerce.
Proper safeguards for these enforce-
ment procedures are in the bill to pro-
tect individual rights, require the
production of appropriate evidence and
to assure proper labor standards.
The chairman of the full committee,
our most distinguished and beloved
friend, the very able gentleman from
Maryland, Congressman GEORGE H. FAL-
LON, and all his colleagues on the com-
mittee, have long labored and have made
[p. 8679]
effective contributions in the vital area
of antipollution measures of the Federal
Government, and it is noteworthy and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
765
commendable that these very able col-
leagues of ours have so keenly and
clearly recognized the great need of de-
claring war upon pollution before it
spreads its devastating effects through-
out even more of the country.
The fight against pollution must be
designed not only to eliminate existing
pollution, but to prevent further pollu-
tion, and to assist municipalities and the
several States to achieve these necessary
ends, in behalf of enlightened sani-
tation and public health, not to speak of
conservation and recreation.
I have long been interested in this sub-
ject, and have joined most vigorously in
the past in the efforts the Congress has
made to purge the Nation of harmful
pollution. I am, therefore, especially
pleased again to lend my voice and to
cast my vote for this meritorious bill.
I hope that the communities and
States will avail themselves of this new
and broad opportunity to press toward
the complete elimination wherever need
exists in our communities and in our
country, in the interest of public health,
in the interest of the individual citizen
and family, and in the interest of a
better, cleaner, more wholesome, and
happier country for all.
Mr. GRABOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, it
is a great pleasure for me to join with
my distinguished colleagues in support
of the legislation before the House. With
a great many Americans I have always
been concerned with the quality of water
resources. For many years I have be-
lieved that our Nation's streams consti-
tuted the lifeblood of the Nation's
health.
Our people require clean water in
every respect whether we are referring
to drinking water or to those leisurely
hours when we vacation with family and
friends near a cool lake. It is important
that the quality of the water be of the
highest possible standard.
In supporting this legislation, I am
aware of the great efforts that have been
made by the members of the House Pub-
lic Works Committee, and by various
members of the other body. I have fol-
lowed this work and I have read through
the heatings that have been held in each
body. I have been convinced that their
work merits our great admiration. And
I want to take this opportunity to praise
the distinguished gentleman from Min-
nesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and all other
Members who have worked so diligently
on this legislation to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended.
This legislation has many, many in-
teresting features. It establishes the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration. It provides grants for sig-
nificant R. & D. matters and increases
the grants for construction of municipal
sewage treatment works.
It is a timeworn cliche to say that
water is our greatest resource. As we
look across the broad expanse of the
globe, we can readily see that water con-
stitutes a much wider area than land.
We have been particularly fortunate
here in the United States and it is abso-
lutely impsrative that we begin now on
the course to settle the issue of pure
water for all time. As was stated so
poignantly in the House committee re-
port to accompany S. 4:
The issue of pure water must be settled now
for the benefit of, not only this generation,
but for untold generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, the
legislation before the House today will
start us on the road to substantial and
necessary improvement of our Nation's
waterways. In two brilliant messages
since January our distinguished Presi-
dent has called for improvement of our
Nation's waterways. And back in the
midthirties another great Democratic
President said:
To some generations much is given, to
others much is expected This generation
of America has a rendezvous with destiny.
These memorable words of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt apply to the present
problem at hand.
Mr. Chairman, I know that other
-------
766
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Members of this distinguished House
will speak to the specific aspects of this
legislation. I want to conclude my re-
marks by simply saying that I believe—
in terms of water quality improvement
—this generation of Americans has a
challenge and a moral commitment to
start the long process of cleaning up our
streams. I also know that representatives
of the local governments and industry
are prepared to begin together the long
and difficult task that lies ahead. The
legislation before us, as approved unani-
mously by the House Committee on
Public Works, will start the ball rolling.
I urge its immediate enactment. It will
be of lasting benefit to all residents of
the Sixth Connecticut District.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I am
delighted that this bill has reached the
floor of the House and will soon become
law. The gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. BLATNIK] deserves the applause of
the Nation for his efforts. There is no
more important factor in the future of
this country than water and the time
is long since past when it should have
had more of our attention. Parochial
and personal considerations can no
longer defer the solution of this problem.
I sit on the appropriations subcommit-
tee handling the appropriations for this
subject. Testimony was presented to us
that 1,511 requests for Federal grants
were in preparation or under review, all
with the necessary local financing. With
our present $100 million authorization
only 800 of these sewage-disposal proj-
ects can be built; $184.8 million in
Federal funds is required to cover the
applications in already, not to mention
those that can still reasonably be ex-
pected during the next fiscal year.
Because I am convinced that the time
is here when we must cease polluting
our rivers and estuaries; because we
have the knowledge now to correct this
grave deficiency in our civilization I am
convinced that we cannot afford not to
proceed with all possible speed to elim-
inate the blight of pollution. For that
reason I introduced H.R. 5377 for the
purpose of doubling the authorization for
matching funds for pollution control
from $100 million to $200 million. This
bill adds $50 million for which I am
grateful but which I consider to be in-
adequate. I am, nevertheless, willing to
take half a cake to no cake at all.
I am also concerned about the change
from the Senate bill to allow the States
to set their own water quality standards.
Certainly I would far prefer the States
to handle this problem as I would so
many of the others. But they have not
done it so far and I doubt that they can
under this law. 1 envision an interstate
stream dividing two States which are
commercial rivals with similar industries
with disposal problems. It is obvious
that both States must agree or there will
be no standards. It will be the purest
of coincidences if both States can set
standards which will clean up the
stream.
Again I say, that, while the bill is not
perfect, it represents a step forward.
The States have their chance. I hope
they will succeed. If they do not, we
must.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Water Quality Act of
1965.
At the outset I want to commend the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK] and the other members of the Com-
mittee on Public Works for reporting this
important and necessary piece of legis-
lation to the floor for action.
Our population is growing rapidly. In
1900 there were 76 million Americans.
In 1950 there were 150 million. In 1960
there were 180 million. By 1980 it is ex-
pected that our population will reach
260 million. Obviously the more people
there are the more water we have to
have and the more sewage there will be.
In the past 100 years water consumption
in the United States has risen from a
few gallons a day per person to about
700 gallons daily per person. Today the
Nation is using approximately 323 billion
gallons of water daily. Of this amount,
industry uses 160 billion gallons; irriga-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
767
tion, 141 billion; municipal, 22 billion
In 1980 it will jump to 597 billion gallons
per day, with industry using 394 billion;
irrigation, 166 billion; and municipal, 37
billion.
It takes an ocean of water to maintain
our jobs—1,400 gallons to produce a dol-
lar's worth of steel; nearly 200 gallons
for a dollar's worth of paper; 500 gallons
to manufacture a yard of wool, and 320
gallons to make a ton of aluminum.
Water quality and quantity requires
careful planning and only clean water
will do for most of our needs. So, the
water supply must be protected to keep
it clean or it must be treated each time
it is used until it is clean.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 will,
in my opinion, be a powerful legal tool
in assisting the national effort toward
proper water pollution control and in-
creased purity in the water of our Na-
tion's rivers, lakes, and streams.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge pas-
sage of the measure before us today. We
must insure that pure water—so neces-
sary to life—is available to our children
and our children's children.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the pending legislation. S. 4
has my enthusiastic endorsement, and I
shall vote for it.
[p. 8680]
Water pollution is a serious national
problem that deserves Federal attention
and action. The steps we have taken so
far to provide Government help to the
States and local communities in combat-
ing polluting conditions have paid off
handsomely.
Now, we can do even more. The for-
mula for assistance in this measure
promises to be a strong stimulant for
other levels of Government to be pow-
erful partners in the fight against pol-
lution.
From my service on the Natural Re-
sources and Power Subcommittee of the
House Government Operations Commit-
tee, I am very much aware of the scope
and extent of pollution problems in our
Nation. I have seen them first hand and
heard from officials in various areas of
the country on the positive controls that
can be installed with the kind of Fed-
eral assistance proposed in S. 4.
I am particularly pleased at the as-
sistance this legislation will make avail-
able to New York State, for my State is
embarking on a very ambitious program
to purify its water resources and assure
their clean condition for the future.
The New York pure waters program has
been designed in complete harmony with
the additions being made to Federal
water pollution efforts as they are em-
bodied by the bill before us today.
We can and will assure clean water
for our Nation by further helping to
build and operate up-to-date sewage
treatment systems, by providing infor-
mation and guidance to industries for
their pollution-abating activities, and by
better measuring water situations
throughout the country in order that we
know where action is needed.
I believe the public investment in pure
water will be returned many times over
in terms of better health, improved
recreation, higher property values, lower
water costs, and general economic ex-
pansion because our Nation will be a
finer place to live, work and play.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation repre-
sents considerable assistance from the
Federal Government to help our States
and localities answer water pollution
problems. It is the result of long and
serious consideration and has a poten-
tial of protecting our Nation's water sup-
ply in a very positive fashion.
Therefore, I urge the House to give its
overwhelming approval to the passage
of this bill.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule the Clerk will now read the substi-
,ute committee amendment printed in
he reported bill as an original bill for
he purpose of amendment.
-------
768
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) (1)
section 1 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (33 U.S.C. 466) is amended by in-
serting after the words "SECTION 1." a new
subsection (a) as follows:
"(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."
(2) Such section is further amended by
redesignating subsections (a) and (b) thereof
as (b) and (c), respectively.
(3) Subsection (b) of such section (as re-
designated by paragraph (2) of this subsec-
tion) is amended by striking out the last
sentence thereof and inserting in lieu of such
sentence the following: "The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter
in this Act called 'Secretary') shall adminis-
ter this Act through the Administration
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 related to water
pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall per-
form such additional functions as the Secre-
tary may prescribe."
(b) Section 2 of Reorganization Plan Num-
bered 1 of 1953, as made effective April 1,
1953, by Public Law 83-13, is amended by
striking out "two" and inserting in lieu
thereof "three"; and paragraph (17) of sub-
section (d) of section 303 of the Federal Ex-
ecutive Salary Act of 1964 is amended by
striking out "(2)" and inserting in lieu
thereof "(3)".
Mr. BLATNIK (interrupting reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that further reading of section 1 be dis-
pensed with, and open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, this
covers the water pollution situation, and
states the purpose, that is, Federal water
pollution control is to enhance the qual-
ity and value of our water resources and
establish a national policy for the pre-
vention, control, and abatement of water
pollution.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC 2. (a) Such Act is further amended by
redesignating sections 2 through 4, and refer-
ences thereto, as sections 3 through 5, re-
spectively, sections 5 through 14, as sections
7 through 16, respectively, by inserting after
section 1 the following new section1
"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 Con-
trol Administration (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the 'Administration'). The
head of the Administration shall be ap-
pointed, and his compensation fixed, by the
Secretary. The head of the Administra-
tion may, in addition to regular staff of the
Administration, which shall be initially pro-
vided from the personnel of the Department,
obtain, from within the Department or other-
wise as authorized by law, such professional,
technical, and clerical assistance as may be
necessary to discharge the Administration's
functions 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,
any officer or employee of, or assigned or
detailed to, the Administration "
(b) Subject to such requirements as the
Civil Service Commission may prescribe, any
commissioned officer of the Public Health
Service who, on the day before the effective
date of the establishment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, was, as
such officer, performing functions relating to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act may
acquire competitive civil service status and
be transferred to a classified position in the
Administration if he so transfers within six
months (or such further period as the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare may
find necessary in individual cases) after such
effective date. No commissioned officer of the
Public Health Service may be transferred to
the Administration under this section if he
does not consent to such transfer. As used
in this section, the term "transferring officer"
means an officer transferred in accordance
with this subsection.
(c) (1) The Secretary shall deposit in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit
of the civil service retirement and disability
fund, on behalf of and to the credit of each
transferring officer, an amount equal to that
which such individual would be required to
deposit in such fund to cover the years of
service credited to him for purposes of his
retirement as a commissioned officer of the
Public Health Service to the date of his
transfer as provided in subsection (b), but
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
769
only to the extent that such service is other-
wise creditable under the Civil Service Re-
tirement Act. The amount so required to be
deposited with respect to any transferring
officer shall be computed on the basis of the
sum of his basic pay, allowance for quarters,
and allowance for subsistence and, in the
case of a medical officer, his special pay, dur-
ing the years of service so creditable, includ-
ing all such years after June 30, 1960.
(2) The deposits which the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare is required
to make under this subsection with respect
to any transferring officer shall be made
within two years after the date of his trans-
fer as provided in subsection (b), and the
amounts due under this subsection shall in-
clude interest computed from the period of
service credited to the date of payment in
accordance with section 4(d) of the Civil
Service Retirement Act (5 U S.C. 2254(c))
(d) AH past service of a tiansferring offi-
cer as a commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service shall be considered as civilian
service for all purposes under the Civil Serv-
ice Retirement Act, effective as of the date
any such transferring officer acquires civil
service status as an employee of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration;
however, no transferring officer may become
entitled to benefits under both the Civil
Service Retirement Act and title II of the
Social Security Act based on service as such
a commissioned officer performed after 1956,
but the individual (or his survivors) may
irrevocably elect to waive benefit credit for
the service under one Act to secure credit
under the other
(e) A transferring officer on whose behalf
a deposit is required to be made by subsec-
tion (c) and who, after transfer to a classi-
fied position in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration under subsection
(b), is separated from Federal service or
transfers to a position not covered by the
Civil Service Retirement Act, shall not be
entitled, nor shall his survivors be entitled,
to a refund of any amount deposited on his
behalf in accordance with this section In
the event he transfers, after transfer under
subsection (b), to a position covered by
another Government staff retirement system
under which credit is allowable for service
with respect to which a deposit is required
under subsection (c), no credit shall be
allowed under the Civil Service Retirement
Act with respect to such service.
(f) Each transferring officer who prior lo
January 1, 1957, was insured pursuant to the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act
of 1954, and who subsequently waived such
insurance, shall be entitled to become in-
sured under such Act upon his transfer to
[p. 8681]
the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration regardless of age and insurability.
(g) Any commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service who, pursuant to subsection
(b) of this section, is transferred to a posi-
tion in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration which is subject to the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall
receive a salary rate of the General Schedule
grade of such position which is nearest to
but not less than the sum of (1) basic pay,
quarters and subsistence allowances, and, in
the case of a medical officer, special pay, to
which he was entitled as a commissioned offi-
cer of the Public Health Service on the day
immediately preceding his transfer, and (2)
an amount equal to the equalization factor
(as denned in this subsection), but in no
event shall the rate so established exceed
the maximum rate of such grade As used
in this section, the term "equalization
factor" means an amount determined by the
Secretary to be equal to the sum of (A) 6Vz
per centum of such basic pay and (B) the
amount of Federal income tax which the
transferring officer, had he remained a com-
missioned officer, would have been required
to pay on such allowances for quarters and
subsistence for the taxable year then current
if they had not been tax free
(h) A transferring officer who has had one
or more years of commissioned service in
the Public Health Service immediately urior
to his transfer under subsection (b) shall,
on the date of such transfer, be credited with
thirteen days of sick leave.
(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law, any commissioned officer of the
United States Public Health Service with
twenty-five or more years of service who has
held the temporary rank of Assistant Sur-
geon General in the Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control of the United States
Public Health Service for three or more years
and whose pcsition and duties are affected
by this Act, may, with the approval of the
President, voluntarily retire from the United
States Public Health Service with the same
retiiement benefits that would accrue to him
if he had held the rank of Assistant Surgeon
General for a period of four years or more
if he so retires within ninety days of the
date of the establishment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
(j) Nothing contained in this section shall
be constiued to restrict or in any way limit
the head of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration in matters of organiza-
tion or in otherwise carrying out his duties
under section 2 of this Act as he deems ap-
propriate to the discharge of the functions of
such Administration
(k) The Suigeon General shall he con-
sulted by the head of the Administration on
the public health aspects relating to water
pollution over which the head of such Admin-
istration has administrative responsibility
-------
770
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. WRIGHT (interrupting reading
of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that section 2 be consid-
ered as having been read and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this
section provides for an upgraded status
within the administrative structure for
the water pollution control activities.
Heretofore, the control of water pollu-
tion has been relegated to the very minor
status of a division within a bureau of
the Public Health Service within the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. Certainly that is not a standing
in keeping with or equal to the tasks
or the importance of this activity. This
section of the bill creates a Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. It
will unify the three basic activities of
research, enforcement, and assistance
in one office. It consolidates the nu-
merous scattered activities under one ef-
fective head. It v/ill make compliance
considerably easier, and make adminis-
tration more effective.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. BLATNIK
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I have
two amendments to offer, and I ask
unanimous consent that they be consid-
ered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr BLATNIK : Page
17, line 2, strike out "4(d)" and insert in lieu
thereof "4(e)".
Page 17, line 3, strike out "2254 (c)" and
insert in lieu thereof "2254 (e)".
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I have
three correcting amendments to offer,
and ask unanimous consent that they be
considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr BLATNIK: Page
21, line 23, strike out "1965," and insert in
lieu thereof "1966,".
Page 21, line 25, strike out "purpose of
making grants under" and insert in lieu
thereof "purposes of".
Page 22, line 2, after "grant" insert "or
contract."
The amendments were agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 3. Such Act is further amended by
inserting after the section redesignated as
section 5 a new section as follows:
"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 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 in-
adequately treated sewage or other waste
from sewers which carry storm water or both
storm water and sewage or other wastes, and
for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifica-
tions in connection therewith. The Secretary
is authorized to provide for the conduct of
research and demonstrations relating to new
or improved methods of controlling the dis-
charge into any "waters of untreated or inade-
quately treated sewage or other waste from
sewers which carry storm water or both storm
water and sewage or other wastes, by contract
with public or private agencies and institu-
tions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes,
except that not to exceed 25 per centum of
the total amount appropriated under authority
of this section for any fiscal year may be
expended under authority of this sentence
during such fiscal year.
"(b) Federal grants under 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 an 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 50 per centum of the estimated
reasonable cost thereof as determined by
the Secretary; (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 of a new or
improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any water of untreated or inade-
quately treated sewage or other waste from
sewers which carry storm water or both
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
771
storm water and sewage or other wastes.
"(c) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1965, and for each of the next three suc-
ceeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose of making
grants under this section. Sums so appro-
priated shall remain available until ex-
pended. No grant shall be made for any
project in an amount exceeding 5 per centum
of the total amount authorized by this section
in any one fiscal year."
SEC. 4. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b) of
the section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act herein redesignated as section 8
is amended by striking out "$600,000," and
inserting in lieu thereof "$1,200,000."
(b) The second proviso is clause (2) of
subsection (b) of such redesignated section
8 is amended by striking out "$2,400,000,"
and inserting in lieu thereof $4,800,000,".
(c) Subsection (b) of such redesignated
section 8 is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following. "The limitations of
$1,200,000 and $4,800,000 imposed by clause
(2) of this subsection shall not apply in the
case of grants made under this section from
funds allocated under the third sentence of
subsection (c) of this section if the State
agrees to match equally all Federal grants
made from such allocation for projects in
such State."
(d) (1) The second sentence of subsection
(c) of such redesignated section 8 is amended
by striking out "for any fiscal year" and
inserting in lieu thereof "for each fiscal year
ending on or before June 30, 1965, and i-he
first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to
subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning
on or after July 1, 1965,".
(2) Subsection (c) of such redesignated
section 8 is amended by inserting immedi-
ately after the period at the end of the sec-
ond sentence thereof the following "All sums
in excess of $100,000,000 appropriated pursu-
ant 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."
(3) The third sentence of subsection (c)
of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
striking out "the preceding sentence" and
inserting in lieu thereof "the two preceding
sentences."
(4) The next to the last sentence of sub-
section (c) of such redesignated section 8 is
amended by striking out "and third" and
inserting in lieu thereof ", third, and fourth".
(e) The last sentence of subsection (d) of
such redesignated section 8 is amended to
read as follows "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 municipalities
of one hundred and twenty-five thousand
population or under "
(f) Subsection (d) of such redesignated
section 8 is amended by striking out "$100,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1965, and $100,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1967." and inserting in lieu
[p. 8682]
thereof "$150,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, i966, and $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967."
(g) Subsection (f) of such redesignated
section 8 is redesignated as subsection (g)
thereof and is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new sentence. "The
Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect
to the labor standards specified in this sub-
section, the authority and functions set
forth in Reorganization 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)."
(h) Such redesignated section 8 is fur-
ther amended by inserting therein, imme-
diately after subsection (e) thereof, the
following new subsection:
"(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions
of this section, the Secretary may increase
the amount of a grant made under subsec-
tion (b) of this section by an additional 10
per centum of the amount of such grant
for any project which has been certified io
him by an official State, metropolitan, or
regional planning agency empowered under
State or local laws or interstate compact LO
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 pur-
poses by the Governor (or Governors in the
case of interstate 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 metropoli-
tan 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, tak-
ing 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, govern-
mental, institutional, and other activities,
which in the opinion of the President lends
-------
772
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
itself as being appropriate for the purposes
hereof."
Mr. CRAMER, (interrupting the read-
ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that this section be
considered as read and open to amend-
ment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, two beleaguered con-
tingents—one Federal and one local—
have been waging a valiant war on water
pollution.
But, we seem to be losing the war.
Lake Erie, whose waters stretch for 20
miles in my district, soon will die if dras-
tic steps are not taken promptly.
Reinforcements are needed. A third
army must be recruited now. We need
the States in this all-out battle.
In this bill, for the first time, the States
are offered a real incentive to join in.
They are offered an incentive to help
their larger cities shoulder the burden
of this costly war.
Pollution, obviously, occurs where
there are people. So the larger cities are
the larger polluters.
But, until now, the $600,000 ceiling on
a single project looked awkwardly, even
impossibly low to the burgeoning
municipalities.
Six hundred thousand dollars does not
look like much to a fiscally strapped city
that is faced with the need for a $10 mil-
lion waste treatment plant and sees no
hope of State aid.
The enemy—pollution—looks pretty
ghastly, grim and growing to such a be-
leaguered city.
Responding to the plight of the cities,
the committee has proposed that an ad-
ditional $50 million be added to the
original $50 million, a year program.
We propose that the new money be al-
located to the States on a strict popula-
tion basis and that the ceiling on Federal
participation be raised to let the larger
cities in. That it be lifted to a full 30
percent of the total cost of a waste treat-
ment plant regardless of the total
amount involved, provided that the State
match dollar for dollar, all moneys allo-
cated from the additional $50 million.
My State of New York has indicated
that it would join the fight on this 30-
30-40 basis—30 Federal, 30 State, 40
local. Other States would surely join
in too.
This would offer new hope and help to
those cities that previously faced a
plight, like the city I mentioned, with
the prospect of financing 94 percent of a
$10 million waste treatment plant.
Under this new formula, this city could
look to the State for $3 million, to the
Federal Government for $3 million and
would have to finance only $4 million, or
40 percent, locally.
Most important, by keeping this pro-
vision intact, we will be recruiting a new
contingent—the States—into a new,
three-pronged attack on water pollution.
We will lighten the financial load on.
all governments, hasten a victory over
pollution and a cleanup of the Nation's
waters.
But other forces, by way of other legis-
lation and White House action, will have
to join in if a total victory is to be gained.
Industries, many of whom have been
draft-dodgers to date, must be pressed
into the service with the carrot of tax
incentives for extensive pollution abate-
ment equipment and the stick of strict
enforcement.
Our good neighbor Canada should be
invited to join either through a new
treaty or the existing international joint
commission.
In a joint attack, Canada and the
United States should eliminate municipal
and industrial pollution from the Great
Lakes, dredge vast quantities of algae
from lake bottoms and finally, channel a
new water supply from Hudson's Bay
into the lakes to flush out pollutants,
raise lake levels and provide for in-
creased United States and Canadian wa-
ter needs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
773
Much remains to be done. We must
progressively escalate this war if we are
to be victorious.
This bill today is a must.
As a Member of this body, as an Amer-
ican, a Buffalonian, a lover of Lake Erie,
the Niagara River and all our lakes,
streams, and rivers, I fervently hope you
will vote for it.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. I wonder if the
gentleman from New York would tell me
whether that means of the $150 million
authorized here, the $50 million would
be earmarked, so to speak, for the larger
cities and the $100 million would be
earmarked for the smaller cities.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Partially that
would be the effect, because the addi-
tional $50 million that we are discussing
here now would be allocated on a strictly
population basis, so that the larger States
where the largest cities are would get
more money proportionately. However,
the smaller States would draw on that
$50 million also.
Mr. STRATTON. I hope that that
interpretation will be clear in the record
because while I recognize the problem
of the larger cities, I am fearful if we
raise the ceiling too high all the money
might go to the largest cities, and we
who represent the smaller communities
might end up with very little in our
areas.
If that $50 million is in a sense ear-
marked for cities, then we representing
smaller communities can be sure that
our communities still have something to
help them out.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from
New York [Mr. MCCARTHY], a member
of the committee, has answered the
question and clarified the question raised
by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
STRATTON]. We completely protect and
do not at all change the position, and the
justifiable position of priorities to small
communities. On that initial $100 mil-
lion authorization, half of that will be
reserved. The priorities given to the
$125,000 is as it now exists and has ex-
isted for these years under current law.
The additional $50 million can be used in
short by the States as they will. If
their problem is as to small municipali-
ties, they may emphasize aid in that di-
rection for small municipalities. In
other areas where we have huge metro-
politan areas with their problems, then
that money may be used to exceed the
limit for the larger cities that equally
need this. So we have a more flexible
and more effective two-pronged program
and at the same time encouraging and
urging and hoping that the States will
match on this additional $50 million—
match their share prorated on a popula-
tion basis dollar for dollar and they may,
therefore, be permitted to exceed the
limit. So we do adequately without
question protect smaller communities
and interests and for the first time also
give an opportunity to assist the larger
municipalities.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank the distin-
guished chairman. I might add that one
of the important effects of this, and I am
sure the gentleman would agree, is that
for the first time there is offered a real
incentive to the States to come into this
program. Up until now the Federal
Government and the localities have been
fighting a rather beleaguered war on
[p.8683]
pollution. They need reinforcements
and this will bring the States in by offer-
ing an inducement.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HALLECK. I just want to say as
one of the newer members of this com-
mittee, it has been a pleasure for me to
work on the committee in drafting this
-------
774
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
legislation. I think the committee ap-
proached the whole matter with fairness
and a desire to do the right thing on both
sides of the aisle, and I am happy to
lend my support on the passage of this
bill.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank the gentle-
man from Indiana.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CLEVELAND
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr CLEVELAND :
Page 24, line 8, strike out "(g)" and insert in
lieu thereof "(h)".
Page 24, line 18, strike out "subsection"
and insert in lieu thereof "subsections".
Page 25, line 18, strike out the quotation
marks.
Page 25, after line 18, insert the following-
"(g) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Secretary may increase the
amount of a grant made under subsection
(b) of this section by an additional 15 per
centum of the amount of the total project
cost if (1) the project for which the grant is
made is for the service of a municipality lo-
cated within an 'eligible area' as that term is
denned in section 3 (a) of the Public Works
Acceleration Act (76 Stat. 541), and (2)
such municipality is located outside the 'Ap-
palachian region, as that term is denned in
section 403 of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 39-4)
and (3) the State or States in which such
municipality is located pay toward the cost of
such project an amount equal to the Federal
contribution to such project authorized by
subsection (b) of this section."
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
will try to explain this amendment
briefly. The amendment was offered in
committee but the committee did not
adopt it.
The general purpose of this amend-
ment is to recognize the fact that in some
areas of the Nation, particularly those
in the so-called deprived or disadvan-
taged areas, that even with 30 percent
Federal help and even with 30 percent
matching State funds, such as we have
in New Hampshire, the remaining 40
percent is still beyond the reach of many
of these small communities. This is
particularly true of towns near or on
the headwaters of some of the rivers that
contribute to the pollution, which some-
times carries downstream and so affects
the other communities far down the
river.
The Committee on Public Works has
recognized the fact that some of these
rural communities cannot afford to par-
ticipate with the matching funds neces-
sary for sewage plants.
A remedy was provided in the Appa-
lachian bill where up to 80 percent of the
participating funds will be supplied by
the Federal Government.
It seems only fair that in those rural
towns—particularly those in depressed,
distressed, or disadvantaged areas—there
be an additional helping hand from the
Federal Government, in recognition of
the fact that even if they try their ut-
most they cannot afford to match these
funds.
With this thought I offer the amend-
ment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment. At
the same time I wish to make it clear
I am in sympathy with the objectives
of giving additional financial help to
municipalities which have such a need.
This is not the place to do so. It would
upset the standard, which is consistent
and uniform, in a very progressive
matching formula.
We are hopeful that the addition of
the $50 million will induce the States to
act. We expect to match the 30 per-
cent, leaving only 40 percent to be pro-
vided, and that will be of assistance.
Above all, there is legislation pend-
ing before our committee designed to
give assistance to areas where munici-
palities, counties, and governmental sub-
divisions are in financial need. There
is a substantial community facilities sec-
tion, and I believe some of the com-
munities to which the gentleman refers
could benefit and could be assisted.
I am sympathetic to the objective, but
this is not the place to take action. I
ask that the amendment be defeated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
775
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I hesitate to oppose
an amendment offered by the distin-
guished gentleman from New Hamp-
shire, but I should like to ask a question.
An additional 15 percent is being pro-
posed by the amendment, but there is no
authorization increase to take care of
the additional money in the amendment,
so therefore would it not have to come
out of the existing program which the
legislation would authorize? In other
words, the effect would be to permit a
diversion of substantial funds to the ad-
ditional "15 percent area."
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER. Without increasing
the authorization in the bill itself?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. This would have the
effect of diverting funds from the au-
thorizations proposed, as voted by the
committee?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. From other communi-
ties which would otherwise qualify?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. I suggest to the
gentleman that the question of depressed
area legislation, as the gentleman from
Minnesota said, will be considered by
our committee. I believe that would be
a better place for consideration of this
proposal, although I hasten to say I
doubt if I will be in support of that legis-
lation when it is considered.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Hampshire [Mr. CLEVE-
LAND].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise at this moment to
give my strong support to this excellent
legislation. I should like to underscore
certain provisions in it which are of ex-
ceptional value to us in the Midwest.
I have just returned from an exhaus-
tive observation of the Mississippi River
region of my congressional district. My
trip vividly impressed upon me the ur-
gency and imperative need for passage
of the strong water pollution control bill
which the House of Representatives is
currently considering. The Mississippi
River is now overflowing its banks and
spreading over rich farmland, homes,
factories, and areas along the river.
But the most serious aspect of the
present flooding conditions is the flow of
raw sewage directly into the Mississippi
River. In many of the communities
along the Mississippi, the water has
backed up into the sewerage systems and
put them out of operation, thus caus-
ing the free flow of raw sewage waste
into the river. This situation not only
is increasing the polluted state of the
river, but has resulted in raw sewage
being deposited over vast areas of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin. City
water resources and individual wells
have been contaminated and residents
are faced with the prospect of a serious
shortage of pure water. In short, a seri-
ous public health hazard has been cre-
ated because of the inadequate ability
of the existing disposal plants to cope
with floodwaters.
My on-the-spot observations under-
score the urgent need for this bill which
contains a provision for coping with the
existing public health hazard. We can-
not continue to jeopardize the health
and safety of our citizens who are in dire
need of assistance for their efforts to
cope with the serious problem resulting
from the free flow of raw sewage into
their homes and water. In the Quad
City area, including Davenport and Bet-
tendorf in my district, the sewage of
100,000 people is flowing directly into the
river. This bill will help guard against
future disasters in all parts of the
Nation.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 will
strengthen and broaden the national
program of prevention, control, and
abatement of water pollution. The
-------
776
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
progress that has been made under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1958 and the amendments of 1961, in
controlling and abating pollution makes
it apparent that the goal of clean water
can be achieved. Due largely to the un-
tiring efforts of JOHN BLATNIK, of Minne-
sota, we have the opportunity today to
vote on the Water Quality Act of 1965,
which I believe will expand the water
pollution control program and greatly
accelerate the rate of progress toward
clean water throughout the Nation.
This act provides for the creation of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration. As water pollution control
has taken on greater national signifi-
cance through the past few years, it is
now essential that the administration of
this program be given the necessary
[p. 8684]
identity and status to perform its
functions.
The section of the Water Quality Act
of 1985 which I believe is particularly
significant in the progressive fight
against water pollution, is that which
establishes a research and development
program relating to combined sewers.
A great many cities in our country in-
stalled combined sewers at the time their
sewer systems were constructed. Gen-
erally, these sewers are large enough to
take not only the domestic sewage from
the areas they serve, but also the water
that runs off after a rainfall. Following
a rain these sewers carry quantities of
water which are frequently so great that
it is not feasible to treat the water at
any standard type of sewage treatment
plant. And so, during periods of un-
usually high flow the excess water, in-
cluding the domestic wastes carried
with the water, is allowed to overflow
directly to the receiving stream. Al-
though the storm water provides some
dilution of the domestic wastes, the
heavy flows of storm water serve to flush
out the accumulated organic material
in the sewers, which increases the pollu-
tion of storm water overflows.
A recent study by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, on
storm water overflows and combined
sewer systems, showed that at least 59
million people in more than 1,900 com-
munities are served by sewer systems
which allow overflows. The annual
average overflow is estimated to contain
3 to 5 percent of the untreated sewage
and, during storms, the overflow con-
tains as much as 95 percent of untreated
sewage.
These discharges of untreated sewage
adversely affect all known water uses,
and significant economic loss results
from the damages caused by these dis-
charges.
There can be no question that some-
thing must be done about these dis-
charges, but the question is what can be
done.
The one method which we know will
correct the problem is the complete sep-
aration of storm and sanitary sewers.
With this method the domestic wastes
would not be combined with the storm
waters and would receive the treatment
normally provided, at all times. This
solution is technically sound, but fi-
nancially impossible for most areas.
Roughly, it would cost from $20 to $30
billion to achieve complete separation of
sewers throughout the country. It is
not hard to imagine why most cities find
the cost of separating their sewers
prohibitive.
Separating sewers involves not only
spending huge amounts of money, but
also involves disrupting normal life of
a community. In order to separate sew-
ers the streets must be torn up to lay the
new pipes, thus streets must at times
be closed to traffic and this can cause
huge bottlenecks in rush-hour traffic.
The merchants on the streets closed to
traffic surfer great economic losses, as
well. And, of course, the noise and dirt
resulting from tearing up the streets are
unpleasant to all.
Other methods of dealing with the
problem of discharges from combined
sewers have been proposed, but most of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
777
them are, as yet untried. These methods
include partial separation of sanitary
and storm sewers and other contributing
sources, expanded or new treatment fa-
cilities, holding tanks with or without
chlorination, disinfection, storage using
lagoons, lakes, quarries, and other de-
pressions, storage using guttering, streets
and roadways, and inlets, additional
sewer capacity, regulation and control
of flow through the sewer system, and
improved planning and zoning.
Up to this time these methods have
not been studied because there are very
few of such installations to study. And
yet, to solve the critical problem of nox-
ious discharges from combined sewers
these new methods must be studied and
evaluated.
The Water Quality Act of 1985, by
providing grants to assist in the develop-
ment of projects to find new or better
methods of controlling discharges from
combined sewers, is a great step toward
the solution of this problem.
The expenditure of $20 million per
year for the next 4 years, for research
which can develop practical methods of
controlling combined sewage wastes, is
well justified when compared to the bil-
lions of dollars that otherwise would
of necessity be spent to install separate
sewer systems in cities throughout the
country.
Although grants for research and de-
velopment are a vital part of the water
pollution control program, grants for
construction of waste treatment facili-
ties are also an important part of the
total program. At present, grants under
provisions of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act give the greatest benefit
to small cities where the Federal grants
frequently cover 30 percent of the con-
struction costs As the act allows grants
up to 30 percent of the costs or $600,000,
whichever is the smaller, large cities find
that the Federal grants cover only a
small portion of their total costs.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 pro-
vides for an increase in dollar limitations
on treatment works construction. This
increase will give the larger cities, with
their proportionately greater treatment
needs and expenditures, grants for a
more equitable portion of their construc-
tion costs.
The procedures in the enforcement
section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act have been proven effective
in the number of enforcement actions
which have been taken I am pleased to
note that there are only two changes in
this section, and both broaden the scope
of the Secretary's authority in carrying
out the enforcement provisions of this
act.
The first change empowers the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
to call a conference if he finds that sub-
stantial economic injury results from the
inability to market shellfish or shellfish
products in interstate commerce because
of pollution and action of Federal, State,
or local authorities. Up to this time the
Secretary has not had the authority to
initiate action in such situations. This
provision will enable the Secretary to
take enforcement action where neces-
sary, to deal with these problems.
The second change in the enforcement
measures permits the issuance of sub-
penas at the hearing stage of enforce-
ment procedures to compel the presence
and testimony of witnesses, and the
production of any evidence that relates
to any matter under investigation. Al-
though hearings have been necessary in
only 4 out of the 34 enforcement actions
it is essential that when a hearing is
required the Federal authorities have the
power to obtain the information which
will make the hearing an effective and
productive procedure.
I am convinced that this bill before
us today is a major step forward in the
fight against water pollution. In this
fight we cannot take a moment's rest, for
as every day passes millions and millions
of gallons of water containing domestic
sewage and industrial wastes of every
sort, are poured into our streams in-
creasing the already intolerable pollution
load.
-------
778
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 5. (a) Subsection (f) of the section of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
herein redesignated as section 7 is amended
by striking out "and" at the end of clause
(5) and by inserting at the end of such
subsection the following:
"(7) provides that the State will file with
the Secretary a letter of intent that such
State will establish on or before June 30,
1967, water quality criteria applicable to in-
terstate waters and portions thereof within
such State, and no State shall receive any
funds under this Act after ninety days fol-
lowing the date of enactment of this clause
until such a letter is so filed with the
Secretary."
(b) Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of the
section of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act herein redesignated as section 10 is
amended by striking out the final period
after the third sentence of such subsection
and inserting the following in lieu thereof.
"; or he finds that substantial economic injury
results from the inability to market shellfish
or shellfish products in interstate commerce
because of pollution referred to in subsection
(a) and action of Federal, State, or local
authorities "
(c) Subsection (e) of such redesignated
section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by inserting imme-
diately after the period at the end of ihe
third sentence thereof the following. "In
connection with any such hearing, the Sec-
retary or his designee shall have power to
administer oaths and to compel the pres-
ence and testimony of witnesses and the pro-
duction of any evidence that relates to any
matter under investigation at such hearing,
by the issuance of subpenas No person shall
be required under this subsection to divulge
trade secrets or secret processes Witnesses
so subpenaed shall be paid the same fees and
mileage as are paid witnesses in the district
courts of the United States. In case of con-
tumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena
duly served upon, any person, any district
court of the United States for the judicial
district in which such person charged with
contumacy or refusal to obey is found or
resides or transacts business, upon applica-
tion by the Secretary or the Attorney Gen-
eral, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order
requiring such person to appear and give
testimony, or to appear and produce evi-
dence, or both. Any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by the
court as contempt thereof."
[p. 8685]
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana (inter-
rupting the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that section 5 be
considered as read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this
body, I believe that probably the part
of this legislation as it was reported
from the Senate which caused the great-
est amount of concern was the part
wherein the Federal Government would
be authorized to promulgate water
standards nationally.
After long deliberation in many hear-
ings, as has been brought out here today,
it was determined, after many, many
meetings, that it was the consensus of
the various States and, in fact, in nearly
all instances where States were heard
through their Governors or representa-
tives, that they would prefer to work out
their own problems settling what the cri-
teria of water standards should be. We
know that no two streams have the same
personality, so to speak.
No two interstate streams have the
same problems. Some pollution is
caused by industry, other pollution by
natural causes, other pollution by agri-
culture, and other by the communities
located on the streams. Nevertheless
all of it is pollution. In most cases we
believe that the States should solve their
own problems if they can. We feel that
the Federal Government should not—
and the committee agreed to this unani-
mously—attempt to step in and set
water standards unless and until we can
prove conclusively that the several States
cannot do it for themselves.
In having this entire matter con-
sidered in this package type of legisla-
tion we have created a great incentive
for the States to cooperate in solving
a common problem and yet allow them to
retain their privileges and prerogatives.
The legislation provides that by simply
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
779
filing a letter of intent within 90 days
after the passage of this legislation the
States will be able to go on with their
surveys for the establishment of water
criteria to the point where reports will
be available to Congress by June 30,1967,
at which time most of this legislation
will have expired and when the Congress
will be able to take another look at it.
Those States which do not conform to
this privilege and duty that is being
given to them will, of course, not be
allowed to receive their new grants.
We agreed to this, as I say, unani-
mously in the committee, and I am quite
sure that the other body will see our
point of view because it is one of the
parts of the bill which was considered
the longest and given the greatest de-
liberation by the experts, scientists,
engineers, and our own legal and
engineering staff on the committee. I
hope there will be no amendment of-
fered to this.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, our personal friend and
able colleague, Congressman JOHN
DINGELL of Michigan, has been in the
forefront of conservation measures, par-
ticularly with regard to water pollution
control legislation, from the very incep-
tion of it. Mr. DINGELL has done a tre-
mendous job and has given valuable
assistance to me personally and to many
of us who are interested in effective leg-
islation in this field.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the remarks of the Hon. JOHN
DINGELL appear at this point in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota.
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, water
is the lifeblood of every society. With-
out an adequate supply, history shows
us, mighty nations crumble and once
great peoples become the academic sub-
jects of archeological diggings and
scholarly dissertations.
Often, areas have been deprived of
water due to changes in climatic condi-
tions, changes over which primitive
peoples and even advanced cultures have
little control. While such deprivation is
lamentable, at least man can console
himself with the truth that the causes of
his downfall are forces of nature beyond
his power to affect.
We in America are confronted with a
situation far more tragic. By polluting
and defiling the sources of our water
supply, we are thoughtlessly sowing the
seeds of our own destruction. No acts of
God are involved here, only the self-
seeking shortsightedness of a prosperous
nation.
Hence, it is imperative that we pause
a moment amidst these days of unparal-
leled social and economic progress to
take stock of this precious resource, the
depletion of which would threaten our
very survival, much less our struggle to
build a better America.
The facts on water pollution are clear
and frightening. As a nation, we re-
ceive about 1,200 billion gallons of water
a day, about half of which is potentially
usable. Current demand runs about 320
billion gallons daily, though only 315
billion gallons are available from running
water and storage.
To make matters worse, water use is
increasing at an accelerating rate. Since
the turn of the century our population
has tripled, but our fresh-water con-
sumption has expanded eightfold from
40 billion gallons to the present level of
320 billion gallons a day. By 1980 water
demand in America will have climbed
to 600 billion gallons a day, about twice
the present usage and equal to our total
dependable supply.
Water reusage represents a partial so-
lution to this crisis. The next time you
turn on the faucet in your home, you
will probably be reusing water utilized
earlier by some upstream neighbor. In
this sense we have not departed from
the practices of ancient Rome, where
water pipes bore the inscription:
-------
780
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The water you drink may have quenched
Caesar's thirst.
In 1980, when our population will be
in excess of 200 million, the water of
most of our streams will have to be
reused six or eight times.
Reusage will only enable us to escape
our demand-supply water predicament,
however, if the more serious problem of
pollution is solved. Since 1900, the mu-
nicipal-waste pollution load discharged
into the Nation's waters has increased
from 24 million people to 75 million. This
will grow to 84 million in the next decade
and to 150 million by 1980 unless strong
measures are taken.
The pollution load from industrial
wastes has soared from the equivalent
untreated sewage of 15 million persons
to 150 million persons since 1900. There
have been enormous increases in pollu-
tion by new and highly toxic chemicals.
Unless industry faces up to its responsi-
bility to control its contamination of our
waters, its contribution will be equiva-
lent to the waste of 300 million persons
by 1970 and no one knows how many by
the year 2000.
More than 100 million Americans get
their drinking water today from rivers
carrying sewage, industrial wastes, and
anything else that can be flushed down
a sewer or thrown from a bridge. The
same municipalities and industries that
need more clean water are soiling and
defiling their own water supplies and
those of their neighbors.
A partial list of the things we dump
into our waters includes: untreated mu-
nicipal sewage; manufacturing wastes;
oxygen-absorbing chemicals; fish and
animal matter; germs and viruses of a
thousand varieties, including dysentery,
cholera, infectious hepatitis, and prob-
ably polio; and radioactive wastes in
small but increasingly dangerous doses.
Having surveyed the facts of the mat-
ter, what are the results of this failure
to conserve our limited water resources?
Most obviously, we are fast approaching
the day when we will experience acute
shortages of healthful water for drink-
ing, cleaning, and washing.
It requires 770 gallons of water to re-
fine 1 barrel—42 gallons—of petroleum,
50,000 gallons to test an airplane engine,
65,000 to produce 1 ton of steel, 320,000
gallons to produce 1 ton of aluminum,
and 600,000 gallons to make 1 ton of syn-
thetic rubber. Clearly, if something is
not done, our industries will soon be
constrained by inadequate supplies of
water.
Esthetically, we can already witness
the scars of pollutions. Our rivers and
lakes were once clear, swift, and teem-
ing with game fish. Today many of them
lie sluggish, shallow, clogged with mu-
nicipal and industrial wastes, and unable
to sustain wildlife of any sort.
Commercial fishing industries and
sport fishing on many of our inland
rivers once known for their high yield
of delicious fish have vanished, because
the fish have been poisoned and suf-
focated or because they are so contam-
inated as to be ill smelling, evil tasting
and often unsafe.
But what is to be done? Public Health
Service experts estimate that the con-
struction of 4,000 new sewage treatment
plants and the modernization of 1,700
more are needed to handle the present
load of municipal sewage dumped into
the Nation's rivers and streams. It is
[p. 8686]
further estimated that it will require
$4.6 billion if municipalities are to catch
up with treatment needs by 1968; $1.9
billion to eliminate the backlog, $1.8 bil-
lion to provide for population growth,
and $900 million to replace obsolete
plants.
What is more, the problem is not a
local or even a regional one, but plagues
every part of the Nation. Looking at the
Midwest from where I come, one is
struck by the shameful spectacle of once
beautiful Lake Erie dying a premature
death due to pollution. Thoughtless pol-
lution has rendered the lake's periphery
a bleak wasteland, unfit for residence,
recreation, or even industry.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
781
Turning closer to my district in Michi-
gan, one sees the sullied waters of the
busy Detroit River, no longer fit even
for swimming or fishing.
Industries discharge 1 billion gal-
lons of waste into the Detroit River each
day and municipalities discharge 540
million gallons of sewage. The river has
changed from what was once a clean
body of water at its head to a polluted
body in its lower regions. The pollution
is bacteriological, chemical, physical and
biological, and this pollution will become
progressively worse unless effective re-
medial action is taken at once.
The pollution of the Detroit River
causes interference with municipal water
supplies, recreation, fish and wildlife
propagation, and navigation. It makes
all forms of water contact sports in the
lower Detroit River a distinct hazard.
Industries and municipalities dis-
charge 6 million pounds of waste prod-
ucts into the Detroit River every day.
At my urging in 1962, then Governor
John B. Swainson of Michigan requested
Federal enforcement officials to provide
a solution to Detroit River pollution.
The study undertaken after the 1962
conference has been concluded, and
study recommendations are expected to
provide an appropriate basis for reme-
dial action to be taken in abatement of
the pollution problem.
Concerned citizens elsewhere ask why
little or nothing is being done to abate
pollution. The responsibility for most
abatement activity rests at State and
local levels. Yet, due to weak antipollu-
tion laws and the unending efforts of in-
dustrial lobbyists, little progress has
been recorded. Whenever Federal
legislation is proposed to meet the prob-
lem, it is opposed on the grounds that it
is an invasion of States rights.
A questionnaire sent out a few years
ago by the chairman of the Public Works
Committee of the House revealed that
many States had never initiated their
first proceedings under their respective
water pollution laws. Others had never
obtained a conviction because of gaps
in laws and because of judicial and ad-
ministrative indifference. Billion dollar
corporations have been fined $25 for
major water pollution. Some States
have no agency authorized to administer
State water pollution laws and one State
which did have an administrative body
to abate pollution found on one occasion
that the legislature cut off its funds when
it began to get too hard on a polit-
ically potent polluter. Industries often
threaten to move out of a State if pollu-
tion control is enforced too rigorously,
and States hungry for jobs and industry
are prone to look the other way.
It was against this background of a
growing national pollution crisis and
State inability to act that Congress be-
gan, 17 years ago, to consider Federal
legislation.
In 1948 Congress authorized the Sur-
geon General to assist and encourage
State studies and programs to prevent
and abate pollution of interstate waters,
including the enactment of uniform
State pollution control laws and adop-
tion of interstate pollution contracts. It
directed the Justice Department, with
State consent, to institute court actions
to require an individual or firm to cease
practices causing pollution, and it cre-
ated a Water Pollution Control Board.
In 1956 Congress increased the Surgeon
General's initiative and powers. In 1961
Congress transferred Federal authority
to the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, expanded Federal abate-
ment authority to cover intrastate and
coastal waters, and permitted the Secre-
tary to bring court actions through the
Justice Department without first seek-
ing State permission.
The present House bill will establish
a Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration within the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. It will
require States to promise within 90 days
to establish water quality criteria for
interstate waters by June 3D, 1937, if
they wish to qualify for Federal aid
in the construction of water treatment
facilities.
-------
782
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
This latter provision replaces a Senate
proposal to authorize the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to es-
tablish and enforce water quality stand-
ards. The House bill provision looks in
the right direction, but it does not go
far enough and in my opinion it will not
solve the problem. I was one of the
first Members of Congress to introduce
legislation to authorize Federal water
quality standards, and I hope to see the
conference committee on this bill adopt
the Senate plan.
Water quality standards are an essen-
tial tool which should be afforded to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to begin a cleanup of our rivers
and streams through effective preventive
regulation. It enables the Federal Gov-
ernment, rather than seeking to restore
streams, rivers and lakes which have
been dreadfully abused, polluted and
contaminated by the dumping of indus-
trial wastes, to prevent abuse, pollution
and contamination. The water quality
standards in the Senate bill, and in my
bills, H.R. 983 and H.R. 4482, as originally
introduced, were meant to be a program
for a continuing upgrading of our water
to the highest level possible. Had this
provision been enforced for 10 years, the
Ohio newspaper would not be com-
plaining about filth and sludgy accumu-
lation in Lake Erie at the rate of 6
inches a year, and President Johnson
would not be pointing out in his mes-
sage the fact that 25 percent of Lake
Erie is an ecological desert incapable of
supporting fish or wildlife or serving
as a recreational area in our growing
America.
No single provision of the legislation,
both that already approved by the Sen-
ate and the companion House measure,
H.R. 3988, sponsored by the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and my
own bill, H.R. 4482, was open to more
deliberate and flagrant misinterpretation
than the proposed authority for setting
of Federal water quality standards on
interstate streams. This provision was
given the endorsement of President
Johnson in his message on natural
beauty and accordingly supported by
the administration and conservation and
citizen interests as necessary in order
to prevent pollution before it happens.
It is more than particularly shocking,
therefore, to learn that Secretary of
Agriculture Freeman, on his own admis-
sion before another committee of the
House, has interposed himself in opposi-
tion to this significant provision. Were
his opposition based on fact, I would be
the first to admire and applaud him.
However, the analysis of this provision,
which he submitted as the basis for his
position, is wholly and totally lacking as
to any real understanding or appreci-
ation of the very language of this sec-
tion. It is difficult in the extreme to even
try to understand how this department
head could regard the language of the
bill as excluding the important water use
interests which he represents from any
voice in the preparation of the standards.
What, if anything, is more clear and
intelligible than the bill's wording that
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare would prepare regulations set-
ting forth the standards "in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and
with other Federal agencies"? If he
wished to have the identical specificity
accorded to the Secretary of the Inte-
rior by inclusion of himself in the bill,
why did not he say so? Instead, he
pleads that the legislation slipped
through his entire Department unno-
ticed, despite the fact that the same
identical provisions received Senate ap-
proval in the previous Congress and
renewed administration endorsement in
this session. What is worse is to find in
his analysis a key to his opposition in
regard to "permits for waste disposal
from Federal installations" which is not
and has not been in any way included in
S. 4 of the House companion measures.
If, as I suspect, his analysis was prepared
by legislative experts within his Depart-
ment, I recommend that he do himself
and his agency a distinct service by some
swift firing, and, unless he learns to bet-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
783
ter support his administration, perhaps
by a resignation.
As coauthor of this legislation I want
to make another important point. This
legislation in setting up an administra-
tion of water pollution control is not
aimed at transferring the entire per-
sonnel now serving on water pollution
in the Public Health Service. Its per-
sonnel have an important purpose to
carry out in the Public Health Service.
They have been tried in connection with
the handling of water pollution and in
frequent cases have been found wanting.
As I pointed out in my testimony be-
fore the House Public Works Committee,
progress in water pollution control under
State administration and under the
[p. 8687]
Public Health Service is moving, but is
moving determinedly the wrong way.
An increasing number of streams, utili-
ties, municipal water supplies, and
waters for fish and wildlife and for
recreational purposes are defiled and
destroyed each year.
My testimony stated in part:
When I testified before this committee
more than 14 months ago, I had in my
possession a list of 90 serious cases of inter-
state pollution on which no Federal enforce-
ment action had been initiated This list had
been made available to me by the Secretary
(of HEW) himself Several days ago ~
I again requested a list of polluted rivers on
which no Federal action had been taken, and
this time I was proffered a list of 89 rivers
While less than overjoyed at the prospects of
saving the Nation's waters at Uie aggregate
advance rate of one river per annum, further
investigation revealed that even this pathetic
measure of progress was delusory In fact,
the list of 89 rivers actually included 102
waterways Rivers that had been recorded
separately on the first list were, for some
reason, combined under one heading on the
second list.
Of the 90 rivers that had appeared on the
list more than a year ago, 33 had received
Federal attention during 1964, while 57 had
received none In addition, 45 rivers on
which no Federal action had been taken
became seriously enough polluted to demand
inclusion on the present list Thus, after
yet another year with the pollution program
under the dead hand of the Public Health
Service, and $100 million later, we have fallen
12 rivers deeper on the debit side. Let no
one accuse our pollution program of stagnat-
ing, it is moving quite determinedly in Lhe
wrong direction.
I do, however, pay richly deserved
tribute to some of the highly capable
people in the Public Health Service—like
Mr. Murray Stem, who certainly is de-
serving of enthusiastic acclaim for his
splendid work in this field, and many
others in that agency.
In other respects I favor this House
bill. For example, it authorizes the
HEW Secretary to subpena necessary
witnesses to water pollution control
hearings.
Concurrently with steady progress to-
ward uniform and effective control over
water pollution, Congress has provided
increasingly generous Federal aid for the
construction of sewage treatment facili-
ties. The present bill will authorize
Federal grants up to $150 million a year
for 1966 and 1967.
Also in this bill Congress recognizes
the advantages of large treatment plants
by encouraging small communities to
undertake joint projects, and raising the
cost ceilings to $1.2 million for single and
$4.8 million for joint installations. It also
recognizes a special problem by author-
izing research into the control of raw
sewage overflows from combined storm
and sanitary sewers.
As one of the earliest advocates of
clean water for Americans, I urge Mem-
bers of the House to vote for this bill
and to support the adoption in the con-
ference committee of the Federal water
quality standards provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC 6 The section of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act hereinbefore redesig-
nated as section 12 is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new
subsections
"(d) Each recipient of assistance under
this Act shall keep such records as the Sec-
retary shall prescribe, including records
which fully disclose the amount and dispo-
sition by such recipient of the proceeds of
such assistance, the total cost of the project
or undertaking in connection with which
-------
784
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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."
SEC. 7. (a) Section 7 (f) (6) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as that section
is redesignated by this Act, is amended by
striking out "section 6(b) (4)." as contained
therein and inserting in lieu thereof "section
8(b)(4); and".
(b) Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as that section is redesig-
nated by this Act, is amended by striking
out "section 5" as contained therein and
inserting in lieu thereof "section 7".
(c) Section 11 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as that section is redesig-
nated by this Act, is amended by striking out
"section 8(c) (3)" as contained therein and
inserting in lieu thereof "section 10 (c) (3)"
and by striking out "section 8(e)" and
inserting in lieu thereof "section 10(e)".
SEC. 8. This Act may be cited as the
"Water Quality Act of 1965."
Mr. BLATNIK (interrupting the read-
ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, these
last two brief sections are primarily
technical and for the purpose of enumer-
ating and identifying certain portions of
the bill. I ask unanimous consent that
sections 7 and 8 be considered as read
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STRATION
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. STRATTON- Page
28, after line 21, insert the following:
"SEC 8. Section 13(c) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as that section
is redesignated by this Act, is amended by
deleting the period at the end thereof, insert-
ing a comma, and adding the following:
'and such lateral and other connecting sewer
lines as the Secretary shall determine are
necessary to a particular project ' " And on
line 22, strike out "8" and insert "9".
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
support this program. I have supported
it in the past, back in 1961 when we did
not have quite as unanimous support for
it as we have today; and I support it
today. It is a program that is vitally
needed. But I would like to underline—
and that is the purpose primarily of the
amendment I am offering here—the pe-
culiar problem that is being faced in the
smaller communities, in the suburban
areas, in the resort areas where all the
recent growth has been taking place. I
am not sure that this problem has
been fully recognized in drafting this
legislation.
And like the gentleman from New
Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND], I, too, have
an amendment which I think is ad-
dressed to that need.
I never quite realized just how much
of a problem sewer lines pose for the
rural and suburban areas of the country,
until 2 years ago when we had the accel-
erated public works program in opera-
tion, with the Federal Government
coming up with 50 percent help on local
projects, assisting in the construction of
needed water and sewer lines to provide
for new divisions and subdivisions and
new resort cottages. I realized then
what a tremendous lack there was and
what a tremendous need there was in
our upstate, rural areas.
There are many communities I found,
Mr. Chairman, where a sewer treatment
plant exists but where effective sewage
disposal is not being done because of the
fact that many new areas are still not
connected with the treatment plant and
they need these new lines for the pro-
gram to be effective.
My amendment is simply an amend-
ment to the definition section of the act
which defines the term "treatment
works." In the present legislation treat-
ment works are defined to include not
only the actual sewage plant itself but
also the necessary intercepting sewers,
the outfall sewers, the pumping and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
785
other equipment and "extensions, im-
provements, remodeling and additions
and alterations."
Maybe this wording would already
take in those additional lines that you
need to go out beyond the major inter-
ceptor sewers. But to be absolutely
certain I think we ought to add this
amendment, which would simply say
that a sewer treatment work does in-
clude whatever necessary network of
additional sewer lines the Secretary
determines are essential to any particu-
lar project.
The cost of building these lines is
sometimes as great as and sometimes
even greater than the cost of building
the plant itself. Many small communi-
ties that I have the honor to represent
are faced, in New York State, with a
mandate from the State to build their
plant and the lines. And yet they find
that the cost of these projects actually
exceeds the assessed valuation of their
own property. They cannot take full
advantage of this program without help
with sewer lines, too. I think the help
should be provided if this bill is to do
an effective job.
This amendment would make the pro-
gram more effective. While we all rec-
ognize the needs of our larger cities, as
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
MCCARTHY], pointed out awhile ago, they
are, after all, a little bit better equipped
to finance these works than are the
smaller communities. My amendment
would make the water pollution program
a more meaningful one and one that
could be more generally helpful. I urge
the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what the amendment
proposes to do, of course, although in a
limited way, is to extend the definition
of "a sewage treatment facility plant."
[p. 8688]
The need for interceptor connectors to
lines, of course, is an important one. We
do not have the money authorized in this
legislation and in this program to nearly
begin to 'undertake a program of that
scope. For instance, in the treatment
plant program alone we have a backlog
of $1.8 billion for almost 6,000 communi-
ties which do not even have a treatment
plant, let alone the connector sewers.
Mr. Chairman, I am in sympathy, and
I mean genuine sympathy, with the gen-
tleman's problem and the proposal which
he advocates.
We do have legislation to give broader
assistance to municipalities in several
forms of public works, not only the
treatment plants, interceptor sewers,
connecting sewers, substations, and so
forth, but also water supply systems.
The gentleman from New York [Mr.
STRATTON] has been a most consistent
and effective supporter of legislaton cer-
tainly of this type and he has given
us some valuable and badly needed
assistance and support in connection
with the pending bill. It is my sincere
hope that we can work together on addi-
tional legislation directed toward the
problem which the gentleman from New
York has described.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr STRATTON. The current legis-
lation provides in section 13 (c) that, as
I mentioned a moment ago, "treatment
works" means—includes any extension,
improvement, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof.
Perhaps the chairman could make it
clear that this language would seem, for
example, to authorize this type of pro-
gram—if you have an existing sewer
treatment plant and some outlying sew-
ers, an extension of that sewer system
could be authorized under the current
law; is that not correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. No; not the lateral
connections of the sewers. The deter-
mination under this definition has been
made administratively by the Secretary
of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and it has been quite clear,
-------
786
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and consistently followed, that it applies
primarily and directly to the treatment
facilities themselves, with some appur-
tenances or related mechanisms.
Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman
will yield further, obviously we do not
mean the laterals into the houses. But
unless you can put the sewerlines out
into the communities, the new ones that
are perhaps now being served by septic
tanks, the sewer treatment plant itself
is not effective. Perhaps, this could be
done under the law as it stands, but it
does seem to me that we need to spell it
out somewhere either in the amendment
which I have offered or in the legislative
history on this bill so that provision can
be made for these newer areas.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I join
the gentleman from Minnesota in his
opposition to the amendment.
I think the gentleman from New York
[Mr. STRATTON] stated the most effective
and the clearest reasons for opposing
the gentleman's amendment. The cost
of this would probably be as great or
greater than the entire treatment works
program which exists today. No rea-
sonable consideration has been given to
this substantial increase in program or
otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the amend-
ment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. STRATTON].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, 1
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we come this afternoon
to the close of a debate which has cer-
tainly been a distinct compliment to this
House. This bill has received the unan-
imous support on both sides of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, and is a piece
of legislation which reflects with great
credit upon the Committee on Public
Works and its distinguished chairman.
However, Mr. Chairman, this is a piece
of legislation that reflects with great
credit upon the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota, JOHN BLATNIK, the
father and the foremost exponent of
clean water in America.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, coming
from the State of Ohio, to add my sup-
port to these needed amendments to this
program and to note with pride the
splendid spirit of bipartisan unity that
made the amendments to the original
S. 4 bill possible.
Mr. Chairman, we have shown by
amendment and by the remarks here
during the debate this afternoon that
there seems to be agreement that the
Federal Government in its attack upon
water pollution must proceed coopera-
tively, with State and local governments
and with the vast American industry as
well as in cooperation with every agency
throughout the land interested in win-
ning ultimately the fight for clear water.
This bill is void of any accusatory tone
and is, indeed, a constructive, intelligent
approach which has already brought a
response from State governments. Now
at the moment of the adoption of this
bill I am proud to announce to the House
that there is in the Great Lakes region,
about to be reconvened a five-State
regional conference of State Governors
to join with the Federal Government in
streamlining America's program for
clean water, I am proud to participate
in this debate and to support this bill.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my
deep admiration and respect for the dis-
tinguished subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK]. I commend Mr. BLATNIK for the
magnificent job he has done in getting
the committee finally to agree unani-
mously on one of the most important and
controversial pieces of legislation to
come before the Congress in a number
of years.
I commend our committee chairman,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
787
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr FAL-
LON], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
THOMPSON], and the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. WRIGHT] who played very
important roles in getting every member
of the committee to unite on this legis-
lation. I wish the gentleman from Ala-
bama [Mr. JONES] could be here during
this debate. Mr. JONES worked long and
hard and deserves much credit for final
committee approval of the bill. I wish
for him a complete recovery and that he
will soon be here where he is needed.
This bill in its present form is a good
piece of legislation. The distinguished
subcommittee chairman, Mr. BLATNIK,
deserves the unanimous support of the
House of Representatives for his bill. I
believe the passage of this bill today will
be a significant milestone in the legisla-
tive history of this great body. I urge
and believe this bill will pass unani-
mously.
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that get-
ting the various members of this com-
mittee together on this bill has been a
monumental accomplishment. By the
persistent efforts of the gentleman from
Minnesota and the efforts of many oth-
ers, we have agreed on a piece of legis-
lation that will help purify the waters
of the rivers of this country.
Unanimity could not have been pos-
sible without the splendid leadership of
the minority leader, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER]. The gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HARSHA], was most dili-
gent, dedicated, and cooperative in help-
ing to eliminate features of the original
legislation objected to by industry, the
States, and municipalities. Also, I com-
mend Mr. BALDWIN, Mr HALLECK, and
the entire minority membership of the
committee.
When this bill becomes law we will
have the cooperation of the States, the
local communities, and the industries
involved.
Some days ago the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce brought forth a
piece of controversial legislation—it was
controversial at one time—before this
body, and received a vote of 402 to 0. I
hope the House will do the same in con-
nection with this bill as a tribute to the
magnificent achievement of the leaders
of this committee who got all elements
and factions together. It was no easy
task to get States, the local communi-
ties and industry, as well as the Federal
Government, together on this bill, and I
hope today the chairman of the subcom-
mittee and the chairman of the full com-
mittee will receive a unanimous vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee substitute as an amend-
ment to the Senate bill.
The substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. ALBERT,
having resumed the chair, Mr SMITH of
Iowa, Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having
had under consideration the bill (S. 4)
to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, to establish the
[p. 8689]
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research
and development, to increase grants for
construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment works, to authorize the establish-
ment of standards of water quality to aid
in preventing, controlling, and abating
pollution of interstate waters, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Reso-
lution 339, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule, the previous question is or-
dered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
-------
788
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, 1 ob-
ject 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 396, nays 0, not voting
37, * * *.
*****
So the bill was passed.
*****
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The title was amended so as to read:
"An Act to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to establish a Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, to provide grants for research
and development, to increase grants for
construction of sewage treatment works,
to require establishment of water quality
criteria, and for other purposes."
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 8690]
Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
TUPPER] may extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and include extra-
neous matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Speaker, the Con-
gress today has the opportunity to make
a splendid addition to the record of the
88th and 89th Congresses by passing the
Federal Water Quality Act of 1965.
The Congressman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] deserves our greatest thanks
for the untiring and able manner in
which he has led the fight for the pro-
tection and restoration of the country's
waters.
As a former conservation official in
my own State of Maine, I fully realize
the problems and potential threats that
polluted water present.
Maine is a traditional vacation area
and has had to deal swiftly with threats
to her water resources and only prompt
local action has deterred catastrophic
conditions.
This problem has become too great
and too urgent to have stopgap pro-
grams and emergency measures enacted
by individual States.
One provision missing from the bill
that we shall vote on today, is of the
utmost importance—the development of
Federal standards for water quality.
One of the problems in fighting pollu-
tion, one which I have heard both local
and Federal officials complain of, is not
knowing where to begin. Do you start
trying to clean up the dirtiest streams
first, fearing that when you have fin-
ished, the rivers that used to be clean
will have become degraded? Or do you
start with the easier tasks, the rivers
that are only slightly less than pure, and
allow the rankest rivers to remain eye-
sores?
Another problem encountered in con-
ducting a pollution control program is
that once industries and municipalities
have been allowed to start discharging
wastes into streams, it is very difficult to
make them stop. To build a waste dis-
posal system into an old plant is ex-
pensive, much more so than if it had
been designed into the plant in the first
place On the other hand, as long as
older industries are permitted to dis-
charge untreated wastes, newer plants
will not see the justice in their being
required to install waste treatment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
789
Systems of standards for water qual-
ity are designed to answer problems like
these. Properly administered standards
could be, as President Johnson suggested
in his message on conservation, used to
protect clean water, to abate pollution
before it happens. Standards would be
invaluable in creating comprehensive
plans for pollution abatement and guar-
anteeing that they would be adminis-
tered fairly. Perhaps most important,
such standards could and would serve as
incentives to the States and localities to
supply their own high standards for
clean water.
We take so many different kinds of
standards for granted in our daily life
that it is hard to understand why we
have none yet for water. We have
standards for foods, for meat, for drugs,
for advertising, for utilities, for pesti-
cides, for working conditions. In gen-
eral, Americans welcome the use of
quality standards to protect the con-
sumer from dangerous or inferior goods.
Yet stream pollution is growing daily,
depriving American consumers of many
favorite recreations and water sports,
depriving fish of their habitat, threaten-
ing our drinking water supplies, and,
in many cases, creating outright health
hazards.
There is little time left for lengthy
jurisdictional debates if we are going to
save these waters. A peculiar charac-
teristic of rivers and lakes is that they
do not respect jurisdiction. Water flows,
and with it goes its waste load, and State
boundaries affect the flow of a river sur-
prisingly little. A factory or a town may
own the land alongside the river, and
contain all its buildings and population
within the land it owns, but if it dis-
charges waste into the river, it is tres-
passing. Its wastes will inevitably be
carried to its downstream neighbors, and
to their neighbors, and so on. Where
rivers are concerned, it is certain that
no man is an island.
Attempts to establish standards at a
State or local level have been helpful,
but on the whole have not succeeded in
cleaning up our major rivers, most of
which are interstate. Interstate com-
pacts, intended to deal with just such
problems, are usually without the legal
authority or the immunity from pressure
needed to set firm standards and enforce
them. The progress that has been made
in cleaning up pollution—such as on the
Columbia and Potomac, where bacterial
contamination at least has been con-
trolled, or in the Colorado River Basin,
where dangerous radioactivity has been
ended, or in the Menominee River, where
pulp and paper discharges will soon be
treated, or in the lower Mississippi,
where one important source of pesticide
discharges has been reduced—has been
pri-
[p. 8736]
marily due to Federal pressure,
Under the present procedures of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
this pressure is limited to those cases
in which an enforcement action is ini-
tiated.
The Federal program would be much
improved if, without going so far as to
initiate enforcement proceedings, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, consulting and cooperating with
the State and local officials and inter-
ested parties, could promulgate stand-
ards for the upgrading of water quality.
A standard-setting procedure would en-
able the Department to take action not
only on severely polluted rivers, but on
clean rivers threatened with pollution
from new industries or towns, on small
rivers that could not claim the extended
attention required by an enforcement
case, and on special problems, in which
one type of pollutant requiring only
limited remedial action is the problem.
Discharges in violation of the standards
would be subject to enforcement actions
under regular procedures of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act.
According to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare there
are approximately 200 interstate streams
which already have some pollution prob-
-------
790
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lems. No matter what the increased
pace and staffing of the Federal pollution
control program, there will be no time
for enforcement action on all of these in
the near future. Lacking any other
course, must the Department wait for
their turn to come up 20 years hence, by
which time mild pollution problems will
have become severe and severe ones
irremediable?
Water pollution is too big a problem to
be solved by taking only one case at a
time and relying on only one method.
With the authority to set water quality
standards I believe that the Department
of Health Education, and Welfare could
begin now a much more flexible, inclu-
sive, and rapid program of pollution con-
trol. It would be a program more
helpful to the States than the present
reliance entirely on enforcement action,
and it would be a program designed to
deal specifically with the particular
problems of each region, basin, and river
as effectively as possible. For these rea-
sons it is my hope that the Federal
Water Quality Act of 1965 will include
a strong provision for water quality
standards.
[p. 8737]
1.2h(4)(c) Sept. 21: House and Senate agree to conference report,
pp.24560-24562, 24583, 24587-24592
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965—
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of confer-
ence of the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House
to the bill (S. 4) to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and develop-
ment, to increase grants for construc-
tion of municipal sswage treatment
works, to authorize the establishment of
standards of water quality to aid in pre-
venting, controlling, and abating pollu-
tion of interstate waters, and for other
purposes. I ask unanimous consent for
the present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUS-
SELL of South Carolina in the chair).
The report will be read for the informa-
tion 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 Senator
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the con-
ference report on S. 4 represents a rea-
sonable and sound compromise on the
Water Quality Act of 1965. As my col-
leagues know, it was not easy to obtain
agreement on this legislation. On the
primary issue of water quality standards
there were strong opinions on both sides
of the table. In the end, however, the
agreement we reached represents both
a middle ground and, in many respects,
an improvement over the original ver-
sion as it passed the Senate.
I want to take this opportunity to ex-
press my appreciation and gratitude to
the Senate conferees, Senators RAN-
DOLPH, Moss, BOGGS, and PEARSON. The
unanimity we reached on the basic issues
in S. 4 strengthened our hand immeasur-
ably and added to the quality of the dis-
cussions in conference. Through the
months since the House enacted its ver-
sion of S. 4 the Senate Members of the
conference and their staffs reviewed the
two proposals. Many of their sugges-
tions were incorporated in the final ver-
sion and contributed to the successful
agreement between the representatives
of the two bodies. Partisan differences
were forgotten in the common effort to
develop a meaningful act for the en-
hancement of the quality of our nation's
water supplies.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
791
The discussions in the conference were
vigorous, but amicable. The delayed
agreement is a measure of the strong
feelings related to matters of principle
rather than to any unwillingness to reach
a consensus. I could not report to my
colleagues on the conference without
paying tribute to the House conferees
and the contribution they made to this
legislation on behalf of the House of
Representatives and particularly to Con-
gressman JOHN BLATNIK and ROBERT
JONES for their leadership on S. 4 and
[p. 24560]
in the general effort toward water pollu-
tion control and abatement.
I shall not take the time of my col-
leagues to review in detail the entire
conference report on S. 4. That report,
and the report of the managers on the
part of the House, can be found on pages
24583-24587 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
for September 17, 1965.
In brief, the conferees agreed on the
establishment of a water pollution con-
trol administration in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, headed
by an Administrator and supervised by
an assistant secretary. The Senate con^
ferees accepted the House version, which
transfers all ot the activities ot the
^l^^—*^^^~^™"~
ent division ol walet' supply and pollu-
ting r-nnfryl tn tne new'
and spells out in detail the procedures
tc^be used in transferring personnel. W
believe an orderly transition can be
made from the present arrangement un-
der the Public Health Service to the new
Administration.
The managers for both the Senate and
the House agreed that the selection of
the Administrator is crucial to the suc-
cess of the program and that his grade
level and status should reflect the im-
portance the Congress attaches to this
program in establishing it as a separate
Administration.
The Senate conferees accepted the
House proposals on increased authori-
zations for sewage treatment grants.
These include an increase to $150 mil-
lion a year for the next 2 years in the
total authorization and an increase to
$1,200,000 in individual project authori-
zations and $4,800,000 for multi-com-
munity projects. Funds appropriated in
excess of $100 million in each of the next
2 fiscal years will be allotted to the
several States on the basis of population
and individual project authorization
limitations will not apply on the use of
such funds where States match the Fed-
eral contribution.
The Senate conferees agree to these
provisions as a temporary measure be-
cause of the demonstrated crisis in such
States as New York. I know that Sen-
ators JAVITS and KENNEDY are very
much concerned about this problem. At
the same time, the Senate conferees
made it very clear that the increases in
authorizations and the modifications in
the allocation formula do not represent
a judgment as to the realistic levels of
Federal grants or formula in the years
ahead. The Senate Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution is examining
this problem and will make recommen-
dations in the next session of the Con-
gress.
The next major provision in the act
is the water quality standards section.
As it passed the Senate, S. 4 authorized
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to establish water quality stand-
ards on interstate waters or portions
thereof in the absence of effective State
standards, following a conference of
affected Federal, State, interstate, mu-
nicipal, and industrial representatives.
Violation of established standards would
be subject to enforcement in accordance
with the present enforcement procedures
in the Water Pollution Control Act.
The House version of S. 4 contained a
provision for States to file letters of in-
tent on the establishment of water qual-
ity criteria, with a pollution control grant
penalty for failure to file such a letter
of intent. There was no provision for
the establishment of water quality
standards.
The conferees agreed to amend the
-------
792
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Senate version to give the States until
June 30, 1967, to establish water qual-
ity standards on interstate waters which
the Secretary determines are consistent
with the purposes of the act. In those
cases where the States fail to establish
such standards the Secretary is author-
ized to call a conference of affected, Fed-
eral, State, interstate, municipal, and
industrial representatives to discuss pro-
posed standards, after which the Secre-
tary is authorized to publish recom-
mended standards.
If a State fails to establish standards
consistent with the purposes of the act
within 6 months after promulgation of
the Standards—unless the Governor of
an affected State requests a public hear-
ing within that period—the Secretary is
authorized to promulgate his proposed
standards. The Governor of an affected
State would be permitted to petition for
a public hearing within the 6-month
period after publication of the proposed
standards and up to 30 days following
promulgation of the Secretary's stand-
ards. The Secretary is required to call
such a hearing and to appoint five or
more members to the board. The Secre-
tary of Commerce and the heads of other
affected Federal departments and agen-
cies are to be given an opportunity to
select one member of the board. The
same right is accorded the Governor of
each affected State. It is the intent of
the conferees that the hearing board rep-
resent a balance of Federal and State
interests.
The hearing board may recommend
either: First, establishment of the Secre-
tary's standards; or second, modification
of those standards. The Secretary must
adopt the board's recommendations. If
the board recommends adoption of the
Secretary's standards they become effec-
tive immediately on the Secretary's
receipt of the board's recommendations.
If the board recommends modifications
in the standards the Secretary must
modify them in accordance with the
board's recommendations and promul-
gate them. The revised standards
become effective on promulgation. Re-
visions in established standards can be
considered and proposed by the Secre-
tary on his own motion or on request by
the Governor of an affected State in ac-
cordance with the foregoing procedures.
Violations of standards under the pro-
visions of this act are subject to Federal
abatement action. If the Secretary finds
such violation he must notify the vio-
lators and interested parties, giving the
violators 6 months within which to com-
ply with the standards. If, at the end
of that period, the violator has not com-
plied, the Secretary is authorized to
bring suit, with the consent of the Gov-
ernor of the affected State in the case of
intrastate pollution, through the Attor-
ney General of the United States under
section 10 (g) (1) or (2) of the amended
Water Pollution Control Act.
This enforcement procedure differs
from the procedure followed under the
present act by omitting the conference
and hearing board stages. Because there
is a conference and hearing board under
the standard-setting procedure the man-
agers for the House and Senate did not
consider a repetition of these proceed-
ings necessary in cases of violations of
standards. The conference and hear-
ing board stages remain in enforcement
proceedings arising out of endangerment
of health or welfare where water quality
standards have not been established, as
under existing law.
In court proceedings resulting from a
suit for violation of water quality stand-
ards established under this act, the court
is directed to accept in evidence the
transcripts of proceedings before the
conference and hearing board and to
accept other evidence relevant to the
alleged violations and the standards.
The court is to give due consideration
to the "practicability and physical and
economic feasibility" of complying with
the standards in making judgments in
such cases.
There was one final set of compromises
in the conference. The House managers
agreed to recede on the House "subpena
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
793
section" and insisted that the Senate
recede on the Senate "patents section."
Measures contained in both versions
were: a 10-percent bonus in sewage
treatment plant grants for those projects
carried out in accordance with an area-
wide plan; a 4-year, $20 million per
year research and development program
for new and improved methods of con-
trolling the discharge of inadequately
treated combined storm and sanitary
sewage; authorization for the Secretary
to initiate enforcement proceedings in
cases where he finds substantial eco-
nomic injury results from the inability
to market shellfish or shellfish products
as a result of water pollution, record-
keeping and audit provisions; authority
for the Secretary of Labor to set labor
standards on projects financed through
this act under Reorganization Plan No.
14 of 1950; and an additional Assistant
Secretary in the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Mr. President, I believe this act, as
amended, will give strong impetus to our
efforts to control and abate water pollu-
tion and to improve the quality of our
water supplies.
The conference report is signed by all
the conferees on the part of the Senate
and by all of the conferees on the part
of the House.
Congressional staff members have an
important role in any legislation. In the
development of S. 4 and in the achieve-
ment of the conference report the Senate
and House staffs made an invaluable
contribution to our success. I am par-
ticularly indebted to Ron M. Linton,
chief clerk and staff director of the Sen-
ate
[p. 24561]
Committee on Public Works, William
Hildenbrand, legislative assistant to
Senator BOGGS, and my administrative
assistant, Donald E. Nicoll, for their
imagination, patience, and skill in mak-
ing suggestions and drafting successive
versions of the bill. A similar contribu-
tion war. made by the able and coopera-
tive House staff members: Richard J.
Sullivan, chief counsel of the House
Committee on Public Works; Maurice
Tobin, assistant to Congressman BLAT-
NIK; Clifford W. Enfield, minority coun-
sel of the House Committee on Public
Works; and Robert L. Mowson, assist-
ant legislative counsel for the House.
Without their assistance we could not
have this report.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of
the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am
most pleased that the conferees on S. 4
have reached an agreement. The bill
was passed by the Senate last January,
and by the House in April, and I know
that great differences had to be resolved
before a final measure could be pre-
sented to the Congress.
The measure is of particular impor-
tance to the drought-stricken Northeast
which must begin extensive water pol-
tion control programs immediately, and
and is particularly vital to the State of
New York, which will begin a $1.7 billion
program with the aid of these funds.
I would also like to call attention to
two changes in the final version of the
bill which I sought to have adopted here
in the Senate. The first raises the dol-
lar limitation on any single project from
$600,000 to $1,200,000. The second pro-
vides $50 million a year to the grants
program, such additional money to be
distributed on the basis of population
alone.
The conferees and the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, the Sen-
ator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] are to be
commended for their fine work on this
measure On behalf of the people of the
Empire State, I express my most sincere
thanks for their efforts in securing final
passage during this session.
[p. 24562]
-------
794
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill—S. 4—
to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, to establish the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research
and development, to increase grants for
construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment works, to authorize the establish-
ment of standards of water quality to aid
in preventing, controlling, and abating
pollution of interstate waters, and for
other purposes, * * *.
* # * * *
[p. 24583]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we discuss today the
very important, conclusive, and the final
step on a very important piece of legis-
lation which deals with the control and
reduction and, if possible, prevention or
at least minimizing the ever-increasing
degree of pollution of our water re-
sources of this great country of ours.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had good
law which this House initially asked for
and received back in 1956. This law was
subsequently amended in 1961 and this
year amended by the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I can report to the Mem-
bers of the House I am pleased to state
that practically all of the version of the
House bill was agreed to by the con-
ferees of the other body.
But, Mr. Speaker, we did have a major
issue in dispute on the extremely impor-
tant but likewise complex and compli-
cated and involved matter of establish-
ing standards. That was the major point
of dispute. It took us almost 4 months
to resolve that dispute.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to state be-
fore my colleagues and for the public
record, that the compromise which we
have worked out on this very difficult
matter of standards involving the great
difference between the House version
and the version in the other body as we
worked it out, is not only sound, it is not
only fair, but it is workable and practical
and in my own judgment it makes a
better bill than either of the original two
bills.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come
here and report our agreement.
This legislation, as you are all well
aware, has been the subject of consider-
able discussion over the past several
months. We have been meeting with
the other body formally and informally
over the past several months in an effort
to iron out the differences between the
two versions of the legislation. I believe
this has been most successfully accom-
plished and the conference report we
present you today is one which will not
only provide authorizations to further
continue our fight against the elimina-
tion of the pollution in our streams and
lakes in all sections of the country, but
will, at the same time, provide fair
treatment to all those who are affected
by this legislation. I believe it is a
stronger bill, a more equitable bill, than
either of the original two versions. By
this I mean the States, cities, towns, the
private industries, and individuals them-
selves, all of whom, as you know, are
constant users of our most precious
natural resource—water.
Before I continue with my comments
on S. 4, might I pay particular tribute
to my colleagues on the conference, the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland,
the Honorable GEORGE H. PALLON, chair-
man of the Committee on Public Works,
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
JONES], and the two minority members
of the conference who contributed so
much to the successful completion of
what has been a most difficult and crying
time, the gentleman from Florida, the
ranking minority member of the com-
mittee [Mr. CRAMER], and the gentleman
from California [Mr. BALDWIN].
This conference report I present to
you today is one that has been worked
out most carefully.
It embodies, I believe, the best features
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
795
of the legislation as it passed the House
and the Senate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to refresh the
Members of the House with reference
to this legislation, they may recall that
in the House version when it came to
the matter of standards, the House bill
had merely this language: We directed
that the States should file with the Sec-
retary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare a letter of intent
within 90 days after the enactment of
this piece of legislation and that on or
before June 30, 1967, approximately 2
years hence, that the States establish
water quality criteria to be applicable
to interstate waters within the States.
If they do not file this letter of intent, we
had a penalty provision which provided
that any Federal assistance to any State
or municipal organizations would be
cut off.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate version called
for the establishment of standards by the
Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare almost immedi-
ately. Oh, yes, we had been to confer-
ence and had had an informal type of
huddle between the conferees and the
Federal agencies involved, as well as
with the States and private industry and
other private parties with reference to
the question of whether the Secretary
on his own would establish these stand-
ards and proceed promptly to enforce
them under the enforcement provisions
contained in the existing law. So, here,
we were granting almost total power to
the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, to
establish standards on a very important
and complex issue, and the standards
would be promulgated almost immedi-
ately, and thereupon enforced.
As a result of the hard fought confer-
ence, we now give the States 1 year to
write a letter of intent that they will by
June of 1967 establish water quality
criteria. If after that period of time the
State does establish water quality cri-
teria satisfactory to the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare as he sees it, to meet the objec-
tives of this act, then they shall become
the standard for the State.
Second. If a State does not act or if it
has water quality criteria which the
Secretary of HEW feels are inferior or
not adequate to accomplish the purposes
of the act, then the Secretary of HEW,
after an informal conference with all the
parties concerned, the Federal agencies,
the State agencies, and individual people,
will publish—and do remember this—
standards for the given area or the State.
[p. 24587]
The State is then given 6 months to
develop acceptable standards of their
own. If they do so, all well and good.
If they do not, then the Secretary after
6 months will promulgate his published
standards, as I say, after a 6-month pe-
riod. Even though these standards pro-
mulgated by the Secretary of HEW are
made, the Governor of any State may
ask for a revision of the standards any
time during the 6-month period and up
to the 30 days after the Secretary has
promulgated the standards. If the Gov-
ernor asks for revision then the Secre-
tary must grant a hearing. In short,
a Governor can ask for a hearing and
the Secretary must grant a hearing.
This is before a quasi-official board, and
a record of all proceedings is kept.
The Senate side accepted the House
version of how the board would be ap-
pointed. We insisted that the board be
appointed by the Secretary rather than
the President. The board shall have not
less than five members. The member-
ship on the hearing board must be one
that has broad balance of representation.
Each and all of the States involved in a
hearing would appoint their own respec-
tive members to the board. The Depart-
ment of Commerce may appoint its
member of the board, and other inter-
ested or affected or participant Federal
agencies or any other State agency
would have their representatives, and a
public member would be on the board
also, and less than a majority of the
-------
796
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
members may be employees of the De-
partment of HEW.
In short, we have made adequate pro-
vision for fair representation on the
board, and the board shall be as repre-
sentative as possible of a given area, and
the hearings must be held in that area.
This hearing board, after hearing all
of the evidence from all parties con-
cerned, can then do either one of two
things: Approve the standards and rec-
ommend approval at the same time to
the Secretary, whereupon he may pro-
mulgate them and enforce them. Or the
board may modify the proposed stand-
ards. These modifications are reported
back with a recommendation to the Sec-
retary of HEW. He shall conform and
comply with these recommendations of
the hearing board and promulgate the
standards. We have a process for estab-
lishing standards which will be a joint
operation at which not only the Federal
Government and its agencies, other than
the Secretary of HEW, shall be repre-
sented, but the States affected shall be
represented, private industry shall be
represented, the general public shall
be represented. In fact, all members
affected by the standards are repre-
sented on this board, and the recom-
mendations of the board shall govern
the final decision of HEW.
All of this would be under the
heading, Mr. Speaker, of establishing
standards.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have come a long
way from the Senate's Secretary setting
standards stalemate. We on the House
side have receded from the penalty sec-
tion for noncompliance and have given
the States a full year rather than the 90
days restriction for the filing of the let-
ter of intent. Thanks to the diligent
work of both Houses, we have before us
a procedure that brings the States into
full participation in establishing criteria
that after June 30, 1967, could become
standards.
Let it not be said that the States have
not been given full power to establish
for themselves a quality of clean water
that they can truly be proud of. Let the
RECORD also show that this standard
setting process is greatly fortified by the
fact that the Governor of the State can
petition to have the standards revised
and the Secretary must then submit to a
hearing board and this hearing board's
determination will be final. In short, the
States, municipalities, industries, and all
other affected parties have a full and
fair opportunity to be heard in this very
practical and workable procedure that
will do much to prevent the pollution of
our Nation's waters. Instead of just roll-
ing back pollution that already exists,
this procedure serves as a preventive
measure. It will serve to prevent pollu-
tion before it happens.
From here on, of course, once these
standards have been promulgated, then
you have the second phase, which is
enforcement.
If a standard is violated, and this
material is discharged into the waters
which would further deteriorate the
waters, according to the provisions of
the act he may institute enforcement
proceedings. However, before any
abatement action is initiated the violator
or alleged violator is given 6 months for
voluntary compliance. Again, you will
note in the statement of the managers on
the part of the House the alleged violator
or violators will not only be given this
time for compliance, but will be given
full opportunity to meet with and to dis-
cuss with either the Secretary or his
responsible representative to see if they
can work out an arrangement or state-
ment so that an agreeable solution may
be arrived at without going into court or
instituting a suit.
So we do believe we have worked out
a fair and yet effective manner of re-
quiring standards and enforcing those
standards. We do it so that the Federal
Government with the States and munici-
palities and public entities as well as
private industries and other persons di-
rectly interested have a share in the
participation because in my own opinion
there is no question whatsoever that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
797
with the rapidly increasing problem of
pollution which is already of critical
proportions in many, many large river
basins in different areas of the country,
this problem will not be coped with
effectively and it will not be solved
unless we have a massive joint effort
and we think that this procedure that
both bodies have agreed upon will pro-
vide the opportunity for that kind of
effort.
In concluding I merely want to say,
and I would like to refresh your memory
about how urgent this whole problem is.
Time is rapidly running out. In the
eastern half of the United States alone,
15 years ago, and I was here in the
House then in 1950, water consumption
was about 100 billion gallons a day. That
is 15 years ago. Now we are in the 1965,
and as we look ahead to the year 1980,
15 years from today, the water consump-
tion in use in the eastern half of the
United States will increase fourfold
from 100 billion gallons of water in
1950—and we are at the half-way point,
15 years later—and projecting into the
future 15 years hence—it will be 400 bil-
lion gallons or a 400-percent increase.
Now the key to this program that we
provide for in this bill is that now we
have for the first time placed the em-
phasis where it belongs in trying to solve
this problem, and that is on the preven-
tion and minimizing as much as possible
this pollution before it occurs.
We know now and we will know even
better after more scientific and techni-
cal data is brought in from our respec-
tive regional water research laboratories
what can and ought to be done as to the
nature of pollutants and how to cope
with them. When we know that pollu-
tion is going to occur in a given area just
as surely as the sands run out of an
hourglass and when today we know
that we will have a very serious pollu-
tion problem 10 or 20 years from now,
why wait for that to happen when we
can have intelligent, systematic, preven-
tive, effective measures to begin now to
encourage and make possible orderly
utilization of the water and yet provide
for its preservation and conservation for
the many uses and the many demands
which will be made for that water in the
years to come.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. McCARTHY. As the distin-
guished gentleman and the father of this
legislation knows, my district stretches
about 20 miles along the shores of Lake
Erie, probably known as the most se-
verely polluted major body of water.
This subject of standards has been one
of intense interest in New York as well
as throughout the country. It seems to
me that the compromise reached by the
conferees on this matter as to the cri-
teria of standards is eminently fair and
reasonable and will accomplish the ob-
jectives that the gentleman has in mind.
Would the gentleman care to comment
on that?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. There is no
question in my mind that the program
will be very effective. As I said earlier,
it will bring into play all the parties
involved and not merely the Federal
agency. The program is definitely
needed. There is no question whatso-
ever that it will be a most effective and
workable program. It will give full op-
portunity for all parties to participate
and particularly enable them to show a
little more initiative than they have.
Some have done an excellent job, many
fairly well, and unfortunately too many
not well at all. The program will give
them a full opportunity to get on the
move in 2 years and then from then on
the momentum will gather and we will
proceed full steam ahead. I am confi-
dent that we can handle this needed
program
Mr. OTTINGER Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from New York.
[p. 24588]
-------
798
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. OTTINGER. I should like to con-
gratulate the gentleman from Minnesota
on the excellent job which the confer-
ence committee has done in working out
a system whereby we can have Federal
standards and State participation The
result is a very fine compromise.
However, I wondered whether it will
be necessary to delay the operation of
the program until June 30, 1967, when
these standards will be put into effect,
or will they be put into effect before
that date?
Mr. BLATNIK. There is no reason
for delay. We are confident that the
States will comply by establishing their
own water quality criteria just as soon
as physically possible. We on the House
side felt very strongly that the States
ought to be given time to get their own
houses in order and get on the way
rather than to lower the boom on them
now with arbitrary Federal standards.
We do not today have enough infor-
mation really to come up with practical
and reasonable standards. So to prevent
unfair or capricious standards by the
Federal Government, the States were
brought into the picture and given a
chance to establish for themselves water
quality criteria. By soliciting their
cooperation the Federal program is made
50 times as strong as it would be with-
out the participation of the States.
Meanwhile, we are developing further
information so that 2 years hence, work-
ing with the States, the agencies of the
Federal Government, the municipalities,
and the industry, we will be able to come
to an agreement and establish the neces-
sary hearing board mechanism and pro-
vide bona fide, ironclad, and yet effec-
tive, realistic, and workable standards.
So we shall lose no time.
Mr. OTTINGER. The 6 months par-
ticipation for the States promulgating
standards would apply after June 30?
Mr. BLATNIK. No; it could apply
before that. On failure of a State to file
a letter of intent within a year of enact-
ment of this legislation, the Secretary
could publish standards and at the end
of 6 months if the State still has not
acted he could promulgate them.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the stand-
ard-setting procedures and the ad-
vances made in the enforcement section
that includes a full and complete court
review of the standards, the House pre-
vailed in other equally important sec-
tions of the bill. The Senate side ac-
cepted our $50 million annual increase in
construction grants. It also accepted our
dollar increase version of individual and
multicommunity construction projects.
This money is badly needed if we are to
meet the backlog of projects.
Again my personal thanks for the gen-
erous support over these long months.
At last we have a measure that strikes
a happy balance between strong con-
trols and fair procedures.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from South Carolina, who is a very
good friend and an able member of the
committee, I am pleased to add.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, and ladies
and gentlemen of the House, I should
like to take this opportunity to con-
gratulate my distinguished subcommit-
tee chairman for the superb job that he
had done in working out this compro-
mise, he and the other members of the
conference committee, with the other
body, and bringing before this body
today a conference report which is ex-
cellent, one which is fair, and one which
I think more than anything else is a
tribute to the distinguished gentleman
now in the well for his long suffering,
his patience, and his perseverance.
We have here a conference report that
I think will have the cooperation of the
States, the municipalities, and the in-
dustry involved. I want also to praise
the minority for their splendid coopera-
tion during the long months it took to
develop this important legislation.
This is a good conference report. It
is a good bill. Again I wish to con-
gratulate, commend, and thank my dis-
tinguished subcommittee chairman for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
799
a magnificent job.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes; I yield to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER],
the leader of the minority members of
the committee on conference.
As I indicated earlier, I wish to make
official acknowledgment and public rec-
ognition of the constructive and cooper-
ative participation and assistance on ihe
part of the minority members of the
conference, without whose assistance,
cooperation, and work on this contro-
versial matter, the result would have
been impossible. I yield 10 minutes to
the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I shall
not repeat those matters discussed by
the gentleman from Minnesota.
Let me say that I am glad this con-
ference has finally resolved its differ-
ences. This was probably one of the
longest conferences on record in which
agreement was finally reached. There
were many weeks between the appoint-
ment of conferees and final conference
action. I believe the long lapse of time
indicates the difficulty of the problems
with which we were concerned.
These problems principally involved
the one issue of whether Federal water
quality standards should be adopted
relating to the interstate streams and
portions thereof in the United States, or
whether the States should retain juris-
diction over the determination of those
water quality standards subject to pos-
sible review by the Secretary.
Let me say at the outset, I do not in-
tend to oppose the conference report. I
signed the conference report. However,
if I had been writing the bill which was
drafted relating to the standards section
in conference, I would have written it
differently than it is before us. Never-
theless I believe it is as good a compro-
mise as we could obtain between the
Senate and House versions of the legis-
lation, i
I believe some significant concessions
were made by the other body in the
drafts we had before us for considera-
tion, and I will mention those in just a
moment. There were a sufficiently large
number of concessions and significant
concessions, including the subject mat-
ter written into the conference report it-
self, made by the other body, so that I
feel I can support the conference report
with that language written into that
report, so long as the Secretary abides
by the language written into that report.
I specifically refer to pages 12 and 13
of the statement of the managers on the
part of the House, more specifically to
the language at the bottom of page 12.
This language relates to what will hap-
pen after the standards are set and a
given industry is brought in for violation
thereof. The question is this: What will
then happen?
The Secretary will first decide in his
mind that a violation has occurred.
The question I was concerned about, in
the conference, is that then the Secre-
tary has the power to bring the party,
the business, and the State into court,
after a lapse of a 6-month period. The
6 months was conceded in conference.
The 6 months is intended to give the
State and the local industry involved,
or whoever may be a violator, an oppor-
tunity to conform to the Secretary's
demands.
The thing which disturbed me was
that once these standards were set, the
Secretary could arbitrarily, if he saw fit
to do so, bring not only the industry in-
volved but also the State agency as well
into court. The objection I had to that
procedure was that there was nothing
specifically provided to permit the State
agency to conform. If water pollution
control is going to be a partnership ap-
proach, then there must be cooperation
with the State and local governments
by the Federal agency. That makes it
a partnership approach, and in my
opinion, that is the only way this pro-
ram can succeed To be a partnership,
the violator and/or the State agency has
-------
800
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to be given an opportunity for a hearing
of some nature with the Secretary be-
fore a final determination by the Secre-
tary to file suit, through the Attorney
General, for the violation can be made.
Appropriate language has been writ-
ten into the conference report. I had
hoped it would be in the language of the
bill we are actually considering, but in-
stead it is in the conference report. If
it is lived up to, I believe it will meet
that objection.
The language states:
The conferees intend that during such
period the Secretary should afford an oppor-
tunity for an informal hearing before him-
self or such hearing officer or board as he
may appoint relative to the alleged violation
of standards, upon the request of any affected
State, alleged violator, or other interested
party, so that if possible there can be volun-
tary agreement reached during this period,
thus eliminating the necessity for suit.
That provision helps on that situation.
Then we come to the next question.
If we are to have a court review—and
this is a question we are faced with in
all court review instances—what kind of
a court review is it to be?
Is it going to be under the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, with the decision, of
the administrative agency presumed to
[p. 24589]
be proper, and with the weight of over-
turning the decision on the opposing
party, that is, the State or the violator
in this instance, he having to prove the
indiscretion? No, that is not what we
wrote into this in the way of judicial re-
view. This is a complete judicial review.
I wish the gentleman from Minnesota
would give me his attention relating to
these points, because I hope we will
have agreement in the debate here as
well as the agreement which appears in
the House report of the conferees. It is
the intention that there be informal
hearings during the 6-month period of
compliance where voluntary compliance
is permitted, following the finding of the
Secretary that he believes a violation
has occurred. It is the intention before
the Secretary files a suit that informal
hearings be held so that the State agency
or the violator have a chance to present
their case and thus determine whether a
court action would follow.
Mr. BLATNIK. If the gentleman will
yield, that was the clear and unequivocal
opinion of all of the three majority
members of the conferees.
Mr. CRAMER. Then, may I ask this
one other question on judicial review?
As is stated in this report of the man-
agers on the part of the House, is it not
true the intention of the House con-
ferees was to write in a full and com-
plete judicial review including trie
question of all standards that have been
established that might affect that indus-
try? They are all subject to review
when the question of a violation is raised
even though the specific standard which
is alleged to have been violated will be
included, but in addition to that all
other standards that might affect that
industry likewise will be subject to re-
view as to their reasonableness?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. I wanted to make sure
that is on the RECORD, because those two
points, I think, are the two principal
points that tied up the conferees for this
lengthy period. I am glad to get it on
the RECORD that that is clear. The con-
ferees also got a concession out of the
other body to the effect that when these
standards are determined by the Secre-
tary after consultation with the States
he shall then publish them in the Federal
Register and over a period of time the
State shall have an opportunity to be
heard before, first, a conference, and
then the standards are promulgated.
Thirty days thereafter the States can
ask for a hearing before an official hear-
ing board, if they disagree. That is che
protection given to the States, the local
communities, and the industries in-
volved. That hearing board, it was pro-
posed in the draft we had before us, was
to be appointed by the President. The
other body made the concession that it
should be appointed by the Secretary.
Is that correct?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
801
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir. That is cer-
tainly correct.
Mr. CRAMER. This protection to the
State and the local violator or the pro-
posed possible prospective violator is
through the appointment of a hearing
board. That hearing board is appointed
by the Secretary of HEW and not the
President of the United States. We also
stated that each State affected may not
recommend, as was in the draft lan-
guage, but select.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Select their members.
Mr. CRAMER. There is no question
from the standpoint of legislative history
and intent that the State to be affected
has the right to membership on the hear-
ing board which determines the reason-
ableness of the standards after they are
published in the Federal Register. Is
that not correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is absolutely
correct.
Mr. CRAMER. That board has the
power to modify its proposed regula-
tions. Is that not correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. The Secretary must
issue regulations carrying out the hear-
ing board's—not his but the hearing
board's—determination?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct. Yes,
it is.
Mr. CRAMER. I just want to point
out one or two other matters.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. CRAMER. We on this side of the
aisle have been insisting—we did when
we had the question of the additional
$50 million authorization a few years
ago, and we now have $50 million more
in this legislation—if this program is
going to succeed, that the States should
be encouraged to help to match these
additional Federal funds. There was a
provision written into the House bill
which, incidentally, passed unanimously,
that required the States to match Fed-
eral funds for the construction of sewage
treatment works, if the States wanted to
go above the ceiling set in the proposed
legislation. That provision is retained
in the House-Senate conference. Is that
not correct, I ask the gentleman?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, let me
say in closing that I support the con-
ference report. It took a long time to
work it out. I think it is probably the
best we could do in protecting the rights
of the States and the industries that
might be involved and giving them the
proper opportunity to be heard.
I will say that the minority and the
majority were given an opportunity on
this legislation to work their will with-
out the interference of the White House
and the executive branch of the Govern-
ment. The conferees of the House and
Senate did an outstanding job in com-
ing up with a bill that will do the job
and not work undue hardships. This is
a tough problem. It is a problem we
have to meet. We are meeting our re-
sponsibility with this conference report,
and I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is most un-
fortunate that in another matter in-
volving even more money which is
before the Committee on Public Works,
involving $160 million a year and this
water pollution legislation only involves
$150 million a year and I am now talking
about highway beautification, that we
in this body are not likewise being given
an opportunity to consider and deter-
mine the matter on its merits, in trying
to get a consensus between the majority
and the minority as between what is
right and wrong. I am referring, as I
said, to the matter of highway beautifi-
cation. I think that the inability of a
committee to work its own will is wrong.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. DUNCAN].
Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. Mr. Speak-
er, I said when this bill was before us
earlier this year that it was a tremend-
ous step forward, but I was disappointed
-------
802
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that it did not go further. Today I
think on the question of the establish-
ment of water standards the chairman
and the conferees on both sides of the
aisle are to be congratulated for bringing
back a stronger bill—though I can still
foresee a possible delay in excess of 2%
years before standards are set. This is
a delay the Nation can ill afford.
Mr. Speaker, for years we have been
on a treadmill. As fast as we go, we are
still unable or barely able to stay up with
the increased extent of the problem. As
a member of the Appropriations Sub-
committee dealing with this subject, I
was disappointed last spring to learn
that the maximum authorization for
Federal grants for municipal sewer sys-
tems was only $100 million. It would
take a full authorization of $200 mil-
lion Federal dollars to meet the demands
of the municipalities for the construction
of sewer systems in cases where local
bonding authority for the local contribu-
tion already exists.
I ask the chairman, is it not true that
this bill increases the authorization from
$100 million to $150 million?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct; that
is a 50-percent increase.
Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon. I am de-
lighted with the increase. I am disap-
pointed that it isn't greater, when we
know what must be done and know how
to do it, as we do here, and when the
threat of failure is so great—as it is in
the case of water pollution—we cannot
justify doing less than our best. I intend
to press for the appropriation of the full
authorization in the appropriation sub-
committee on which I serve. I hope that
these funds, together with those that will
be appropriated in support of related
programs authorized by the new hous-
ing bill and the Economic Redevelop-
ment Act, will do the job which must
be done.
Mr. Speaker, the name of JOHN BLAT-
NIK has always been in the forefront of
the battle for pure water. This bill adds
further honor to an already honored
name.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from California [Mr. BALDWIN],
who played a most effective role in
working out this compromise arrange-
ment.
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of this conference report. The
conferees worked long and hard in an
effort to arrive at a reasonable and effec-
tive compromise between the House-
and Senate-passed bills. We believe that
this conference report does represent
[p. 24590]
such a reasonable and equitable com-
promise.
Basically, we have a most serious
problem facing the Nation in the field of
water pollution. That problem is that
the supply of water in our streams re-
mains approximately the same; in fact,
in some areas right now it has been re-
duced. But the sources of pollution have
been going up steadily year by year as
our population increases and as the size
of our cities increases, and as the num-
ber of our industries increases. There-
fore, the potential sources of pollution
have been increasing each year and our
streams are in greater and greater dan-
ger of being polluted to a point where
their natural beauty will be seriously
adversely affected.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill
is to meet this issue head on and to en-
deavor to take steps that will result in
an improvement in the quality of our
streams.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives recognition
to the historic division of power between
the Federal Government and the State
governments in this field. This bill ap-
plies to interstate streams, streams in
which the Federal Government has a
proper interest under the Constitution
of the United States.
It provides that the States will have
the first opportunity to establish criteria
for these streams that will meet reason-
able standards. But if those States do
not exercise that first opportunity to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
803
establish criteria that will meet reason-
able standards, then this bill for the first
time gives the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Commerce the power to estab-
lish such standards and to promulgate
those standards and to enforce those
standards. This is only right and proper
because the Federal Government has a
legitimate interest under the Constitu-
tion in interstate streams.
Now, Mr. Speaker, another extremely
important phase of this bill is the alloca-
tion of $20 million for research and dem-
onstration projects dealing with sewers
that handle both sewage and also storm
drainage.
In this field we have many problems
throughout the United States and many
of our cities have inadequate sewer sys-
tems today or combinations of sewers
which also have to handle storm waters.
Many of these systems are inadequate.
When serious storms occur the amount
of storm water corning into those sewer
systems is such that the treatment plants
cannot handle the full flow and a part
of the untreated sewage gets into the
streams and creates serious problems of
water pollution. Therefore, we will have
to find an effective method in dealing
with and controlling this problem, and
that is the purpose for the authorization
of $20 million a year for demonstration
grants in this particular field.
The bill also establishes a higher pri-
ority within the Department of Com-
merce for the agency dealing with this
problem. Therefore, the Public Health
Service has been raised in stature you
might say to an agency called the Water
Pollution Control Administration which
will be under the jurisdiction of an As-
sistant Secretary of Commerce in order
to give it the status required to deal with
this increasingly important problem.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is
a good conference report. It represents
an effective stride forward in meeting
the needs of our Nation in controlling
water pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the
great majority of the people of our Na-
tion and all of the conservation groups
of our Nation are most desirous that the
Congress take positive action along these
lines in order to deal effectively with
this difficult problem.
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDWIN. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Speaker, I want
to compliment the gentleman from Cali-
fornia as well as the chairman of this
committee and the other members of the
conference committee for the magnifi-
cent job they have done in upholding the
House position and in bringing back
what in my judgment as a member of the
Public Works Committee is one of the
best bills we have ever had in this House
of Representatives.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. McCLORY].
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yielding and I, too,
want to compliment the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK], and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER],
as well as all of the members of the con-
ference committee who brought forth
this conference committee report.
It seems to me that the report resolves
several difficult problems in a most ap-
propriate and admirable way.
Mr. Speaker, my familiarity with this
subject of control of water pollution re-
sults in large part from my service dur-
ing the last session when I served on the
so-called Jones committee, a subcom-
mittee of the House Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, chaired by the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES] at which time we investi-
gated the subject of water pollution
throughout the entire Nation.
As a result of this experience I came
to gain a great respect for the ability
and record of progress demonstrated by
some of the local and State agencies
charged with this responsibility of water
pollution control.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see
-------
804
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the conference committee report
and the bill recognize the efficacy of
these local and State agencies.
I cannot help but feel that responsi-
bility for reducing and eliminating water
pollution is one that will have to be un-
dertaken in the long run by the local and
State groups. This new legislation
should not be interpreted as shifting re-
sponsibility to Washington. Instead, it
should be noted that it affords direction
and guidance on the part of the Federal
Government and challenges the local
and State agencies to do the job which
they are charged with performing under
the present legislation and which they
are capable of performing.
We should not have any illusions about
what we can do from Washington. We
are going to have to recognize that water
pollution problems are different wher-
ever we find them, and each one differs
from every other problem. While we
provide funds, while we provide direc-
tion, while we provide a new adminis-
tration for the purpose of resolving the
problem of water pollution, at the same
time the local and State governments
must continue with their responsibility.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for his excellent state-
ment. I want to express my apprecia-
tion to all the conferees and to the able
and respected chairman of our full com-
mittee, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. FALLON], for his support and for his
competence and tolerance which enabled
us to come out with a workable bill that
I know has his support.
Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, all those
who are deeply concerned at the extent
to which pollution of our rivers and
streams has denied our people the clean
water so essential for our health and
well-being must welcome the long-
delayed appearance here today of the
conference report on the Water Quality
Act of 1965.
While I recognize that the compromise
bill has given rise to some doubt about
the speed and effectiveness with which
the essential water quality standards can
be agreed on and implemented, I share
the conclusion of the Daily Journal of
Elizabeth, N. J., that the legislation will
bolster the antipollution cause and do
much long-range good.
Final approval of this bill will place a
heavy responsibility on State and Fed-
eral officials to get about the business of
cleaning up the rivers and streams of
the United States, so many of which—
because of years of pollution—have be-
come virtually unusable. The loss of
this immense supply of water has con-
tributed greatly to the present drought
emergency in the Northeast. The re-
covery of the water—through enforce-
ment of adequate water standards and
more efficient administration of water
pollution control statutes, which this bill
will make possible—can help assure a
successful attack on the long-range
threat of drought.
As a part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I include the text of the Daily Journal
editorial of September 17, 1965.
A WATEH POLLUTION BILL AT LAST
A compromise nearly 5 months overdue has
washed away the barriers to new Federal
legislation for the control of water pollution.
Its significance is heightened by the drought
plight of the Northeast although, of course,
the benefits will not come quickly.
The bill gives the States until July 1, 1967,
to set water quality standards. It will take
a long time to clean up streams and rivers
rendered unusable in the present emergency
by industrial contamination which has been
pouring into them for years.
There's a handy example in the open sewer
which is the Hudson River. Earlier this year,
the harmful effects of industrial pollution
were dramatized for New Jersey when 15,000
trout died in cyanide-tainted waters at the
State hatchery in Hackettstown.
Regrettably, the bill had to be weakened
by concessions in order to get it passed The
Senate measure, adopted January 28, em-
powered the Secretary of Health, Education,
[p. 24591]
and Welfare to set the water quality stand-
ards. Under the revision the States are
given the opportunity first.
The change will please those who think
the Federal Government is taking away too
many of the States rights. But if the States
would meet their obligations, there would
be no reason for Washington to do what's
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
805
obviously necessary.
Officials right now would not be casting
about so anxiously for sources of potable
water if greater attention had been paid by
the States and their communities to the prob-
lem of pollution In view of this laxity,
more might have been accomplished faster
by having the HEW Secretary fix the water
standards.
Another provision in the compromise ver-
sion could be used as a stalling tactic by
industry. Companies will be allowed to ap-
peal to the courts for exemptions from the
standards.
Watered down as it is, though, the legis-
lation will bolster the antipollution cause.
It should do much long-range good.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the conference
report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT) . The question is on the confer-
ence report.
The question was taken, and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes had it.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject 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 pro tempore. Evi-
dently 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 381, nays 0, not voting 51, as
follows:
[p. 24592]
1.2i 1966 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2, MAY 10, 1966
31 Fed. Reg. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608
Providing for Reorganization of Certain Water Pollution Control
Functions. Prepared by the President and Transmitted to Congress,
February 28, 1966, Pursuant to the Provisions of the Reorganization
Act of 1949, as Amended. Reorganization Plan Effective, with the
Assent of Congress, May 10, 1966.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SECTION 1. TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES.— (a) Except
as otherwise provided in this section, all functions of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare and of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act (33 U.S.C. 466
et seq.), including all functions of other officers, or of employees or
agencies, of that Department under the Act, are hereby transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is hereby
transferred to the Department of the Interior.
(c) (1) The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, together
with its functions, is hereby transferred to the Department of the
Interior.
(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wei-
-------
806 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
fare (including those of his designee) under section 9 1 of the Act
shall be deemed to be hereby transferred to the secretary of the
Interior.
(3) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall be an
additional member of the said Board as provided for by section 9 ' of
the Act and as modified by this reorganization plan.
(d) (1) The Hearing Boards provided for in sections 10 (c) (4) 2
and 10 (f) 3 of the Act, including any Boards so provided for which
may be in existence on the effective date of this reorganization plan,
together with their respective functions, are hereby transferred to
the Department of the Interior.
(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under the said sections 10 (c) (4) - and 10 (f) 3 shall be deemed
to be hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior shall give the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare opportunity to select a member of
each Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sections 10 (c) (4) - and
10 (f) 3 of the Act as modified by this reorganization plan.
(e) There are excepted from the transfers effected by subsection
(a) of this section (1) the functions of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare under clause (2) of the second sentence of section
1 (b) 4 of the Act, and (2) so much of the functions of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare under section 3 (b) (2) 5 of the Act
as relates to public health aspects.
(f) The functions of the Surgeon General under section 2 (k) of the
Water Quality Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 905) 6 are transferred to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Within 90 days after
this reorganization plan becomes effective, the Secretary of the In-
terior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall
present to the President for his approval an interdepartmental agree-
ment providing in detail for the implementation of the consultations
1 Sec. 9 relates to Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
= Sec. 10(c) (4) relates to Hearing Board appointed to consider water quality standards.
3 Sec. 10 (f) relates to Hearing Board appointed to make findings and recommendations
with respect to pollution of interstate or navigable waters which endangers the health or
welfare of persons.
4 Sec. Kb) relates to the administration of functions of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare related to water pollution, other than those authorized by i.he Act.
The attached print of the Act reflects this provision of the reorganization plan.
5 Sec. 3(b) (2) relates to giving advice to Federal construction agencies on the need for
and the value of storage for streamflow regulation for water quality control in the planning
of reservoirs.
"Sec. 2(k) of the Water Quality Act of 1965 does not amend the basic Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The subsection requires that the Surgeon General shall be consulted
by the head of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration on the public health
aspects relating to water pollution over which the latter official has administrative
responsibility.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 807
provided for by said section 2 (k). Such interdepartmental agree-
ment may be modified from time to time by the two Secretaries with
the approval of the President.
[p. 1608]
(g) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under sections 2 (b), (c), and (g)7 of the Water Quality Act of
1965 are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Interior may exercise the authority to pro-
vide further periods for the transfer to classified positions in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of commissioned
officers of the Public Health Service under said section 2 (b) only
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(h) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under the following provisions of law are hereby transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior:
(1) Section 702 (a) of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 490) .8
(2) Section 212 of the Appalachian Regional Development
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 16) .9
(3) Section 106 of the Public Works and Economic Develop-
ment Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 544) .10
SEC. 2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—There shall be in
the Department of the Interior one additional Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, who shall, except as the Secretary
of the Interior may direct otherwise, assist the Secretary in the dis-
' Sec. 2 of the Water Quality Act of 1965 includes provisions relating to the voluntary
transfer of civil service status of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service per-
forming functions relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. These provisions
do not amend the basic Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
"Sec. 207 (a) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 provides that no grant
for sewer facilities may be made by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
(formerly the Housing and Home Finance Administrator) unless the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare certifies to the former official that any waste material carried by
such facilities will be adequately treated before it is discharged into any public waterway
so as to meet applicable Federal, State, interstate, or local water quality standards.
" Sec. 212 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 authorizes the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to make grants for the construction of sewage treat-
ment works in the Appalachian Region in accordance with the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, without regard to appropriation authorization ceilings or
State allotments.
10 Sec. 106 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 provides that no
financial assistance, through grants, loans, guarantees, or otherwise, shall be made under
the Act to be used directly or indirectly for sewer or other waste disposal facilities unless
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that
any waste material carried by such facilities will be adequately treated before it is dis-
charged into any public waterway so as to meet applicable Federal, State, interstate, or
local water quality standards.
-------
808 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
charge of the functions transferred to him hereunder, who shall per-
form such other duties as the Secretary shall from time to time
prescribe, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or
hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the Interior.
SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS.—The provisions
of sections 2 and 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat.
1262) " shall be applicable to the functions transferred hereunder to
the Secretary of the Interior to the same extent as they are applicable
to the functions transferred to the Secretary thereunder.
SEC. 4. INCIDENTAL PROVISIONS.— (a) So much of the personnel,
property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, alloca-
tions, and other funds, employed, used, held, available, or to be made
available in connection with the functions transferred to the Secretary
of the Interior or the Department of the Interior by this reorganiza-
tion plan as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall determine
shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior at such time
or times as the Director shall direct.
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget shall deem to be necessary in order to effectuate
the transfers referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be
carried out in such manner as he shall direct and by such agencies as
he shall designate.
(c) This reorganization plan shall not impair the transfer rights
and benefits of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service
provided by section 2 of the Water Quality Act of 1965.7
SEC. 5. ABOLITION OF OFFICE.— (a) There is hereby abolished that
office of Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the
incumbent of which is on date of the transmittal of this reorganization
plan to the Congress the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare under the provisions of section 1 (b) " of the Act.
[p. 1609]
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall make
such provisions as he shall deem to be necessary respecting the wind-
11 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 transferred to the Secretary of the Interior (with
certain exceptions) all functions of all other officers of the Department and all functions
of all agencies and all employees of the Department. Sec. 2 authorized him to delegate
functions to any other officer, any agency, or any employee of the Department. Sec. 5
authorized him to effect incidental transfers within the Department of records, property,
personnel, and unexpended funds.
"Sec. l(b) provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall admin-
ister the Act through the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and with the
assistance of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by him.
The attached print of the Act reflects the abolition of this position and the establishment
of the position of an additional Assistant Secretary of the Interior under Section 2 of the
reorganization plan.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 809
ing up of any outstanding affairs of the Assistant Secretary whose
office is abolished by subsection (a) of this section.
[p. 1610]
1.2i(l) INTERDEPARTMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING
CONSULTATION ON HEALTH ASPECTS OF WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
JULY 1, 1966
1. This Interdepartmental Agreement has been developed in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section 1 (f) of Reorganization Plan No. 2
of 1966, which states:
"The functions of the Surgeon General under Section 2 (k) of the Water Quality
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 905) are transferred to the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Within 90 days after this reorganization plan becomes effective, the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall
present to the President for his approval an interdepartmental agreement provid-
ing in detail for the implementation of the consultations provided for by said
Section 2(k). Such interdepartmental agreement may be modified from time
to time by the two Secretaries with the approval of the President."
2. The functions referred to above are defined by Section 2 (k) of
the Water Quality Act of 1965, as follows:
The Surgeon General shall be consulted by the head of the Administration on
the public health aspects relating to water pollution over which the head of such
Administration has administrative responsibility."
3. The public health aspects of water pollution relate to man's
drinking water; to his contact with water in recreation and work; to
the contamination of food sources, particularly shellfish; and to the
breeding of specific insect vectors of disease. The health threat is of
three types; (a) chemical—both organic and inorganic contaminants,
which can result in acute toxic or long-term chronic effects on
humans; (b) biological—microbiological contaminants and insect
vectors associated with spread of communicable disease; and (c)
radiological—radioactive contaminants which in very low level con-
centrations may produce radiation damage in humans.
4. Consultation between the Departments of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the Interior under the terms of this Agreement shall be
based upon the following general concept:
(a) The Department of the Interior is responsible for administering the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended; certain functions relating to water pol-
lution control under Section 702 (a) of the Housing and Urban Development Act
[p. 1]
-------
810 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of 1965, and Section 106 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965, and Executive Order 11288, "Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Water
Pollution by Federal Activities."
The stated purpose of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is "to enhance
the quality and value of the nation's water resources and to establish a national
policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution." The respon-
sibilities of the Department of the Interior, under the above legislation and Execu-
tive Order, involve the prevention and control of water pollution in consequence
of the benefits resulting to the public health and welfare, giving due regard to the
improvements which are necessary to conserve the nation's waters for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. To meet these responsi-
bilities the Department of the Interior, through the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, conducts programs to identify and measure the extent of
pollution and its effects on water uses and to assure the treatment and control
of waterborne wastes.
(b) The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the Public Health
Service Act as amended, is responsible for the protection of the public health.
Within this responsibility, the Department through the Public Health Service is,
therefore, concerned with the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control and preven-
tion of physical and mental diseases and impairments of man. As related to
Reorganization Plan No. 2, these responsibilities include: determination of the
health significance of water pollution; investigation of waterborne diseases and
means for their control; provision of consultation to the Department of the Inte-
rior on the public health aspects of water pollution; and advising on the public
health questions involved in the inclusion of storage for water quality control
in Federal reservoirs.
5. Under the terms of this Interdepartmental Agreement the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare will provide advice to
the Department of the Interior as follows:
(a) Recommendations on criteria for water quality standard setting based on
health aspects of intended water use for drinking water supplies; shellfish and
other marine food production, bathing, and other water contact activities. Recom-
mendations will be provided and modified as new supporting data are developed.
[p. 2]
(b) Upon request, consultation and technical assistance in water-related health
problems, as these may arise in connection with water pollution control activities,
such as comprehensive pollution control programs, enforcement actions, control
of pollution from Federal installations, water pollution research projects, construc-
tion grants, and the study of water pollution from vessel operations. In cases
where epidemiological surveillance activities indicate that a probable public health
hazard exists, the Public Health Service will initiate appropriate action to advise
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
(c) Review and comment on construction grant applications and on require-
ments for control of pollution from Federal installations for specific projects whose
operation may adversely affect the sanitation of shellfish-growing waters. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will refer all such projects to the
Public Health Service for review and comment.
6. Section 1 (e) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968 provides for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 811
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to advise on
public health questions involved in determinations by Federal agen-
cies of the need for and value of the inclusion of storage for water
quality control in Federal reservoirs. Advice on the effects of stream-
flow regulation on public health will be provided by the Public Health
Service based upon the studies prepared by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration under Section 3 (b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration report will be provided to the Public Health Service for
review and comment. The Public Health Service comments, together
with its own report on the production of disease-transmitting insects
and other environmental health considerations in the project area, will
be submitted to the Federal construction agency concerned.
7. To assure an adequate basis for such advice and consultation to
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare will, through the Public Health Service, conduct the
following kinds of studies on the health aspects of water pollution:
(a) Epidemiological, microbiological, radiological, and toxicological research
and investigations into the human health significance of waterborne contaminants,
to determine health tolerance for such contaminants as they affect drinking water
supplies, shellfish and other marine foods production, and water contact activities.
(b) Epidemiological surveillance of the incidence of waterborne disease based
on disease reporting, and on health-related water quality data derived from the
Public Health Service drinking water quality network established under the
Interstate Quarantine Regulations, the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, and
[p. 3]
the Radiation Surveillance Center, and on data from the program activities of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Investigation of waterborne disease outbreaks will be conducted in cooperation
with State and local health departments. Data and participation will be requested
from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration when water pollution
is involved in the outbreak. Reports based on these investigations which identify
pollution that presents a danger to health will be referred to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration for appropriate action.
(c) Studies of the relationship of surface water characteristics to the production
of disease vectors such as disease-transmitting insects, snails, and protozoa.
(d) Development of techniques for the identification, measurement and study
of the behavior of waterborne contaminants which cause or influence disease, such
as viruses, bacteria, organic chemicals, and trace elements. The results of these
Public Health Service studies will be made available to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration as a complement to its studies on identification and
measurement of water pollutants, the results of which in turn will be made
available to the Public Health Service.
(e) Study of methods of removing contaminants of health significance to meet
human tolerance levels as related to drinking water, swimming pools, shellfish
depuration, and food processing. To avoid duplication of Federal installations for
pilot plants, when such facilities are required to study methods of removing con-
taminants from drinking water, Public Health Service personnel may use Depart-
-------
812 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment of the Interior facilities. To assure that such installations will adequately
serve such purposes, the Department of the Interior shall consult with the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare in their design.
(f) Study of the human health relationship of waterborne contaminants to
animals and plants used as sources of foods, such as shellfish and other marine
foods, food crops irrigated with polluted water, including their field packaging,
and use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer and soil conditioner.
[p. 4]
8. The Public Health Service and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration will exchange on a regular basis relevant
health-related water quality data and research results. Particular
attention will be given to prompt exchange of significant new findings
which would affect the program responsibilities of either agency.
9. To effect essential coordination between Public Health Service
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and to in-
sure fulfillment of this agreement, each agency will designate an
official liaison representative. These representatives, together with
appropriate staff, shall meet at the request of either agency to discuss
measures taken to implement this agreement and review any evident
or emerging technical, administrative or fiscal problems which either
agency considers might affect the proper functioning of this agree-
ment. Any unresolved problems will be brought to the attention of
the respective Secretaries.
JOHN W. GARDNER,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The President.
[p. 5]
1.2j THE CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT OF 1966
November 3, 1966, P.L. 89-753, 80 Stat. 1246
AN ACT To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve
and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the "Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966."
TITLE I
SEC. 101. Section 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
" (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 813
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—
" (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."
TITLE II
SEC. 201. (a) Section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended to read as follows:
"GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
"SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipality 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 chemi-
cal additives which provide substantial immediate improvement
[p. 1246]
-------
814 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 ap-
propriate 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:
" (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 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 succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a); and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 815
" (3) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of
the next two succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b)."
(b) Section 5 of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new subsections:
" (g) (1) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources Coun-
cil, 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
[p. 1247]
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 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, to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
-------
816 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (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.
" (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."
(c) (1) Subsection (d) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by striking out " (1)" and by striking out all
of paragraph (2) of such subsection.
(2) The amendment made by this subsection shall take effect
July 1, 1967.
SEC. 202. (a) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by striking out "and for each suc-
ceeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, $5,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "for each succeeding
fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$5,000,000, and for each succeeding year to and including the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000."
(b) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is further amended by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following:
"including the training of personnel of public agencies."
SEC. 203. (a) Subsection (b) of section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows:
" (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project
[p. 1248]
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 com-
prehensive 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 Secre-
tary; (3) no grant shall be made unless the grantee agrees to pay
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 817
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 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.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect July 1, 1967.
SEC. 204. The next to the last sentence of subsection (c) of section
8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma
and the following: "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 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 bsen approved
pursuant to this section and adequate funds had been available. In
the case of any project on which construction was initiated in such
-------
818 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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-
[p. 1249]
strued to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States
to provide funds to make or pay any grant for such project."
SEC. 205. Subsection (d) of section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by striking out "and $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967." and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: $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."
SEC. 206. Section 10 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as para-
graphs (3) and (4), respectively, and by inserting immediately after
paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
" (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 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
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 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 819
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."
SEC. 207. Section 10 (d) (3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (as redesignated by this Act) is amended by inserting after the
first sentence thereof the following: "In addition, it shall be the re-
sponsibility 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."
SEC. 208. (a) Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
" (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
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 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.
[p. 1250]
" (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 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."
-------
820 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) Subsection (f) of section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended (1) by striking out " (f) " and inserting in
lieu thereof " (f) (1)," (2) by inserting immediately after the third
sentence thereof the following: "It shall be the responsibility of the
Hearing Board to give every person contributing to the alleged pol-
lution or affected by it an opportunity to make a full statement of
his views to the Hearing Board.", and (3) by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraphs:
" (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 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
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 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 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."
SEC. 209. Paragraph (f) of section 13 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following: "and
an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization."
[p. 1251]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 821
SEC. 210. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
is amended by renumbering existing section 16 as section 19 and by
adding immediately after section 15 the following new sections:
"SEC. 16. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and to fur-
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
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 pollution. The Secretary shall submit a report of such investi-
gation 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 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
-------
822 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."
SEC. 211. (a) The Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 604; 33 U.S.C.
431 et seq.), is amended to read as follows: "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, cor-
poration, or association; any owner, operator, master, officer, or
employee of a vessel; and any officer, agent or employee of the
United States;
[p. 1252]
" (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 portions
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 prop-
erty, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as
otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as
hereinafter 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 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 expenses shall con-
stitute a lien on such boat or vessel which may be recovered in pro-
ceedings by libel in rem.
" (c) The Secretary may prescribe regulations which—
" (1) permit the discharge of oil from boats or vessels in such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 823
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 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.
[p. 1253]
"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.
"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
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
improvements 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
-------
824 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 navigable waters of the United States and shall
not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting
the provisions of such laws."
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect on the thirtieth day which begins after the date of enact-
ment of this Act.
Approved November 3, 1966.
[p. 1254]
1.2j(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 2021, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1966
SEPTEMBER 9, 1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
together with
SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 16076]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 16076) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursu-
ant to such act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert a substitute text
which is printed in the reported bill in italic type.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 825
THE BILL AT A GLANCE
Would provide $2.45 billion for sewage treatment plants through
June 30, 1971;
Would double the present dollar limitations on grants for smaller
projects from $1.2 to $2.4 million and for projects serving two or
more communities from $4.8 to $9.6 million;
Would add an additional 10 percent to the present 30 percent Federal
grant, making a total of 40 percent if the States contribute 30
percent;
Would establish a new concept of incentive grants amounting to 10
percent for the development of basin plans for water pollution
control;
Would increase the total Federal grant by another 10 percent, or up
to 50 percent under the basin plan, if the States matched to the
extent of 25 percent of the total costs;
[p-1]
Would provide $228 million for research through June 30, 1969;
Would authorize financial help to the States in preparing basin plans;
Would provide reimbursement for projects starting after June 30,
1966;
Would authorize studies of cost estimates, additional State personnel,
financial assistance to industry, research on industrial wastes, and
estuaries;
Would make other minor provisions.
With respect to construction grants, the amount in the bill ($2.45
billion) is exactly the same as the amount requested by the adminis-
tration through the fiscal year 1971. The figures which have generally
been used for comparison with the amount contained in this bill (ap-
proximately $3% billion for the administration proposal bill and $6
billion for the Senate bill) are not comparative, since they include
approximately $1 billion for an additional year in the administration
bill and $1% billion for an additional year in the Senate bill.
FORMAT OF THE REPORT
This report explains the action taken by the committee on the bill,
H.R. 16076, and the reasons for this action. The bill itself is divided
into two titles. Titles I of the bill is a new title II of the Water
Pollution Control Act, the "clean rivers restoration program." Title
II of the bill consists of a series of amendments to the existing Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which is designated as title I. Because
of the cross-references in the bill and the existing law to existing sec-
tions, subsections, sentences, and clauses of the existing act, a section
-------
826 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
index of the bill is included toward the end of the report to assist in
tracing the specific amendments.
A summary of the bill immediately follows this format. The sum-
mary covers the total construction grants provided by the bill; the
new incentive programs resulting from the adoption of the concept of
an "approved basin plan" in the "clean rivers" portion and the rela-
tionship of these incentive grants to requirements of matching State
contributions; an outline of the procedures for obtaining approval of
the basin plans; and a brief explanation of the more important
remaining provisions in the bill identified by separate headings.
The main body of the report includes a more detailed explanation
of the bill following generally the outline indicated in the summary.
The views of the committee and its reasons for adopting the bill in its
present form are given under each heading. The usual information
concerning the Federal costs, hearings, and agency comments follow
the main body of the report. The final portion of the report is the
basic law, as amended, required under clause 3 of Rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
Supplementary views of members of the committee follow the
report.
SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by
providing for the development of basin pollution control and abate-
ment plans through the establishment of additional incentives; by in-
creasing grants under the existing program for waste treatment; and
[p. 2]
by making certain other provisions. The specific features are sum-
marized as follows:
Total construction grants
Fiscal year ending June 30: Amount
1967 . ! $150,000,000
1968 300,000,000
1969 ... . . 400,000,000
1970 . . 650,000,000
1971 950,000,000
Total 2,450,000,000
1 Already authorized in existing law.
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT GRANTS
The principal modifications in the existing 30-percent Federal con-
struction grant program are:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 827
An increase in the maximum grants from $1.2 to $2.4 million for an
individual project, and from $4.8 to $9.6 million for a project serving
two or more municipalities, or 30 percent, whichever is less. Under
present law the dollar limitations are removed and the Federal Gov-
ernment contributes 30 percent, if the State contributes 30 percent to
all projects in the State funded with Federal grants under this pro-
gram from the same allocation; under the bill the dollar limitations
would still be removed, but the 30-percent Federal grant would be
increased to 40 percent if the State made this 30-percent contribution.
INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS IN APPROVED BASIN PLAN
If a project is a part of an approved plan for water pollution con-
trol and abatement in a river basin, coastal waters, bays, lakes, etc., it
is eligible for an incentive grant of 10 percent above the basic 30-per-
cent grant provided in existing law, with no dollar limitation. The
Federal grant would then be 40 percent. The grant may be increased
by another 10 percent, making a total of 50 percent, if the State agrees
to contribute 25 percent for all projects under this program from the
same allocation.
SUMMARY OF GRANTS
[In percent]
Cost-sharing
Not part of approved Part of approved basin
basin plan plan
No State State No State State
matching matching matching matching
State
Local
Totals
' 30
0
70
100
40
30
30
100
40
0
60
100
50
25
25
100
1 Limited to $2,400,000 for a single municipality or $9,600,000 for two or more combined.
PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF BASIN PLANS
The Governor or Governors of the States in the basin, through
the establishment or designation of a planning agency, or otherwise,
would prepare a comprehensive pollution control and abatement plan
which would be submitted to the Secretary of Interior for approval.
[p. 3]
This plan would be transmitted by the Secretary to the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development and to the Water Resources Coun-
cil. Upon receipt of their comments, which are to be made within 60
days, the Secretary will, if he approves it, transmit it together with
-------
828 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
his recommendations and the comments, to Congress for approval.
Further details with respect to the procedures are as follows:
(1) More than one State.—If the basin includes more than
one State, at least 50 percent of the Governors in that basin must
agree to submit a plan;
(2) Interstate agency.—If an interstate agency develops a plan
for the area under its control, that agency would submit the plan
to the Secretary;
(3) Upper Colorado and Columbia Basins.—In the case of the
Upper Colorado River Basin, the Governors of at least three of
the four States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
must agree. In the case of the Columbia River Basin, the Gover-
nors of at least three of the four States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
and Washington must agree.
(4) Tennessee and Delaware Rivers.—In the case of the Ten-
nessee and Delaware Rivers, the Tennessee Valley Authority and
the Delaware River Basin Commission may develop a plan and
transmit it directly to Congress for approval.
OTHER PROVISIONS
Administrative expenses.—The Secretary of Interior is authorized
to pay up to 50 percent of the administrative expenses incurred by
planning agencies designated by the Governor or Governors in
preparing basin pollution control and abatement plans.
Research and development.—The bill merges the research and de-
velopment authority of section 6 with section 5 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
1. Industry.—It provides for grants to persons for research
and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of water
by industry, including but not limited to the treatment of indus-
trial waste. No grant shall be made for more than 70 percent of
the cost of the project, except that the maximum grant for any
project is limited to $1 million.
2. Estuaries.—Appropriations of $1 million per fiscal year for
the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, 1968, and 1969, are author-
ized for a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution in the
estuaries of the United States on fish and wildlife, recreation,
water supply and water power and on other beneficial purposes.
The report must be submitted not later than 3 years after enact-
ment of the bill.
3. Appropriations for research.—The amount authorized to be
appropriated for all research and development, exclusive of the
estuarine study, is $75 million per fiscal year for each of the 3
fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 829
Not less than 25 percent of the amount appropriated shall be used
for the industrial pollution studies each fiscal year. The total
authorization for research appropriations, including the estuarine
study, is $228, million or $76 million per year for the fiscal years
1967, 1968, and 1969.
[p. 4]
Cost estimate and study.—The bill authorizes the Secretary to make
a study in cooperation with various pollution control agencies of the
estimated costs of the Federal pollution control program, the economic
impact on affected units of government of the costs of installing waste
treatment works, and the national requirements for and cost of treat-
ing wastes to meet water quality standards established under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The initial study would cover
a 3-year period beginning July 1, 1968. The initial study must be
submitted to Congress by January 10, 1968, and updated each year
thereafter.
Training of State and local personnel.—The bill directs the Secre-
tary to make a study of the need of additional State and local person-
nel to carry out pollution control programs and the use of existing
Federal training programs to train such people. The results of the
study shall be transmitted to the President and Congress by July 1,
1967.
Program grants.—The bill increases the authorization, essentially
for planning grants, to States and interstate agencies to assist them
in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate meas-
ures for the prevention and control of water pollution from $5 mil-
lion through the fiscal year 1968 authorized under present law to $10
million for the fiscal years 1968 and 1969, a total increase of $15
million.
Reimbursement.—Reimbursement is authorized for expenditures
made in advance of the availability of funds for a grant if the Sec-
retary approves the project prior to commencement of construction.
Such retroactive grant requires that the same provisions apply as
would apply if the grant was being made for future construction.
The approval of the project by the Secretary prior to construction,
or the making of a grant for future payment, shall not be construed
to constitute any obligation on the part of the United States. The pro-
vision applies to projects where construction is initiated after June 30,
1966. For projects initiated between June 30, 1966, and the date of
enactment of the bill, the Secretary may approve the project subse-
quent to commencement of construction.
Hearing Board.—The bill provides that the Hearing Board shall
give every person contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by
-------
830 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
it an opportunity to make a full statement of his views. It also author-
izes the Secretary to require a report from persons whose alleged
activities result in pollution, provided that no trade or secret proc-
esses shall be divulged. Upon failure to file such report the person
shall be subject to a fine of $100 per day.
Oil Pollution Act oj 1924,—The bill transfers the administration of
the 1924 Oil Pollution Act from the Secretary of the Army to the
Secretary of the Interior.
Study of additional financial assistance to industry.—The bill
authorizes a study of the use of tax incentives as well as other meth-
ods of financial assistance to industry. 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.
[p. 5]
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Fiscal year ending June 30 —
Construction
grants
Research
grants
Program
grants
Total
1967 '$150,000,000 $76,000,000 '$5,000,000 $231,000,000
1968 300,000,000 76,000,000 a 10,000,000 386,000,000
1969 400,000,000 76,000,000 10,000,000 486,000,000
1960 650,000,000 650,000,000
1971 950,000,000 950,000,000
Total 2,450,000,000 228,000,000 25,000,000 2,703,000,000
Authorized by existing law 150,000,000 3 228,000,000 10,000,000 388,000,000
Increase in authorization in H.R. 16076. 2,300,000,000 0 15,000,000 2,315,000,000
' Authorized by existing law.
2 $5,000,000 authorized by existing law.
3 Certain research items have a combined authorization ceiling in existing law of $105,000,000 but there
is no authorization ceiling for the research program as a whole. For the purpose of this table, the entire
$228,000,000 is considered to be already authorized.
GENERAL STATEMENT
In the history of the development of our water resources for the
benefit of man, pollution control is the latest and one of the most diffi-
cult problems which the country has had to face. It is the only prob-
lem in the water field which has resulted from man's misuse of his
inheritance. All the other problems were challenges to man's ingenu-
ity to make better use of those resources which were given to him.
In so doing, solutions he has arrived at resulted in an improvement
of the resource and he has not had to be concerned, except in special
cases, by the side effects.
The problem he is now encountering is one which involves undoing
the wrong he has done, partly through carelessness and lack of fore-
sight and partly through conditions beyond his control. He has per-
mitted this problem to assume gigantic proportions, calling not for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 831
crash programs but for programs accelerated beyond anything which
he has yet undertaken.
In the beginning of the country our rivers served the early settlers
by providing a means of transportation for goods and people. To
make them better serve this purpose, channels and harbors were
dredged, canals were excavated, and locks and dams were constructed
to overcome the obstacles of topography. The improvement of rivers
and harbors has beeen going on since 1824.
The next use to which our waters were put by the Federal Govern-
ment was the supply of irrigation water to the arid lands of the West,
which began with the Reclamation Act of 1902. It was not until 1917
that the first flood control project was entered into by the Federal
Government in an attempt to control hydraulic mining debris in the
Sacramento River. This was not of national significance, but 10 years
later, as a result of the great floods on the Mississippi River, a plan
was developed which had to be sponsored by the Federal Government,
since it involved so many States, for the control of the Mississippi
River. It was not until 1936, however, that the Congress passed legis-
lation recognizing as a national policy the control of destructive floods
on the rivers of the country.
These problems of water were met as they arose; pollution is a late-
comer. During the early years of this period, the pollution of our
streams was no problem because of the smaller population, the lesser
[P. 6]
industrial development, and the clean rivers available to carry waste
to the ocean.
The germ of the problem was there, however, and it grew by leaps
and bounds. Legislative efforts to meet this problem are outlined in
some detail later in this report. Briefly, the first determined water
pollution control legislation was passed in 1956, but it was admittedly
a feeble step in combating an ever-mounting evil although the best
that could be done at the time.
Measures to prevent the ever-accelerating pollution were gentle at
best, and the amount of money appropriated for Federal assistance
was hardly more than a token. In 1961 a greater step was taken
through the passage of amendments to the original act, and, finally,
in 1965, only last year, a vigorous thrust was undertaken by the
passage of the 1965 amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act.
This bill is a further step in making our waters reusable.
The President painted the picture last month when he said:
This is water that could be used and reused, if treated prop-
erly. Today it is ravaged water—a menace to the health. It
-------
832 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
flows uselessly past water-hungry communities to an indifferent
sea.
Water reuse is nothing new. It is practiced on a large scale today.
Some water in almost every stream is used one or more times. People
often shudder at the idea of reusing water, not realizing that in most
cities and towns today such reuse is a part of our urban civilization.
In other older and more crowded countries, the problems which we
are facing in this respect were faced long ago and solved. A good
example has been brought back by Representative Robert E. Jones
who represented the committee on a recent Presidential mission to
Germany. The information which he procured, and which is incorpo-
rated in a report "Natural Resources Mission to Germany," dated
May 9, 1966, was of great interest to the committee. Senator Muskie
represented the Senate Public Works Committee, and Secretary of the
Interior Udall headed the mission.
With respect to the reuse of water, the committee was told that the
Ruhr River in Germany has been developed for municipal and indus-
trial water supply and is maintained under a master plan which was
begun in 1914. It consists of 14 reservoirs and dams to assure ade-
quate water supply during low-rainfall periods and 104 treatment
plants for waste purification. The system does not depend upon any
novel technological application but rather upon the careful formula-
tion and coordination of the units in the plan. This probably will be
the road which the United States must continue to follow, although
the committee also noted with interest that Germany has experi-
mented with specialized solutions to certain local problems, such as
that started in 1904 on the Emscher River. The problem involved a
disruption of flow because of localized mine subsidence, the discharge
of raw sewage by towns, and manufacturing wastes by industries,
which had turned it into a vast waste-clogged swamp. Because the
Ruhr River runs parallel to the Emscher, water supplies for munici-
pal and industrial use could be obtained from the Ruhr River
and from deep wells. Accordingly, planners proceeded to convert
the Emscher into a drainage stream. Its course was altered, its
streambed was raised and lined with concrete, and its banks
tp. 7]
landscaped. The net effect: a river completely managed for waste
disposal.
There may or may not be areas in the United States which can be
treated similarly. The scheme sounds almost as though it were a last
resort, and it may not be required in particular areas of this country
for some years to come. However, imagination must be an essential
part of the planners' vision in trying out all possible devices for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 833
solving this problem, particularly in the heavily industrialized areas.
The committee recognizes that the imagination necessary to accom-
plish the job must be encouraged and developed and this bill is in-
tended to do that. Undoubtedly there will be additional bills in
future years but this bill, the fourth major effort so far, is the first to
attack the problem with the amounts of money commensurate with
the size of the job.
A paragraph from the remarks of Representative Blatnik at the
opening of the hearings may well be used to close this general
statement.
The Federal program of water pollution control, which the
Congress authorized just ten years ago in Public Law 660, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, has had an impressive
impact. The strengthening 1961 amendments and the far-reach-
ing Water Quality Act of 1965 have greatly assisted in putting
all users of water on notice as to their responsibility for keeping
our waters clean. The effectiveness of the present program can
be seen by the fact that those who have an interest in keeping
our Nation's waters clean, and this includes Federal, State, and
local governments, private industry and all citizens of our Nation,
are finally coming to realize that the handwriting is on the wall.
There must be and there will be an end to the befouling and
degradation of our greatest natural asset—pure water.
The committee hopes that the bill will be acted upon favorably and
rapidly by the Congress. It contains, in the judgment of the com-
mittee, those features which are now necessary to accelerate as much
as possible the water pollution control program. It increases the Fed-
eral participation more than seven times. It introduces a new concept
of incentives which will move the program forward that much faster.
The significance of these features and the reasons for the inclusion
of a number of other items of a less sweeping nature are explained in
some detail in this report. In this connection, it may be helpful to
list the four major bills or proposals considered by the committee in
its deliberations and the background of previous legislation.
MAJOR PENDING BILLS
The administration bill as originally proposed was introduced on
February 20, 1966, by Mr. Fallon, as chairman of the committee, as
H.R. 13104, and by Senator Muskie, as chairman of the Senate Public
Works Committee, on the same date, as S. 2987.
The bill, S. 2947, reported by the Senate Committee on Public
Works, was actually an earlier bill introduced by a number of Sena-
tors on February 18, 1966. This bill was reported on July 11, 1966,
-------
834 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and passed the Senate on July 14, 1966.
[p. 8]
The bill, H.R. 16076, was originally introduced by Mr. Blatnik on
June 30, 1966, and it is this bill which has been amended and reported
by this committee.
Another version of the administration bill was submitted by letter
July 20, 1966, from the Department of the Interior after the committee
hearings.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
A brief summary of the background of water pollution legislation
to date may be helpful in understanding the report.
Prior to 1955, water pollution control legislation was limited. Until
the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, the
only role the Federal Government had in water pollution control was
contained in three acts: The River and Harbor Act of 1899, the Public
Health Service Act of 1912, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was experimental and
limited to a trial period of 5 years, but was subsequently extended to
June 30, 1956. On July 9, 1956, after more than a year of delibera-
tion, there was enacted into law the first comprehensive Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This is commonly known as Public
Law 660 of the 84th Congress, sponsored by Representative John A.
Blatnik who is generally considered to be the father of water pollu-
tion control legislation, since he also sponsored on the House side all
subsequent legislation on the subject. Among its provisions were (1)
grants to assist States and interstate agencies for water pollution con-
trol activities; (2) Federal grants of $50 million a year (up to an
aggregate of $500 million) for the construction of municipal sewage
treatment works; and (3) a permanent procedure governing Federal
abatement action against interstate pollution.
Proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for a still more effective program of water pollution control
were introduced early in the 1st session of the 87th Congress and
received the endorsement of the President in his message on natural
resources on February 23, 1961. The Congress enacted and the Pres-
ident signed into law the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments on July 20, 1961. The amendments did much to (1)
strengthen abatement enforcement of interstate and navigable waters;
(2) increase Federal assistance to municipalities for construction of
waste treatment works by increasing the grant authorization to $80
million in 1962, $90 million in 1963, and $100 million for each of the
fiscal years 1964-67; (3) give recognition to the research needs by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 835
authorizing accelerated activities and funds; and (4) stimulate trie
multiple use of storage reservoirs by authorizing the inclusion of
capacity in federally constructed reservoirs for regulating stream-
flow for the purpose of water quality control.
The Water Quality Act of 1965 increased the grants to $150 mil-
lion for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967. In addition, it strengthened
the program so greatly that it is generally considered to be the prin-
cipal guide in Federal participation in water pollution control. The
new bill is not intended in any way to detract from the strength of
the 1965 act but rather to supplement it and to provide more details
where they are needed.
The 1965 act provided for the creation of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education,
[P. 9]
and Welfare. These activities had formerly been handled by the
Public Health Service, and the upgrading was desirable to strengthen
the Federal program. (Since then the program has been transferred
to the Department of the Interior under Presidential Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1966 in a further effort to give it the prominence and
support which it deserves.) The act included expanded research,
particularly in the field of developing projects which would demon-
strate new or improved methods of controlling waste discharges from
storm sewers or combined storm and sanitary sswers. It doubled the
dollar limitation on grants for construction of waste treatment works
from $600,000 to $1,200,000 for an individual project, and from $2.4 to
$4.8 million for a joint project in which two or more communities
participate. The removal of the dollar limitations up to a full 30
percent of the project costs was authorized if the State matched the
full Federal contribution. It further provided for an increase in the
basic grant of an additional 10 percent of the amount of the grant if
the project conformed to a comprehensive plan for a metropolitan
area.
One of the most important provisions was that each State must
file a letter of intent with the Secretary by October 2, 1966, that the
State would establish water quality criteria applicable to interstate
waters on or before June 30, 1967. Failure to do so results in the
Secretary establishing Federal standards for such water.
Finally, it provided for a stronger enforcement program than had
previously been in effect.
The committee wishes to emphasize particularly that H.R. 16076
is not intended to change the procedures established in the Water
Quality Act of 1965, except as specifically provided. It is intended
to supplement the authority basically granted in that act and to
-------
836 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
provide more tools by which these procedures can be carried out.
WHAT Is WATER POLLUTION?
Before proceeding to the details of the report it might be well to
define the word "pollution." It has different meanings for different
people. To some it is raw sewage with its attendant repugnance. To
others it is the chemical poisons that make it dangerous to go swim-
ming in our rivers and lakes. To the sportsman it may be the increase
in temperature of the water which has been used for cooling purposes,
and which, as a result, drives away game fish like trout or bass.
The component sources were noted in a report of the Senate Public
Works Committee, which was prepared with the assistance of the
Public Health Service, and is entitled "A Study of Pollution—Water,"
dated June 1963, of the 88th Congress, 1st session. The sources are
given as follows:
(1) Organic wastes contributed by domestic sewage and in-
dustrial wastes of plant and animal origin which remove oxygen
from the water through decomposition;
(2) Infectious agents contributed by domestic sewage and by
certain kinds of industrial wastes which may transmit disease;
(3) Plant nutrients which promote nuisance growths of
aquatic plant life such as algae and water weeds;
[p. 10]
(4) Synthetic-organic chemicals such as detergents and pesti-
cides resulting from new chemical technology which are toxic to
aquatic life and potentially to humans;
(5) Inorganic chemicals and mineral substances resulting from
mining, manufacturing processes, oil plant operations and agri-
cultural practices which interfere with natural stream purifica-
tion, destroy fish and aquatic life, cause excessive hardness of
water supplies, produce corrosive effects and in general add to
the cost of water treatment;
(6) Sediments which fill stream channels, harbors and reser-
voirs, cause erosion of hydroelectric power and pumping equip-
ment, affect the fish and shellfish population by blanketing fish
nests, spawn and food supplies, and increase the cost of water
treatment;
(7) Radioactive pollution resulting from the mining and proc-
essing of radioactive ores, from the use of refined radioactive
materials, and from fallout following nuclear testing; and
(8) Temperature increases which result from the use of water
for cooling purposes by steam electric powerplants, and indus-
tries and from impoundment of water in reservoirs, and which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 837
have harmful effects on fish and aquatic life, and reduce the
capacity of the receiving water to assimilate wastes.
Most wastes are mixtures of the above general categories of pol-
lutants, thereby complicating the problems of their treatment and
control. For example, municipal wastes usually contain synthetic
organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, and sediments, as well as
oxygen consuming organic wastes and infectious agents. Many indus-
trial wastes contain substantial amounts of heat from processes other
than cooling. Land drainage usually contains substantial organic
matter in addition to sediments; as well as radioactive substances
and air pollutants washed from sky, vegetation, buildings, and
streets during rainfall.
It is obvious there are many potential sources of waste which may
cause pollution. Whether pollution exists, however, depends on the
actual water quality, for pollution is an impairment of quality such
that it interferes with the intended usages.
THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
The first major Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1956 was an
innovation, because it moved the Federal government into an area
that formerly had been the concern of cities and local communities.
The role of the Federal government, however, particularly in making
grants available, was a walk-on part in a huge drama, and a hesitating
one at that.
The first authorization for grants amounted to $50 million a year
(up to an aggregate of $500 million) for the construction of municipal
sewage treatment works. The 1961 amendments increased the
amounts to $80 million in 1962, $90 million in 1963, and $100 million
for each of the fiscal years from 1964 to 1967. The 1965 act raised the
amounts for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 to $150 million. The total
construction grant authorization through this year, therefore, has
been $820 million over a 10-year period. This has done the work it
was intended to do; it has helped build the sewage treatment plants
[p. 11]
it was supposed to; but it has not let us keep up with the problem.
This is not intended to downgrade previous legislation. The amend-
ments of 1961, and more particularly the act of 1965, were aggressive
insofar as the role of the Federal Government was concerned in plan-
ning and in enforcement, but they did not provide sufficient financial
assistance.
The financial assistance in this bill is a frank admission that large
sums are going to be needed in the future if the problem is to be coped
with adequately. The amounts in the bill are based upon the best
-------
838 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
judgment of the committee after its consideration of all factors,
including the physical capability of utilizing appropriations over the
next few years.
The authorizations for construction grants in the bill are shown in
the following table:
Total construction grants
Fiscal year ending June 30: Amount
1967 i$150,000,000
1968 .... 300,000,000
1969 400,000,000
1970 650,000,000
1971 950,000,000
Total 2,450,000,000
1 Already authorized in existing law.
The bill originally proposed by the administration, introduced
February 28, 1965, as H.R. 13104, made no provision for extending
the authorizations for appropriations for the existing grant program
beyond that already authorized in existing law. H.R. 13104 did, how-
ever, provide for an authorization of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1967
to begin the proposed "Clean Rivers" program, and provided no lim-
its on future appropriations. The bill as passed the Senate on July 14,
1966, S. 2947, provided a total of $6 billion for the 6-year period 1967-
72, of which $150 million is the amount already authorized for fiscal
year 1967. The original bill introduced by Mr. Blatnik, H.R. 16076, on
June 30, 1966, contains the same amounts provided in the Senate bill.
Another version of the administration bill was submitted by letter of
July 20, 1966, from the Department of the Interior after the commit-
tee hearings of July 12 to July 14 in which the total amount for
construction grants was $3.45 billion for the 6-year period 1967-72,
including $200 million for the fiscal year 1967, which is $50 million
above the amount already covered by existing law for that year. As
shown in the previous table, the committee bill contains $2.45 bil-
lion for the 5-year period 1967-71, including the $150 million already
authorized. This is 1 year less than both the administration and
the Senate bills.
A comparison of the bills by years is shown in the following
table.
[p. 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
839
WATER POLLUTION CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUTHORIZATION PROPOSED IN VARIOUS BILLS CONSIDERED
Fiscal year ending June 30 —
1967 '
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Total
H R. 13104
(1st adminis-
tration bill)
'$200 000 000
. Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
. Unlimited
Unlimited
. Unlimited
H.R. 16C67 as
introduced and
S. 2947 as
passed Senate
'$150,000 000
600,000,000
1 000 000 000
1 250 000 000
1,500,000,000
1,500,000,000
6 000,000 000
Revised ad-
ministration
proposal (by
Department of
Interior)
'$200 000 000
250,000,000
400 000 000
650 000 000
950,000,000
1,000 000,000
3,450 000 000
H.R. 16076 as
reported by
committee
'$150 000 000
300,000,000
400 000 000
650 000 000
950,000 000
2 450 000 000
1 $150,000,000 already authorized by existing law.
It should be noted that the administration in its second request
increased the existing authorization for the fiscal year 1967 from $150
to $200 million and proposed an authorization for the fiscal year 1968
of $250 million. The committee has retained the present authorization
of $150 million for the fiscal year 1967 but has increased the authoriza-
tion for the fiscal year 1968 to $300 million, which results in the total
for the 2 years being the same in each proposal.
The amounts in the present bill represent the committee's judgment
as to appropriate annual authorizations for the 5 fiscal years from
1967 to 1971. In comparison with the same 5-year period, the other
bills would have provided amounts as shown in the following table:
Comparison oj bills based on 5-year period (1967-71)
H.R. 13104 .... . . . Unlimited
H.R. 16067 as introduced and S. 2947 as passed Senate 4,500,000,000
H.R. 16067 as reported by committee, and in revised administration
proposal . 2,450,000,000
The problem the committee faced in settling upon an amount for
construction grants is one which was faced by the administration in
its original proposal and in its revised plan submitted as a result of
the hearings held by the committee. It is the same problem that the
Senate faced in deciding upon the total amount of construction grants
to be authorized for a period of half a dozen years ahead. The orig-
inal administration request did not extend the authorization for the
existing grant program.
The revised administration proposal was explained in the testimony
of the Secretary of the Interior as follows:
The initial recommendation of the President, set forth his
message of last February, was that Congress enact the clean
rivers legislation this year and come back next year, because the
existing act has another year to run, and rewrite that legislation
in light of the clean rivers legislation and the action taken and
-------
840 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the experience under the Water Quality Act of 1965. There was
a strong feeling on the Senate side, reflected in the bill that they
have reported, which will be taken up this week, that we should
not wait to strengthen the existing legislation, and therefore the
administration has changed its position.
[p. 13]
The committee has made a careful analysis in an effort to arrive at
a figure which might more realistically lie in the same range as the
amounts which could actually be used over the next few years.
Available information indicates that there are not enough projects
ready for the utilization of the sums contemplated under the Senate
proposals. This is due partly to a lack of readiness in the completion
of the planning, design, and specifications, and partly to the fact that
even when plans are completed the financial resources of the States
or the local communities are not sufficient to supply their share in a
program in which the Federal Government would so markedly
increase its participation. This condition will be improved, at least
insofar as non-Federal financial abilities are concerned, by the bill,
which, through increases in grants and through provisions of incen-
tive grants, will decrease the burden upon the States and the
communities.
The most important aspect to be considered in this entire matter is,
in the opinion of the committee, the fact that undoubtedly better
figures will be obtainable within the next few years. This is why a
cost estimate study to be submitted by January 10, 1968, is included
in the bill. If the estimate study discloses that larger amounts are
needed, appropriate Federal increases can be included in future
legislation.
The committee hopes that the program will be accelerated in future
years, but considers that the figure of $2.45 billion included in the
bill for a 5-year period is in itself somewhat optimistic, since it
actually exceeds the amounts that would be obtained if a truly math-
ematical projection was made of the data now available on local
capacities and on the status of planning.
In summary of its position the committee feels that this is not the
time for a crash program but a time for shifting into high gear.
With respect to the allocation of funds to the States, the committee
feels it advisable to explain why it did not accept a provision in the
administration bill which would have reserved a portion of the appro-
priation to be held by the Secretary of the Interior for use only on
projects in the "clean river" program. The approach suggested by
the administration was to reserve 75 percent (later 60 percent) of the
appropriation for use only in supplying grants to projects qualified
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 841
under the "clean rivers" formula. No apportionment in this case was
provided in accord with any formula for State population or per
capita income, as is provided for the grants under the existing pro-
gram. The committee does not look with favor on this proposition.
It would grant to the Secretary complete control over the major por-
tion of the appropriated funds which, even with the best of intentions,
might not be distributed to the satisfaction of all States.
The committee sees no reason why funds for approved basin proj-
ects cannot be treated in the same way as funds for projects under the
existing program, and, in the bill reported, has made no provision for
a reserve to be distributed by the Secretary. Not only does this seem
a much fairer and more equitable method, but it is possible that it may
save the Secretary from receiving many complaints that might other-
wise be engendered by the States who might think they were getting
less than their share of the total appropriation.
The committee endorsed the administration proposal for accelerat-
ing clean streams by promoting basin concepts. However, the com-
mittee also recognizes that effective action will be most dependent on
imaginative leadership which can reduce the problems to specifics and
[p. 14]
propose solutions in such a manner as to convince the citizenry of
their responsibilities as well as their ultimate rewards.
Since 1956 the committee has nurtured the national awareness of
the problem of pollution, its magnitude, and possible avenues of
approach, as well as methods of financing. The development of State
and interstate agency programs has not advanced as rapidly as might
be desired; but these agencies are an integral part of the program, and
their participation in the construction grant program is essential.
This is properly their function and is directly related to the public
hearings now being held by State and interstate agencies in adopting
criteria and plans of implementation. Familiarity of the agencies
with the relative importance of problems, and their knowledge of the
potential for action in solving them, coupled with the challenge to
the State and interstate agencies to develop basin plans to achieve
the quality standards, makes decision on priority of disbursement of
funds for construction grants a rightful part of their responsibility.
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT GRANTS (PRESENT PROGRAM)
The bill provides for two significant changes in the existing grant
program, both of which should add appreciably to the effectiveness of
the water pollution control program.
The first is the doubling of the present dollar limitation on proj-
ects. Under the present law the limitation on grants is $1.2 million
-------
842 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for an individual project and $4.8 million for a project serving two or
more municipalities. The bill would double these amounts, making
the maximum grants for this type of project $2.4 million for an
individual treatment plant and $9.6 million for a combined project.
Under present law the grants to this type of project cannot exceed
30 percent, and the dollar limitations come into play only when these
limitations are less than 30 percent of the project cost. However,
these dollar limitations are removed if the State agrees to contribute
30 percent to all projects in the State receiving grants from the same
allocation. This provision is retained in the new bill.
The second significant and highly desirable change is the provision
for permitting an increase in the Federal contribution from 30 to
40 percent if the State contributes 30 percent in accordance with the
previous paragraph. The provision removing the dollar limitations
would be retained as in existing law.
If there is no State contribution, the first provision explained above,
which would double the present dollar limitation, would be important
as illustrated below. A project which costs $10 million could, under
the bill, receive a maximum of $2.4 million. Under existing law, the
dollar limitation would be $1.2 million. The community under the
present law would have to pay $8.8 million, whereas, under the new
law it would have to pay $7.6 million.
If there is a State contribution of 30 percent, the present removal of
the dollar limitation reduces the local cost only when the project cost
exceeds $4 million for a single project or $16 million for a combined
project, since at those amounts the control shifts from the dollar limi-
tation to the 30 percent Federal figure. Under the bill the control
would shift, because of a higher dollar limitation and a higher Federal
grant, at a level of $8 million for a single project and $32 million for a
combined project. In the example of the $10 million project, the
[p. 15]
Federal contribution would be $4 million, and the State $3 million,
leaving the local community only $3 million to pay. This will bring
into range many of the less prosperous cities which might not be able
to raise sufficient revenue for the larger amounts.
The committee recognizes difficulties larger cities have in obtaining
significant Federal grants in the construction of their treatment facili-
ties. The committee feels that the modification offered here will pro-
vide real assistance to many cities. However, the committee is also
concerned about the smaller cities where the cost per capita can be
several times that of larger cities. Small municipalities on small
streams can create serious pollution problems. The committee does
not want to see the funds distributed in such a way as to limit the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 843
number of municipalities to just a few large cities, so the committee
has retained a dollar limitation provision but has doubled it.
INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS IN APPROVED BASIN PLAN
With respect to water resource development it is recognized by all
concerned that the control, disposition and use of water in a river
basin must be coordinated, not only among the individual elements
performing a specific function, but amongst all the functions. In
formulating such a plan there must be a comprehensive plan for each
of the functions, such as waste assimilation, water supply, flood con-
trol, hydroelectric power development, navigation, recreation, fish
and wildlife, conservation, and other elements. After the individual
functions are formulated so that each purpose is served, there must
be a further fitting together of the projects so that none of the indi-
vidual units, in serving its own function, interferes unduly with the
performance of other units. A basin plan for water quality control,
therefore, is as essential in the development of a river basin as a
similar plan for the other functions.
The introduction of the concept of an approved basin plan for incen-
tive grants under title II, clean rivers restoration plan, is new in the
field of water pollution. While the engineering and economic value
of a basin approach is well recognized, this is the first time in the water
resource field the Federal Government has used it to stimulate State
and local participation, and at the same time retained the program
originally established under present law. The principle is as follows:
If a project is part of an approved plan for water pollution control
and abatement in a river basin or in coastal waters, bays, lakes, etc.,
it is eligible for an incentive grant. State approval of priorities is
applicable, as in existing law. The procedures for securing an
approved basin plan are described in the next section of this report.
The incentive grant amounts to 10 percent above the basic 30-per-
cent grant provided in existing law, or 40 percent. There is no dollar
limitation. The grant may be increased by another 10 percent, mak-
ing a total of 50 percent, if the State agrees to contribute 25 percent
for all projects for which Federal grants are made under this program
for the same allocation.
In this case, the State matching requirement has been reduced to
25 percent so that the balance to be contributed by local communities
would also be 25 percent. In other words, the 30-percent State match-
ing required for a project which is not part of a basin is arrived at by
dividing the non-Federal contribution of 60 percent by 2, leaving, as
[p. 16]
explained before, a matching requirement of 30 percent State and 30
-------
844 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
percent local. When the project is in a basin plan, the same principle
of a 30-50 distribution between State and local community is achieved
by requiring each to contribute 25 percent, because the total Federal
grant in this case can be 50 percent.
The committee noted with approval that 12 States are now offering
financial assistance to municipalities in construction of treatment
facilities. In some instances this assistance is offered on a yearly con-
tinuing basis, and in one instance in the form of a payment based on
a percentage of the original project cost but offered as a means of
assisting in the financing of operation. The objective seems to be
twofold: to provide State assistance at lower annual cost to the State
and without the necessity for a large bonding issue and to assure con-
tinued good operation of the facilities. Such an approach is consid-
ered as acceptable as State financial assistance as long as the cost to
the State is equivalent to 30 percent of the original project cost.
The committee wishes to point out here, since the question has been
raised several times, that the metropolitan area bonus of 10 percent
of the amount of the grant (not the project cost) is not applicable to
grants made to projects qualifying as part of a basin plan under title
II. This additional 10 percent under the provisions of section 8 (f) of
title I applies only to projects qualifying under that section. The
maximum grant under the bill, therefore, is 50 percent, although the
new maximum grant for projects not in a basin plan would increase
from 33 to 44 percent.
The committee feels that this approach, which is a compromise
among other suggested approaches, represents the most practical
means of keeping grants for sewage treatment plants distributed most
equitably between the old and the new programs. The approach
adopted by the administration of giving a 50-percent grant if the
project conformed to a basin plan would, in the opinion of the com-
mittee, result in making the reward so great for the new program that
the old program upon which communities outside the basin plan must
depend would be slowed down if not stopped altogether.
The inducement for a community and State to proceed as rapidly
as possible in the development of approved basin plans must be suf-
ficient to attract the States without making it so desirable as to reduce
to a point of ineffectiveness the Federal incentive to assist those cities
and towns which cannot hope for early approval of projects in
accordance with a basin plan.
The incentive in the bill for the basin plan alone is, therefore, 10
percent, rather than the 20 percent in the administration bill. The
grant for the State matching is also 10 percent, which has the advan-
tage of being the same as the new additional grant under the existing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 845
program. This would make the whole formula attractive both for
projects not in the basin plan and for projects in the basin plan. By
balancing the two programs, through the device of making the incen-
tive for State matching 10 percent and the incentive for securing
an approved basin plan 10 percent, the committee believes it has
found an equitable solution.
This formula was arrived at after full and detailed discussions of
the many possible variations. One variation would provide that the
basin incentive grant increase by only 1 percent per year up to 10
years. This was intended to remove the temptation to wait for
[P. 17]
approval of the basin plan to secure an additional 10 percent all at
once, which it is claimed would slow down the equally needed work
to be accomplished in those areas which could not soon be expected
to take advantage of the basin plan. Although this approach has con-
siderable merit by removing the large temptation, the substitution of
a series of small temptations might put a premium on maximum delay.
Another method discussed was the elimination of the basin incen-
tive so as to make all projects equally competitive, and thus assure
a more precise distribution of State funds in accordance with the
need and ability to pay of the cities and communities. This, however,
would make the development of a comprehensive pollution control
and abatement plan, which is a vital portion of a long-range program,
dependent entirely upon the effectiveness of the efforts of dedicated
citizens or groups who would have nothing to offer in the way of
reward other than the achievement of a desirable goal. The cost-
sharing method, therefore, which was adopted by the committee
appears to be best suited to a solution of the problem.
The bill provides certain limitations on the authority of the Secre-
tary to make grants. These limitations include of course, the percent-
age limitations already discussed, and a prohibition against financing
works already receiving Federal grants under other provisions of
law, as well as prohibiting Federal grants under other provisions of
law for works receiving grants under title II, except in the case of a
supplementary grant under section 214 of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965, or a supplementary grant under section 101
of The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. In
addition, no grant is to be made unless the works have bsen approved
by the appropriate State water pollution control agency and agencies
and have been certified by them as entitled to priority over other
eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water pollution
control needs.
-------
846 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF BASIN PLANS
The bill provides that if a basin lies entirely within one State, that
is, drains intrastate waters only, the Governor may develop a basin
pollution control and abatement plan. If all or parts of more than
one State lie within the basin, that is, if it is drained by interstate
waters, the approval or concurrence by not less than 50 percent of
the Governors of the States is required to develop a basin pollution
control and abatement plan. Special provisions are made in the case
of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the Columbia River Basin,
which are similar to those in the Water Resources Planning Act of
1965. In the first case a majority of the Governors, that is, three of
the four of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming,
are required to develop a plan, and in the second case the Governors
of at least three of the four States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington, must develop or concur in the development of a basin
pollution plan.
The use of the term "basin" does not mean to imply that the plan
as developed should be only for the large river basins or coastal areas,
such as the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, the gulf coast, or one or more
of the Great Lakes. The basin for which plans may be developed
may vary all the way from very small basins to large ones. They
[p. 18]
can be tributaries to a main stream, or they can be parts of a main
stream together with its tributaries between two points. They could
be small streams flowing into the ocean, the gulf, or the Great Lakes.
They can also be combinations of these basins. In other words, the
concept of "basin" is intended to imply a plan which has interde-
pendent units, each of which must work in conjunction with the oth-
ers. If an area under study is composed of several of the smaller
basins, such as along the coast or in the Great Lakes, these may be
grouped together in one overall basin if it helps in the definition of
the problem and in the formulation of plans to produce the end result.
In other words, the term "basin" is not intended to be primarily
a geographic description, but rather a term for whatever physical
outline, large or small, is best fitted to a study of the pollution control
problem.
The fact that the "clean rivers" legislation on the basin plan
approach includes not only the large but also the small rivers and
that it also includes cities on lakes such as the Great Lakes and on the
seacoast is clearly pointed out in the testimony of the Secretary of the
Interior at the hearings.
Let me emphasize that when we refer to "clean rivers," we
are not merely referring to a program. In fact, "clean rivers"
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 847
is not as descriptive a term as it might be to a program which
is not limited, or which would not limit its aid or its organization
merely to rivers, whether they are large rivers or small rivers,
interstate of intrastate. We envision a program, and the legis-
lation recommended is so intended, whereby cities on lakes
which share the waters of the lakes, such as the Great Lakes
cities, or even seacoast cities, which may have a large or have
a small river, or what we would call a very limited river basin,
could all participate. In other words, all the cities, all the munici-
palities of this country would and should qualify under this
"clean rivers" concept.
The committee might add that it expects this procedure also to be
applied to rivers flowing into international waters, such as the St.
Lawrence.
A good example of a small basin, and also a good example of one of
the unsuspected places into which the pollution problem has cropped
up, is Lake Tahoe on the California-Nevada line. Those who have
seen the lake will recall it as a beautiful blue gem set high in the
Sierras. They would never dream that there is a pollution problem
there. A special subcommittee of this committee was sent to investi-
gate a pollution problem in late April and early May of this year.
Following a meeting with Federal, State, and local representatives,
hearings were held by the Federal water pollution control agency and
a number of measures were proposed. These are in the nature of
minimum requirements and were agreed to by the Governors of Cali-
fornia and Nevada. They relate to the waters in the Upper Truckee
River, Lake Tahoe and Truckee River tributaries as well as to other
rivers running out of California and Nevada. The measures proposed
at the hearings were preventive as well as corrective measures and
included abolition of all cesspools and septic tanks in settled areas,
collection of all sewage and export of the waste from the basin by
pipeline to sparsely populated areas of California and Nevada.
[p. 19]
While the lake's crystal-clear waters now exceed drinking water
standards, the threat of degradation is being posed by rising popula-
tion, millions of visitors, and sewage seepage into the lake from the
cesspools and septic tanks that still provide the principal mode of
waste treatment.
As noted earlier, this bill is intended to supplement the 1965 Water
Quality Act. Basin plans for pollution control are simply detailing
the means of attaining the water quality contemplated by the stand-
ards adopted pursuant to the 1965 act. These standard (defined in
the law as the criteria of quality and the plan of implementation and
-------
848 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
enforcement) are expected to be limited to such characteristics as are
essential to the definition of quality requisite for the protection of the
defined uses.
After agreement by the Secretary and the States on the general
approach to achieve such quality and the anticipated time schedule,
attention must be directed to the development of specific proposals;
and this the committee expects will be done by this bill. Rather than
broadbush recommendations, the committee urges the appraisal of
possibilities in attaining the objective at the optimum low-cost
solution.
As noted under "Research Grants," the committee has reorganized
the research and demonstration section to permit direct Federal
financing in industrial as well as municipal waste control endeavors in
order to excite new efforts and new techniques on shore and in the
river. With imagination in planning, and funds to demonstrate
feasibility, the basin plans need not be stereotyped.
Of fundamental importance in any basin planning—whether by a
State agency on intrastate waters or by either an interstate agency or
joint action of State agencies on interstate waters—is the prerequisite
of agreement on water uses to be protected as well as such criteria as
are necessary. The basin plan, and this will be subject to adjustment
in coming years as the need dictates, will be predicated on adequacy
for quality protection.
The bill does not require public hearings on intrastate waters as
basis for developing a basin plan, but the committee would recom-
mend that since basin plans for intrastate waters will ultimately be
reviewed by Congress, such a public hearing would be most useful in
acquainting the Congress with local opinion on the uses and criteria in
the best public interest, as well as assuring the Congress that the plan
included consideration of use and value of the waters for the various
purposes, the practicability and physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement, and the public interest and equities involved.
The committee expects that the report of the basin plan when sub-
mitted to Congress will include a summary of such hearings as were
held to establish the basis for standards of quality in the basin plan.
Interstate agencies may develop basin plans for interstate waters to
attain quality standards determined after public hearings by either
the interstate agency or by the several States within the jurisdiction
of the interstate agency.
The committee expects that the Secretary will continue in the role
of reconciling differences when the States do not agree. Since the
agreement among States on initiating a basin plan for interstate
waters is obviously predicated on prior agreement on water quality
standards, the secretary should actively participate in discussions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 849
when States are in disagreement or set standards if the States cannot
agree.
[p. 20]
The bill provides an exception to the requirement for approval by
Governors where an interstate agency has been established. Such
an agency may develop a basin pollution control and abatement
plan for waters in its jurisdiction under whatever terms are in its
basic agreement, and it need not necessarily be concurred in by the
Governors as would otherwise be required under this bill. An excep-
tion is made in the case of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the
Columbia River Basin where an interstate agency must have the
concurrence of the Governors as described above before a plan is
presented for approval.
A list of existing interstate agencies follows:
INTERSTATE AGENCIES
1. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.—
New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Mas-
sachusetts, Vermont (seven States).
2. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.—Indiana,
West Virginia, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
Virginia (eight States).
3. Delaware River Compact Commission.—Delaware, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Federal Government (four States and
Federal Government).
4. Interstate Sanitation Commission.—Connecticut, New Jersey,
New York (three States).
5. Klamath River Compact Commission.—California, Oregon (two
States).
6. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.—District
of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia (five
States).
7. Bi-State Development Agency.—Missouri, Illinois (two States).
8. Tennessee River Basin Water Pollution Control District.—Ken-
tucky, Mississippi, Tennessee (three States).
When the plan is submitted to the Secretary he must in turn refer
it to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and to the
Water Resources Council. In appropriate cases it is referred to the
Secretary of State for review. Comments of these agencies must be
made within 60 days, at which time the Secretary is authorized to give
his final approval before transmitting the plan with the accompanying
comments to the Congress.
In considering the plan, the Secretary must review it in the light
-------
850 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the views, comments, and recommendations from the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development and from the Water Resources
Council. If he determines that the plan will adequately and effec-
tively maintain the waters covered by the plan at the level of quality
established by the applicable water quality standards for those waters
he shall approve the plan. The applicable water quality standards are
those which have been established in accordance with the procedures
in existing law in the case of interstate waters, or if no such standards
have been established, then the standards are those which are reason-
able in the light of precedents which have been established. For
intrastate waters, the applicable water quality standards are those
adopted by the State.
[p. 21]
After the Secretary approves a basin pollution control and abate-
ment plan, he shall transmit it, together with all views, comments,
and recommendations received from any department, agency, or in-
strumentality of the Federal Government, to the Congress for
approval which must be by a specific statute. This procedure is
similar to that followed by other departments in the water resources
field, but somewhat less demanding since the other departments are
generally required to secure approval by the Congress of their indi-
vidual projects, which would not be suitable in the case of sewage
treatment plants constructed by municipalities.
An exception is made in the case of the Tennessee and Delaware
Rivers where the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Delaware
River Commission may develop a plan and transmit it directly to
Congress for approval.
The views of the committee on the foregoing procedure and its rea-
sons for adopting it are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The objective is clear and simple. Its attainment was found to be
a road beset by pitfalls. Simply stated, the committee was trying to
find a means of providing for the development of a comprehensive
plan for water pollution control and abatement along the same lines
and within the same framework that has been developed over the
years for similar objectives in the other fields of water resources. As
pointed out earlier in this report, the development of plans in these
other fields has been going on for many years.
Unfortunately, sewage treatment has not generally been consid-
ered in terms of basin planning. It was recognized, of course, that
a sewage treatment plant located at an upstream city could have
an effect on the waters below the sewage treatment plant of a down-
stream city, but here the factors peculiar to pollution abatement
depart from those involved in other types of basin planning. Even in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 851
this simple case the principle is not the same, for example, as the
principle for the formulation of a plan for flood control, which might
consist of a combination of upstream dams and downstream levees to
protect towns and cities along a river. The more flood control pro-
vided by storage upstream, the less height would be required of the
downstream levees; but the more sewage treatment included in the
upstream city would not, by any means, guarantee a lesser degree
of treatment required at the downstream city.
For this reason and because of the many other factors which com-
plicate the problem, the development of a pollution control plan for
an entire river basin has not generally been attempted in other than a
few cases. As a result, and this has been pointed out by many critics,
individual grants have been directed to scattered communities
throughout the country, depending upon the urgency of their need
and their financial capability. But because it is more difficult to
prepare a comprehensive plan for pollution abatement, it does not
mean that it is less desirable. In fact, in view of the present sorry
state of our waters, the basin approach is not highly desirable, but
essential.
The committee wishes to point out, however, that the basin
approach should not be allowed to eliminate the possibility of supple-
mentary treatment in the river at what might be called sore spots,
that is, those places which may remain troublesome even after rea-
sonably effective pollution control and abatement is established. In
[p. 22]
the absence of complete development of all the technology which is
required for ultimate treatment, it is expected that those remedies
which can be applied immediately will be utilized as practical solu-
tions to immediate problems without waiting for the final refined
technological plan for water pollution control and abatement which,
like most plans in the water resource development field, may take a
long time or may never be completely finalized.
Because of the great interdependence of a pollution control plan
upon other aspects of river basin development, it becomes essential to
assure that this goal is not achieved at the expense of the other func-
tions which the Nation has taken so many years to provide. The
development of a water pollution control plan along the lines indi-
cated by the President in his statements on "clean rivers" must be
brought about in such fashion that it will serve the ends being sought
without encroaching upon those ends being sought or already
achieved in other areas of development.
These areas of development must be recognized. Control of the
basin pollution abatement program should not enable anyone to
-------
852 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
assign a lesser priority to other programs, a power which the commit-
tee believes was embodied in the administration bills.
The language of the bill, therefore, has been carefully devised to
give the Secretary of Interior the authority to provide for the most
effective plan for water pollution control and abatement, while, at
the same time, retaining the existing authorities of the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop plans for small watersheds, of the Federal
Power Commission to oversee the development of the hydroelectric
power in keeping with the public welfare, of the Secretary of the
Army to develop plans for navigation, flood control, and related pur-
poses, and of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
carry out those responsibilities which remained after the transfer of
the water pollution control program to the Department of the Interior.
It is this basic concept which the Congress envisioned in the crea-
tion of the Water Resources Council on which each of the five princi-
pal water resource agencies are represented at the highest possible
level. It is in keeping with this division of responsibilities that the
committee has been guided in its language in the clean rivers program
in title II.
APPROVAL OF GRANTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
After Congress approves a basin control and abatement plan, appli-
cations for assistance in financing construction shall not be approved
by the head of any other Federal agency, or certain regional commis-
sions unless, in the judgment of the Secretary, the works substantially
conform to the basin plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Secretary is authorized to make a grant not to exceed 50 per-
cent of the administrative expenses of a designated planning agency
in preparing a basin pollution control and abatement plan. These
grants may be made only to the planning agencies designated as
follows:
(1) In the case of intrastate waters the Governor may desig-
nate an agency of State government as the planning agency.
[p. 23]
(2) In the case of interstate waters, not less than 50 percent
of the Governors of the States in which such waters are located
may designate either agencies of the governments of such States
or an interstate agency.
These grants are not mandatory since the Secretary is authorized
but not required to pay these expenses. The agencies must be quali-
fied to carry on the planning work, and the committee expects the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 853
Secretary to work closely with the Governors in making this
determination.
The committee discussed at some length the obstacles that might
be present in the development of basin plans by a State or by several
States combined. Some have going agencies in this field, but these
are generally engaged in the problem of pollution abatement control
in individual areas, although some have done considerable work in
the overall basin planning field. The impact of the program proposed
in this bill, however, and the incentives for the development of these
plans will be so great that the committee agrees that assistance should
be rendered by the Federal Government so that the program for con-
struction which it is funding so substantially will not be crippled by
lack of the engineering, economic, and administrative know-how to
develop these plans.
This same problem was considered and debated in connection with
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 and a similar probls-m was
met by those responsible for its final passage by permitting the Secre-
tary to pay up to 50 percent of the administrative expenses. Many
States might have difficulty in proceeding at full speed if they lacked
the funds to pay the full cost of adequate personnel or to expand their
existing organizations sufficiently. On the other hand, if the Federal
Government paid for the entire amount it would appear to be a dis-
proportionate contribution to a goal of equal importance to both
Federal and State interests. The committee, therefore, adopted a
limitation of 50 percent as a middle ground. It will also avoid admin-
instrative conflicts which might otherwise occur if it differed from
the allowance in the Water Resources Planning Act.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The growth of existing legislation on water pollution has resulted
in something of a patchwork in the authorities for research and devel-
opment. It is covered in almost minute detail in sections 5 and 6 of
the existing law. It is broken down into various parts, and different
amounts are authorized to be appropriated for individual items. In
some cases, the amount to be appropriated has no ceiling which has
the practical effect of removing the ceiling on almost all research.
Since research and development is a flexible undertaking, and since
it requires a degree of freedom in the exercise of the activities devoted
to its pursuit, the combining of the two authorities seems to be desir-
able. The result, the committee hopes, is a somewhat simpler direc-
tive to those responsible for carrying out these duties and permits a
ceiling to be placed on the entire program.
In the bill the research items now authorized under sections 5 and
6 of the existing law, with two additional items, are grouped together
-------
854 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under section 5. To accomplish this, the research originally author-
ized in section 6 on combined sewers, that is, sewers which carry both
[p. 24]
storm water and sewage or other waste, has been transferred to sec-
tion 5. A new subsection has been added covering grants to industries
for research and demonstration projects for the treatment of indus-
trial and other waste which shall have industrywide application. A
new study on estuaries has been authorized.
Research should include the development of techniques for area
treatment of wastes, either as combinations of municipal and indus-
trial wastes or as combinations of industrial wastes.
The solids resulting from treatment of wastes pose problems, par-
ticularly in metropolitan areas where land is not available for solid
waste disposal. The practice of haulage of solids for disposal into
lakes or ocean can merely change the location of water quality im-
pairment. Research is urged into means of reducing the amount
of solids and into methods of disposal which improve the overall
situation.
The committee also understands that comprehensive studies have
demonstrated the desirability of having more effective techniques to
appraise the assimilative capacity of streams in order to better assess
effects of increasing populations and industrial and agricultural usage.
The committee feels that since the proper usage of such capacity is
both an economic resource and an integral component in assessing
water quality standards, demonstration projects to determine prac-
tical measuring and control techniques would be most desirable.
Also, since the objective of the pollution control program is to
provide water of acceptable quality, research is needed to explore
possible supplemental treatment techniques, and methods for treat-
ing the residual water quality problems which remain in areas where
treatment facilities have been constructed. This would include meth-
ods which would permit harvesting algae and recovering silt from
land erosion. Research is also needed to better define the water
quality levels which do adversely affect those using the water.
It is emphasized by the committee that every new avenue should
be explored in the quest for solution of the many pollution problems
which this Nation faces. In this connection, the committee was im-
pressed with the new approach pioneered by Gov. Edmund G. Brown,
of California, in which systems engineers attack everyday problems
of government, particularly in the field of pollution control.
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
The reason for the addition of industrial grants is recognition of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 855
the fact that industry, which was at one time less of a polluter than
municipalities and communities, has now become a major polluter.
The complexity of some industrial waste problems requires the active
involvement of industry itself which has intimate knowledge of manu-
facturing 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 sup-
port 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 attempting
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
[p. 25]
it is very pleased to note that during the hearings evidence was pre-
sented 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 control-
ling 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 prevent-
ing 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 industrial and manufacturing processes.
Industrial research should not be limited to the technology of waste
treatment. It should also include an investigation of possible financial
methods of providing for this treatment, including methods of provid-
ing treatment works to the smaller industries on an installment basis.
If a small company is faced with the necessity of putting in extensive
treatment works as a result of Federal and State laws or public pres-
sure, such financing could be helpful.
ESTUARY RESEARCH
The second addition to the research and development field is
authorization for a study of estuaries. In the bill, estuaries are de-
fined, the contents of the report expected to be produced are specified,
and 3 years are allowed for its completion. The committee was im-
pressed by the evidence presented to it, both during the hearings and
later, indicating the need for such a study. Again, the committee has
no desire to duplicate the work already being accomplished by agen-
cies, but insofar as pollution is concerned, it appears that a compre-
hensive study as proposed in the bill, with the assistance of other
-------
856 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
departments and agencies and the Federal Government, would be
most timely.
Other legislation is pending in the Congress to establish a study
of estuaries. The committee believes that the study proposed in the
bill is generally broader and is more suitable in its wording in the
framework of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Depart-
ment of Interior has stated in hearings before another committee that
a thorough nationwide study should be conducted to identify the
estuary areas of the country that should be preserved before an
estuarine land and water acquisition program as contemplated by
other legislation is undertaken. The committee feels that the provi-
sion of the bill will better fulfill the need for this nationwide study.
The bill also provides that consideration be given in the study to the
development of estuaries so that a proper balance can be maintained
between preservation and development.
The report will include recommendations for a comprehensive na-
tional program for the preservation, study, use, and development of
estuaries. The committee feels that it should include suggestions
for a national estuarine system along the lines proposed in other
pending legislation.
RESEARCH APPROPRIATIONS
The appropriation authorized for the entire program for research
and development is $75 million per year for the fiscal years 1967,
1968 and 1969, plus $1 million per year for the same years for the
[p. 26]
estuary study. Of the $75 million authorization the bill specifies that
not less than 25 percent per year shall be used for industrial research.
USE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
If a State or interstate agency requests assistance in the preparation
of a basin pollution control and abatement plan being prepared for
submission and approval to the Secretary and to the Congress, the
head of each department, agency, and instrumentality of the Federal
Government is authorized to detail employees of such department,
agency, or instrumentality to the State or agency to assist in this
effort. Since the Federal Government may pay 50 percent of the
administrative expenses for the preparation of this plan, these em-
ployees would, in effect, be paid one-half by the Federal Government
and one-half by the States.
SPECIFIC DESIGNATION AND PROPOSALS
The bill recognizes that there are agencies already established by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 857
law to carry out the entire program of water resource development
in a basin. The two areas in which this condition exists are the Ten-
nessee River and the Delaware River. In the case of the Tennessee
River, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a Government corporation.
In the case of the Delaware River, the Delaware River Basin Com-
mission has been created by the Delaware River Basin Compact ap-
proved by Congress and the Secretary of Interior is a member of the
Commission. In recognition of this situation, the bill provides that
basin pollution control and abatement plans prepared by the Tennes-
see Valley Authority and approved by its Board of Directors, or
prepared and approved by the Delaware River Basin Commission,
should need no further review in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment, and may, therefore, be transmitted direct to Congress for statu-
tory approval. The method of approval is specified to be by act of
Congress.
LABOR STANDARDS
The bill contains the usual language to insure that wage rates shall
be not less than those prevailing for the same type 01 work on similar
construction in the immediate locality, as determined by the Secre-
tary of Labor, for projects financed by grants under the water pollu-
tion control program. This is in accordance with the act of March 3,
1931, as amended, commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
DEFINITIONS
The bill provides for a definition of the term "basin" as used in the
clean rivers restoration title, which is somewhat different from the
river-basin concept as it is normally known. The reason for the
broader definition is to include coastal waters, estuaries, bays, lakes,
and portions of these bodies of waters.
Ordinarily, the problems in the development of water resources
are in a river basin which ends at the point where the river dis-
charges into the sea, or into a bay or lake. In the water pollution
program, however, there are many instances of pollution discharges
directly into these bodies of water, as well as into rivers and their
[p. 27]
tributaries. It is the intention of the bill to cover these cases and
such waters have therefore been included in the definition of "basin."
COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY
The bill provides, in a new section 6 of the existing Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, authority for the Secretary to make (1) a de-
tailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this act:
-------
858 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(2) a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected units
of Government of the cost of installation of treatment facilities; and
(3) a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and
cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain such
water quality standards as are established pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or applicable State law. He shall coop-
erate with State water pollution control agencies and with other
water pollution control planning agencies. The purpose is to develop
new programs and to furnish the Congress with the information
necessary for authorization of appropriations for the fiscal years be-
ginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. This is one of the
reasons why the committee feels that the amounts it has provided for
construction grants are ample for the time being.
He shall submit the detailed estimate and comprehensive study of
cost for the 3-year period beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no
later than January 10, 1968. The 3-year period would, therefore,
cover the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. This study shall be up-
dated each year so that the study submitted no later than January
10, 1969, would cover the fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972, and so on.
This updating would consist each time of revisions as necessary in
the figures and conclusions for the 2 fiscal years following the date of
submission and for a third fiscal year to be added.
STUDY OF TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL
The bill authorizes the Secretary to make a complete investigation
and study to determine the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out the water pollution control and abatement
program, both for those for which grants are made under the program
as amended by this act, and other programs for the same purpose. He
is also to study the use of existing Federal training programs to train
such personnel. The study shall be submitted to the President and to
the Congress not later than July 1, 1967.
PROGRAM GRANTS
The bill increases the authorization for grants to States and inter-
state agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and
maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control of
water pollution. These are essentially planning grants. Existing law
authorizes grants for this purpose, concluding with $5 million for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968. The bill would increase the grants
for the fiscal years 1968 and 1969 to $10 million each.
This is the source of funds for the payments of 50 percent of the
administrative expenses in the development of comprehensive plans
for water pollution control and abatement under title II. It is also
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 859
the source of funds for expenses of the States and interstate agencies
[p. 28]
in carrying out their responsibilities for construction grants, water
quality standards, and enforcement.
REIMBURSEMENT
The bill provides for reimbursement for the construction of any
treatment works initiated after June 30, 1966, in advance of the avail-
ability of funds for a grant, subject to the following qualifications:
(1) The Secretary must approve the project prior to com-
mencement of construction, except for projects initiated after
June 30, 1966, and before the date of enactment of this act which
he may approve subsequent to commencement of construction.
(2) The State or appropriate agency which constructs the
project must submit an application to the Secretary, approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency, for a grant
for the project.
(3) Upon his approval of the application, the Secretary is au-
thorized to make a grant for such project to be paid from future
appropriations.
(4) All provisions of the act must have been complied with
to the same extent and with the same effect as though the grant
were to be made for future construction of the project.
(5) The approval of the project by the Secretary, or the mak-
ing of a grant, shall not be construed to constitute a commitment
or obligation of the United States to provide funds.
This reimbursement provision applies to grants made under the
authority of section 8, as amended, and does not apply to grants made
under title II of the clean rivers restoration program.
HEARING BOARD AND REPORTS
The bill adds two provisions relating to the hearing board proced-
ures in section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which
deals with enforcement measures against the pollution of interstate
or navigable waters. The bill declares that it shall be the responsi-
bility of the hearing board to give each person contributing to the
alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity to make a full state-
ment of his views to the hearing board. The bill also requires that in
connection with any hearing the Secretary is authorized to require
any person alleged to be contributing to water pollution to file a report
concerning the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges, and
the measures taken by the alleged polluter to abate the pollution.
Penalty for failing to comply is set at $100 per day.
-------
860 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATION OF 1924 OIL POLLUTION ACT FROM
SECRETARY OF ARMY TO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 prohibits the discharge of oil in any
manner into or upon the coastal navigable waters of the United States
from any vessel. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor and punishable
by a fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $500, or by imprisonment
not exceeding 1 year nor less than 30 days, or both by such fine and
imprisonment for each offense.
The bill provides for the transfer of the administration of the Oil
Pollution Act from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the
. [P- 29]
Interior. The latter may make use of the organization, equipment,
and other facilities of the Secretary of the Army for the preservation
and protection of navigable waters.
Personnel of the customs and Coast Guard shall continue to have
the authority to enforce the Oil Pollution Act. It is not intended that
the duties or functions of the U.S. customs or the Coast Guard in con-
nection with navigable waters, except with respect to the administra-
tion of the Oil Pollution Act, shall be affected by this provision.
INCLUSION OF INDIAN TRIBES AS "MUNICIPALITIES"
In order to make certain that Indian tribes or tribal organizations
are considered as communities, eligible for assistance under this Act,
the bill provides that they shall be included in the definition of the
term "municipalities."
STUDY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY
The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct a full investigation and
study of methods for providing financial incentives to assist in the
construction of facilities and works by industry to reduce or abate
water pollution. This study shall include, but not be limited to, the
possible use of tax incentives, as well as other methods of financial as-
sistance. In carrying out this study the Secretary shall consult with
the Secretary of the Treasury, as well as with the head of any other
appropriate department or agency of the Federal Government.
The committee takes the position that a study is required, and it
also feels that this must be considered as only a part of the whole
picture of incentives.
FEDERAL COST
The Federal cost or total new authorizations in the bill amount to
$2,315 million and cover the fiscal years 1968 through 1971. The
breakdown of this figure is given in the table at the end of the sum-
mary at the front of this report.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 861
HEARINGS
Hearings were held by the committee for 3 days, July 12,13, and 14,
1966, on H.R. 13104 (the Fallon bill), H.R. 16076 (the Blatnik bill),
and related bills.
Testimony was received from Members of Congress; Federal, State,
and city officials; representatives of conservation and other national
associations; representatives of industry; and individuals.
For convenient reference, the complete bills, H.R. 13104 and H.R.
16076 as introduced, are printed at the beginning of the hearings.
AGENCY VIEWS
Letters from the Federal agencies expressing views on H.R. 16076
follow in alphabetical order. The comments are on the bill as intro-
duced and not as reported.
The committee has given the views careful consideration and has
incorporated a number of the suggestions in the bill.
The letter from the Department of the Interior is of particular sig-
nificance, not only because of its substance, but also because it in-
cludes a draft of the latest bill proposed by the administration.
[p. 30]
A letter from the Appalachian Regional Commission is also in-
cluded since, although it was based on H.R. 13104, it contains perti-
nent comments with respect to major matters which the committee
considered with respect to H.R. 16076.
The following agencies have responded:
The Appalachian Regional Commission.
Department of the Army.
Bureau of the Budget.
Department of Commerce.
Comptroller General of the United States.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
International Joint Commission.
Department of the Interior.
Department of Justice.
Department of Labor.
Department of the Treasury.
THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C. July 22,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: You requested my comments for the
Committee on Public Works on the proposed Clean Rivers Restora-
-------
862 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion Act of 1966, H.R. 13104 and H.R. 13105. I feel that the proposed
legislation would be useful. It would demonstrate that a concerted
and coordinated effort or affected communities and States will make
more valuable the rivers of several basins of the United States. I
would like to note, however, some reservations concerning the pro-
posed legislation.
1. The bill does not mention the serious pollution caused by
acid mine drainage in a number of Appalachian States. This
and other pollution problems cannot be controlled by the con-
struction of waste treatment works. Affected basing planning
groups should study the problem and propose in the plans the
means to control the damage.
2. An additional subsection should be added to section 106
before (f) at page 10 which brings into the review process exist-
ing and proposed regional commissions authorized by Congress.
Those commissions would evaluate the impact of the proposed
river basin plans on regional economic development.
(3) We understand that the intent of the second sentence of
section 107 (a) (1) is to make possible the augmentation of the
Secretary's grants by supplemental grants authorized in other
legislation. To accomplish this purpose that sentence should be
changed to: "The Federal contribution may be increased above
this percentage by supplemental grants made pursuant to section
214 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (79
Stat. 5), or title I of the Public Works and Economic Develop-
ment Act of 1965, or title I of the Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act of 1966."
To accomplish this purpose it will also be necessary to modify
section 107 (a) (2), which would prevent such supplementation
and would also prevent the joint use of the clean rivers program
[p. 31]
and other programs in making the regular 30-percent grant. For
example, sewage treatment plant construction funds made avail-
able under section 212 of the Appalachian Act are combined with
Public Law 566 funds to supply the normal 30-percent grant for
waste treatment plant construction. Section 212 funds could be
combined similarly with funds provided by the Clean Rivers
Restoration Act. Since the Water Pollution Control Act and the
Farmer's Home Act are the acts intended to be excluded, the ex-
clusionary clause might accomplish that simply by specifying the
acts.
4. Section 108 seems to be a reasonable attempt to coordinate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 863
the various project grant programs for water pollution control.
I think that centralized control of this sort should be attempted
on this limited basis to see if the various waste treatment grant
programs can better be coordinated.
The application should be approved after a reasonable time period,
unless the Secretary raises objections, because once the projects have
reached the Washington level they have been in the process of devel-
opment for some time. Because of the local need for quick action, we
would recommend that an expeditious review process be instituted
by the Secretary of Interior.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to
the submission of this report, from the standpoint of the administra-
tion's program.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN L. SWEENEY.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Washington, D.C., July 14,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the
views of the Department of the Army with respect to H.R. 16076,
89th Congress, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs
pursuant to such act.
H.R. 16076 is designed to accomplish the following: Increase au-
thorized amounts for water pollution research in general and, addi-
tionally, authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study vessel pollu-
tion on the Great Lakes and other navigable waters, with a report and
recommendations to be submitted to Congress by July 1, 1967; in-
crease authorized amounts for research and development and con-
struction grants; establish a loan authority to assist non-Federal en-
tities in meeting construction obligations; provide regulatory means
for dealing with pollution problems of international impact, reiterate
congressional support for regionally oriented pollution control and
abatement action through a "clean rivers restoration program;"
authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct continuing studies of
the economic and related effects of the Federal water pollution control
program; and amend the Refuse Act of 1899 and the Oil Pollution Act
of 1924.
The principal objective of this bill, which the Department of the
-------
864 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Army strongly supports, is to strengthen and make more effective the
[P. 32]
Federal pollution control program. We favor increased Federal as-
sistance for research, construction of treatment works and sewer sys-
tems, and further studies of both the Nation's pollution problems and
the effectiveness of existing programs in dealing with them. We also
favor a regional or river basin approach to pollution control planning
as contemplated by section 12 of the proposed legislation. We feel
compelled, however, to recommend a few modifications of the bill to
assure implementation within the framework of the Water Resources
Planning Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962-62d-5).
The President's recent message on "Preserving Our National Herit-
age," which strongly endorsed a regional approach to pollution prob-
lems, also emphasized the importance of balanced water resources
planning and recognized the role of the Water Resources Council in
that regard. The President referred to the Water Resources Planning
Act, which "* * * created the Water Resources Council to coordinate
all aspects of river basin planning. This unified effort (river basin
planning under Council auspices) promises to make the work of pol-
lution control more effective."
The proposed "clean rivers restoration program" would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of one or more State
Governors, to designate planning agencies charged with development
of comprehensive pollution control and abatement plans for river
basins or portions thereof. The plans would have to be consistent
with the standards established under the Water Quality Act of 1965
(Public Law 89-234), include provision for treatment works and
sewer systems, provide for maintenance and improvement of water
quality standards, and include proposed methods for adequate financ-
ing of the plan. Following review by interested State and Federal
agencies, the plan, if it meets the above criteria, would be approved
by the Secretary of the Interior.
We believe that if the proposed regional or river basin pollution
control planning agencies were independent of Water Resources
Council authorities, it would risk conflict or competition with Council-
directed comprehensive river basin planning for all water resource
purposes conducted by the river basin commissions. The views and
plans of entities with pollution abatement responsibilities are re-
flected in current comprehensive river basin planning activities
through the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which
is a full partner in Council-monitored planning efforts. In this fashion
broad-scale pollution control and abatement planning occurs in the
unified context endorsed by the President and supported by sound
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 865
resources development theory. To assure fitting the efforts of the
planning agencies envisioned by H.R. 16076 into the broader water
resources planning activities, we believe that the proposed legislation
should require that the river basin commissions, wherever they exist,
should participate in the naming of planning agencies and provide
general supervision for any basinwide pollution control and abate-
ment efforts.
This Department considers that the basic difficulties with respect
to pollution abatement and control relate to non-Federal organiza-
tional and enforcement initiative, or lack thereof; not an absence of
planning authorities. The combination of expanded financial as-
sistance, as proposed under H.R. 16076, and the requirements of the
Water Quality Act of 1965 regarding State water quality standards
should serve as the necessary incentive to effective non-Federal
action.
[p. 33]
The "clean rivers restoration program" is intended to, in part,
"* * * encourage waste treatment consistent with water quality stand-
ards (to be developed pursuant to Public Law 89-234)." Physical
waste treatment is, of course, indispensable. However, comple-
mentary works, such as reservoirs including water quality storage,
will often prove necessary. We interpret section 12 (d) (3), which
provides for approval by the Secretary of the Interior of comprehen-
sive pollution control and abatement plans, as not conveying any
authority for authorizing complementary reservoir facilities.
In keeping with these comments we recommend substituting for
section 12 (a) (p. 14, lines 6 through 20), the following:
"SEC. 12. (a) In order to reclaim, restore, and maintain the natural
waters of the Nation through the preparation and development of
comprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement plans
and through the establishment of economic incentives to encourage
waste treatment consistent with water quality standards effected pur-
suant to section 10 (c) of this Act, the Secretary may, at the request
of the Governor or Governors of one or more States, designate plan-
ning agencies. Each such planning agency shall be a River Basin
Commission established under the Water Resources Planning Act (79
Stat. 244) or an agency designated by such commission, or, if the
Secretary, after consultation with Federal agencies, States, and local
bodies, believes there are compelling reasons not to designate such a
Commission, or agency designated by such Commission, he may desig-
nate some other organization which provides for adequate repre-
sentation of appropriate Federal, State, interstate, local, or when
appropriate, international interests in the river basin or portion
-------
866 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
thereof involved and which is capable of developing an effective,
comprehensive water quality control and abatement plan that is part
of or consistent with a comprehensive river basin water resources
plan."
Also, we recommend substituting for section 12 (d) (3) (p. 16, lines
15 through 19), a new section to read:
" (3) The Secretary of the Interior shall review the plan or portion
thereof and the agency comments, and, if he determines, pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the President, that the plan or portion
thereof adequately and effectively complies with subsection (b), he
shall approve the plan or portion thereof."
We anticipate that the President would designate the Water Re-
sources Council to determine the consistency of the comprehensive
pollution control and abatement plan or portion thereof with the
broader plans for the development of the comprehensive water and
related land resources of the river basin.
On page 22 we recommend deleting lines 1 through 4 (sec. 13) and
substituting the word "Army" in the second proviso the following:
"after consulting with the Secretary of the Interior, and,".
The effect of this modification is to keep responsibility for adminis-
tering this aspect of the navigation laws with the Secretary of the
Army, but require him to consult with the Secretary of the Interior
with respect to water pollution.
With these modifications, the Department of the Army would inter-
pose no objection to enactment of H.R. 16076.
[p. 34]
In view of your request for expediting this report, time did not
permit obtaining the advice of the Bureau of the Budget.
Sincerely,
ALFRED B. FITT,
Special Assistant (Civil Functions).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., August 15,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to the request of your com-
mittee on H.R. 15106, H.R. 15134, and H.R. 15172, identical bills to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve
the programs under such act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 867
On July 20, 1966, Secretary Udall transmitted a draft bill to your
committee which would carry out the administration's objectives.
That draft bill includes elements of H.R. 16076, the administration's
"Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966," H.R. 13104, and the Senate-
passed bill, S. 2947.
As noted in Secretary Udall's letter of July 20, 1966, the draft bill
enclosed with that letter is in accord with the program of the Presi-
dent. Accordingly, the Bureau of the Budget favors its enactment
rather than H.R. 15106, H.R. 15134, or H.R. 15172.
Sincerely yours,
WILFRED H. ROMMEL,
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C., August 17,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for
the views of this Department concerning H.R. 16076, a bill to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and
make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.
The purpose of H.R. 16076, cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Amendments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966," is
to accelerate, improve, and make more effsctive the present Federal
program for water pollution control.
In general, the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act provide for substantial increases in the sums author-
ized to be appropriated for grants to be employed by communities
in water pollution abatement construction. Also, new authority is
provided for making loans in addition to grants to communities need-
ing additional financial help for financing construction. The pro-
cedures and limitations of the loan program are carefully defined.
The following new sections are to be added to the act:
[p. 35]
1. Section 12, the "Clean rivers restoration program." This
section defines procedures and economic incentives for the de-
velopment and implementation of plans for comprehensive river
basin pollution control and abatement coordinated with river
basin water resources plans.
2. Section 13, the "Cost and economic impact study." This
section provides a basis for evaluating programs authorized
-------
868 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under the act, and for developing new programs, thereby pro-
viding Congress with guidelines for authorization of future
appropriations.
The bill in section 2 (b) directs the Secretary of the Interior to con-
duct, in consultation with the heads of certain other directly affected
Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Commerce, a study of
the extent of pollution from boats and vessels. The Secretary is also
directed to appoint a technical committee composed of representatives
of the affected agencies and others to advise him in formulating
recommendations. A report with recommendations for an effective
control program is to be submitted to the Congress no later than
July 1,1967.
The bill would also amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, so as to
extend its application to navigable and interstate waters, as well as
coastal waters, and to the adjoining shorelines of the United States,
and to extend application of the prohibition on oil discharge from
vessels to boats, shore installations, and terminal facilities.
This Department is in accord with the objectives of H.R. 16076.
However, two related bills are also pending before your committee.
One, H.R. 13104, cited as the "Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966,"
was introduced at the request of the Department of the Interior and
implements recommendations of the President contained in his mes-
sage of February 23, 1966, to Congress on "Preserving Our Natural
Heritage" for a "clean rivers" program and an extension and im-
provement of the present water pollution program. The second,
S. 2947, similar in some respects to H.R. 16076, passed the Senate on
July 13, 1966, and was referred to your committee.
We understand that the Department of the Interior has considered
all these bills in making recommendations for a proposal acceptable
to the executive branch and the Congress. This proposal was sub-
mitted to your committee by the Department of the Interior on July
20,1966.
Accordingly, while this Department favors the objectives of H.R.
16076, we would defer to the Department of the Interior as to the
specific legislative proposal deemed necessary to provide for the most
effective Federal program for water pollution control.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no ob-
jection to the submission of this report and that the draft bill sub-
mitted by the Department of the Interior on July 20, 1966, is in accord
with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. GILES,
General Counsel.
[p. 36]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 869
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., July 19,1966.
B-135945.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reference to your letter dated
July 7, 1966, requesting our comments on H.R. 16076, a bill to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and
make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.
We have no comments to offer concerning the action to be taken
on the bill.
Sincerely yours,
FRANK H. WEITZEL,
Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, D.C., July 15,1966.
Subject: H.R. 16076, 89th Congress (Representative Blatnik).
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your July 7 request
for a report from this Department on H.R. 16076, a bill to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make
more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.
This bill contains a number of amendments which would liberalize
in many respects the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
It would also establish a clean rivers restoration program in the De-
partment of the Interior.
The proposed clean rivers restoration program contained in H.R.
16076 would, upon the request of any Governor, require the Secretary
of the Interior to designate planning agencies to develop comprehen-
sive water quality and control abatement plans which would be part
of, or consistent with, comprehensive river basin water resources
plans. Comprehensive plans would be required to be consistent with
water quality standards established for interstate waters within the
river basin pursuant to section 10 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Planning agencies would be charged with the responsibility of
making recommendations with respect to effective and economical
sewage treatment works and sewer systems, and providing for the
maintenance and improvement of water quality standards within the
-------
870 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
basin, including proposed methods of financing facilities necessary
to implement the plan. Plans would be transmitted by the agency
to the appropriate Governor, interstate agency, commission or local
agency involved for their recommendations, and following this, to the
Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary would be required to trans-
mit such plans for review to the Secretaries of Health, Education, and
Welfare and Housing and Urban Development, and to the Water Re-
sources Council (and, when appropriate, to the Secretary of State).
[p. 37]
Under the bill, grants of up to 50 percent of construction costs
would be authorized for financing the construction of treatment works
from funds appropriated pursuant to section 8 (d) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. In the event that any project is pro-
posed to be located, in whole or in part, in an urbanized area, it would
be required to meet the planning and programing requirements of
this Department with respect to water and sewer projects for which
grants are provided under title VII of the Housing and Urban Devel-
opment Act of 1965.
This Department is in complete accord with the views which Secre-
tary Udall presented to your committee with respect to H.R. 16076 on
July 12. Accordingly, we would defer to the Department of the In-
terior with respect to any specific modifications in the bill which may
be required to carry out fully the administration's recommendations
for the clean rivers program and for continuing and improving the
existing pollution control program.
Time has not permitted us to secure the advice of the Bureau of the
Budget as to the relationship of this report to the administration's
program.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT C. WEAVER.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., July 20,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. FALLON: Your committee has requested this Depart-
ment's views on H.R. 16076, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain
programs pursuant to such act. H.R. 16076 is similar to the Senate-
passed bill S. 2947.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 871
We strongly support legislation which carries out the administra-
tion's two principal objectives. These are: first, the authorization
of a meaningful and effective clean rivers program, as recommended
by the President; and, second, an extension and improvement of the
present pollution control program. The administration bill, H.R.
13104, and H.R. 16076 and the Senate-passed bill would, with some
modifications, carry out these objectives. The enclosed draft bill
blends the most important elements with the needed modifications
of these bills. It is these elements that the administration regard as
the essential elements of this legislation. We recommend the early
enactment of legislation in the form of the enclosed draft bill.
The first part of the enclosed draft bill relates to the establishment
of a new clean rivers program as a logical extension of last year's
Water Quality Act of 1965. This program is designed to attack the
water pollution problem on an entire river basin basis.
The bill defines the term "river basin" broadly to include a river
and its tributaries, coastal waters, estuaries, bays, lakes, and other
public waterways or portions thereof. It has three objectives. They
are: (1) the establishment of adequate water quality standards by
the States for the basin waters, (2) the adoption of adequate pollu-
tion control plans for each river basin to implement the standards, and
[p. 38]
(3) the construction of adequate waste treatment systems in accord-
ance with the plans.
We envision the clean rivers program as the broad approach to
water pollution control. Yet, it is not intended that this program
supplant other pollution control programs. Rather, we believe it
supplements and complements existing pollution programs. While
planning is going on, these other programs must continue. Once a
plan is developed, however, for a river basin, they will then conform
to that plan. This program will not be permitted to delay or impede
the efforts now going on to speed up pollution control.
Under this program planning agencies will be designated by the
Secretary after close consultation and coordination with the Gov-
ernors of the States involved. Wherever feasible the planning agen-
cies would be river basin commissions established under the Water
Resources Planning Act or existing commissions or agencies, such
as the Delaware River Basin Commission. The planning agencies
would prepare detailed plans for the control and abatement of pollu-
tion in the river basin involved. The primary purpose of the plan is
to develop adequate means and measures for implementing water
quality standards for the basin involved. The Secretary, with the
President's approval, must establish guidelines for the planning agen-
-------
872 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cies to follow in developing their plans. Such guidelines will be re-
viewed in advance of the President's approval by interested Federal
agencies. The guidelines will establish the requirements for the
designation of a planning agency and for approval of a plan. The
guidelines for approval of the plan would cover such items as
the means and measures for implementing water quality standards;
the development of a basin organization, where none exists; and the
establishment of adequate financing, including economic incentive.
After a planning agency is designated and after water quality stand-
ards for the basin are established, the Secretary may make up to
50-percent grants to finance waste treatment works if, based on pre-
liminary reports, he believes such works will substantially conform to
the plan in progress. If a plan is not developed and approved within
3 years after a planning agency is designated, the 50-percent grant
authority for that basin will cease. The purpose of this provision is
to provide a stimulus to the planning agency and to prevent delays in
getting the program underway.
The proposed plan of each planning agency is subject to review by
State, local, and Federal interests prior to acceptance. In addition,
if waste treatment projects in the basin are to continue to receive
50-percent grants, the plan must meet the approval of the Secretary.
Once a plan is approved, the Secretary can continue to make 50-
percent waste treatment construction grants to the local communities
in the basin involved. The approval of the plan will result only in
authorizing increased grants, nothing more.
It should be noted that both H.R. 16076 and the Senate-passed bill
condition the receipt of increased construction grants by requiring the
States within a river basin to make a commitment to pay 30 percent
of the costs of the treatment works. We agree with the principle that
the States must assume more responsibility, including increased
financial responsibility, in pollution control. Two States have already
taken the initiative; namely, Maine and New York. We hope that
more will. We believe, however, that such a requirement, at this
[p. 39]
time, will unduly delay the clean rivers program. Furthermore, we
are unaware of any reason for limiting this requirement to the clean
rivers program. If the principle of State participation is sound, it
should also apply to the existing waste treatment construction pro-
gram if the dollar limitations in that program are removed as both
these bills provide. We therefore are strongly opposed to this 30-
percent requirement in the clean rivers program unless it is made to
apply to both- programs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 873
Our draft bill authorizes $3.45 billion over 6 years for both the
clean rivers program and the existing construction grant program.
Each year the first $100 million will be allocated to the States in ac-
cordance with the 50-percent population and 50-percent per capita
income formula in section 8 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. Up to 60 percent of the money in excess of the first $100
million each year will be available to the Secretary for the clean
rivers program alone.
We firmly believe that the clean rivers portion of our draft bill will
be extremely beneficial in carrying out the objectives of the Water
Quality Act of 1965.
In addition to clean rivers, the enclosed draft bill also makes a num-
ber of important changes and improvements in the present provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Most of
these are now contained in H.R. 16076 and the Senate-passed bill.
They are:
1. An increase of support grants for State water pollution control
agencies from $5 million a year to $10 million and an extension of
this grant authority to 1972.
2. A repeal of the present $5 million ceiling on pollution research
to enable the Federal Government to spend, as the President has rec-
ommended—over $20 million next year on such research.
3. An extension of the existing construction grant program to June
30, 1972. As we have already indicated, a total of $3.45 billion could
be authorized to carry out both that program and the clean rivers
program.
4. A doubling of the present dollar ceilings on construction grants
from $1.2 to $2.4 million for single projects and from $4.8 to $9.6
million for joint projects. These increases will be helpful to many
communities. It should be noted, however, that during the 2-year
period from May 1964 to May 1966 over 1,300 construction grants
were not affected by the project ceilings. Only 13 applicants were
affected by those ceilings which were increased by the Water Quality
Act of 1965 from $600,000 and $2.4 million to the present $1.2 and $4.8
million.
5. Authority to continue to waive the dollar limitations in the exist-
ing construction grant program if the State agrees to pay 30 percent
of the total project cost.
6. An increase in the demonstration grant percentage from 50 to
75 percent for resolving the problems of storm sewers and sanitary
sewers, and authority for 75-percent grants and contracts for re-
search, development, and demonstration of new or improved methods
of advanced waste treatment.
7. Authority to initiate enforcement proceedings when pollution
-------
874 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
originating in a State endangers the health or welfare of persons in a
foreign country.
[p. 40]
8. A direction for the chairman of an enforcement conference to
give persons contributing to, or affected by, the alleged pollution an
opportunity to present his views.
9. Authority for the Secretary to require, in connection with a con-
ference, relevant information on pollution discharges. Protection
is afforded to trade secrets and secret processes.
10. An extension of the water quality standards provisions of sec-
tion 10 (c) to navigable waters as well as interstate waters. The
States are given to June 1, 1968, to establish standards for navigable
waters only.
11. Authority to seek immediate injunctive relief to abate pollution
in limited cases.
12. A direction to provide the Congress with a cost estimate and
study of the pollution control program for the purpose of evaluating
the program.
The draft bill also transfers the administration of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1924 from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the
Interior and strengthens its provisions. It also amends the Refuse
Act by adding a condition that the Secretary of the Interior be con-
sulted with regard to the deposit of refuse.
H.R. 16076 and the Senate-passed bill have some additional pro-
visions not included in the enclosed draft bill. The principal ones are:
First, a provision in the Senate-passed bill directing the Secretary
to conduct a 3-year, $3 million study of the effects of pollution on the
Nation's estuaries, fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply and
water power, and other beneficial purposes. There is now pending
before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House
of Representatives a bill, H.R. 13477, which authorizes a similar study
and the establishment of a nationwide estuarian system. We have
recommended enactment of that bill with amendments. We prefer
it over this provision in the Senate-passed bill.
Second, a provision in both bills authorizing long-term, low-interest
loans to communities to finance the local share of waste treatment
projects. It is aimed primarily at depressed areas. This authority
is unneeded. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 provides supplemental grants and loans to these areas. In addi-
tion, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 can pro-
vide supplemental grants for waste treatment works in Appalachia.
These acts are aimed at the problem presented by this loan provision.
Thus, this loan provision is unnecessary to meet the problems of these
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 875
areas. It duplicates these authorities. We recommend against the
inclusion of this provision in the bill.
Third, a provision in both bills calling for a study of boats and
vessel pollution by July 1, 1967. Section 8 of Executive Order 11258
directs this Department to conduct a comprehensive study of water
pollution from vessel operations within the United States and the
results made available to the President by January 1, 1967. The
study covers vessels using the Great Lakes and vessels and boats of
all types. We believe, therefore, that this provision in the bill is
unnecessary. We are sure the President will furnish the Congress
with the results of the study.
The Department of the Army has reviewed the enclosed draft bill
and this letter. That agency advises that the provisions in this draft
[p. 41]
bill effectively carry out the recommendations of the Department of
the Army set forth in their letter of July 14, 1966, to your committee
on H.R. 16076.
I recommend, and the Department of the Army has advised the
Bureau of the Budget that it also recommends the early enactment of
the enclosed draft bill which will carry out the President's objectives
as set forth in his message on the "Preservation of Our Natural Herit-
age," in lieu of the provisions of H.R. 13104, H.R. 16076, and the
Senate-passed bill S. 2947.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that this draft bill is in accord
with the program of the President.
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve
and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments and
Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966.
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
is amended by inserting immediately after section 16 a new title to
read as follows:
"TITLE II—CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION PROGRAM
"DECLARATION OF POLICY
"SEC. 201. It is the purpose of this title to reclaim, restore, and
maintain the quality of the Nation's rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and
-------
876 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
other public waterways through the preparation and development of
comprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement plans, and
through the establishment of economic incentives, which will encour-
age the establishment of the most effective and economical waste
treatment facilities in the Nation's river basins consistent with water
quality standards established under section 10 (c) of this Act.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 202. For the purposes of this title—
" (1) the term 'river basin' includes, but is not limited to, land
areas drained by a river and its tributaries, coastal waters,
estuaries, bays, and lakes, or portions thereof.
" (2) the term 'planning agency' includes, but is not limited to,
interstate agencies, or commissions established by or pursuant to
an agreement or compact approved by the Congress.
" (3) the term 'local, State, or interstate agencies' includes
States, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of a State,
public corporate bodies, public agencies and instrumentalities of
one or more States, Indian tribes, conservancy districts,
[p. 42]
interstate agencies, or commissions established by or pursuant to
an agreement or compact approved by the Congress.
" (4) the term 'construction' includes preliminary planning to
determine the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment
works, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic
investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working draw-
ings, specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the
construction of treatment works; and the erection, building, ac-
quisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works; and the inspection and supervision of the con-
struction of treatment works.
"PLANNING AGENCIES
"SEC. 203. In furtherance of the purpose of this title, the Secretary
shall, in consultation with the Governor or Governors of the States
within a river basin, designate a planning agency for those river basins
which provide the most significant pollution control problems to the
State or region involved from the standpoint of the use and value of
the waters therein for public water supplies, propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other
legitimate uses. Each planning agency shall be a River Basin Com-
mission established by the President or an agency designated by such
commission, or, if the Secretary, after consultation with the heads of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 877
other interested Federal agencies and the Governors of the States
involved, believes that there are compelling reasons not to designate
such a commission or an agency designated by such commission, he
may designate some other organization which shall have adequate
representation of appropriate Federal, State, interstate, local, or when
appropriate, international interests in the river basin involved.
"COMPREHENSIVE RIVER BASIN PLANS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
"SEC. 204. (a) Each planning agency designated by the Secretary
under this title shall, within a reasonable time after such designation,
develop a comprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement
plan that is a part of or consistent with a comprehensive river basin
water resources plan for the river basin for which the planning agency
is designated for the implementation and enforcement of water quality
standards established pursuant to section 10 (c) of this Act. Prior to
the designation of any planning agency, the Secretary shall, with the
approval of the President, establish guidelines concerning the desig-
nation of such planning agencies and the development and approval
of such a plan for the river basin involved.
" (b) Each planning agency designated pursuant to this title shall,
from time to time, submit to the Secretary preliminary reports on the
progress made by such agency in developing a comprehensive pollu-
tion control and abatement plan.
"SUBMISSION OF PLANS
SEC. 205. Upon completion of a proposed comprehensive pollution
control and abatement plan, each planning agency shall transmit the
plan to the Governor of each State, each interstate agency, interna-
tional commission, and each local agency covered by the plan. Each
[p. 43]
person, agency, or commission shall have sixty days from the date of
the receipt of the proposed plan to submit views, comments, and rec-
ommendations. The planning agency shall consider such views, com-
ments, and recommendations and may make appropriate changes or
modifications in the proposed plan. The planning agency shall then
submit the proposed plan to the Secretary together with the views,
comments, and recommendations of each such person, agency, or in-
ternational commission.
"REVIEW WITHIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
"SEC. 206. (a) Upon receipt of a proposed comprehensive river
basin pollution control and abatement plan from a planning agency,
the Secretary shall transmit it to the Secretary of Health, Education
-------
878 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and Welfare, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the
Water Resources Council, and, when appropriate, the Secretary of
State, for review.
" (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secre-
tary of Housing and Urban Development, the Water Resources Coun-
cil, and, when appropriate, the Secretary of State, shall notify the
Secretary of the Interior, within sixty days, of the results of their
review.
" (c) The Secretary shall review the plan and the views, comments,
and recommendations received under section 205 of this title and
subsection (b) of this section, and, if he determines that the plan is
consistent with the guidelines established pursuant to this title and
will adequately and effectively maintain the waters within the river
basin covered by the plan at the level of quality established by the
applicable water quality standards for those waters, he shall approve
the plan.
"GRANT PROGRAM FOR TREATMENT WORKS
"SEC. 207. (a) Whenever a comprehensive river basin pollution
control and abatement plan for any river basin is approved by the
Secretary and water quality standards consistent with section 10 (c)
of this Act for the waters covered by the plan are established, the
Secretary may accept applications from and make grants to local,
State, or interstate agencies from funds appropriated pursuant to sec-
tion 8 (d) of this Act to assist in financing the construction of treat-
ment works within such basin subject to the following limitations:
" (1) the amount of the grant shall not exceed 50 per centum
of the estimated reasonable construction costs of such treatment
works;
" (2) no application for grants under this section to assist in
financing the construction of such treatment works in the area
covered by the plan shall be approved until the Secretary deter-
mines that the proposed treatment works (a) are consistent with
and carry out the purpose of this Act, (b) will be properly and
efficiently operated and maintained, (c) are designed so that an
adequate capacity will be available to serve the reasonably fore-
seeable growth needs of the area, (d) when located, in whole or
in part, in urbanized area, meet the same requirements with re-
spect to planning and programming as shall have been prescribed
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with re-
[p. 44]
spect to water and sewer projects under title VII of the Housing
and Urban Development Acts of 1965, and (e) provide, when
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 879
ippropriate, for joint waste treatment; and
" (3) grants made under this section shall not be available to
assist in financing the construction of any treatment works which
are receiving a Federal grant under other provisions of law:
Provided, That a Federal grant made pursuant to this section
may be increased above the percentage in paragraph (1) of this
subsection by supplemental grants made pursuant to the Appala-
chian Regional Development Act of 1965, title I of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, or title I of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1966.
" (b) In order to prevent delays in providing adequate treatment
of wastes to meet the water quality standards established consistent
with section 10 (c) of this Act for the waters within a river basin for
which a planning agency is designated, the Secretary, whenever he
determines, based on preliminary reports submitted by the planning
agpT that proposed treatment works will substantially conform
t nprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement
developed by that agency, may accept applications from
ants to local, State, or interstate agencies in accordance
dsions of subsection (a) of this section. No application
ider this subsection shall be approved after three years
date of designation of a planning agency unless a com-
'er basin pollution control and abatement plan for the
volved is approved.
; revisions of section 8 (b) of this Act shall not apply to
; pursuant to this section.
'APPROVAL OF GRANTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
>. After the Secretary approves a comprehensive river
b . ation control and abatement plan for any river basin, an
appi^uuion for a grant to assist in financing the construction of treat-
ment works in such basin made under any other provision of law
shall not be approved by the head of any other Federal agency, by
the Appalachian Regional Commission or other regional commissions
established pursuant to the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 unless it substantially conforms, in the judgment of the
Secretary, to such plan.
"AUTHORIZATION OF PLANNING EXPENSES
"SEC. 209. (a) In carrying out the provisions of section 204 of this
title, the Secretary is authorized to pay such expenses of each plan-
ning agency as are necessary to implemsnt the formulation of the
plan. Each planning agency shall prepare a budget annually and
tran ;mit it to the Secretary.
-------
880 LEGAL, COMPILATION—WATER
" (b) There are authorized to be appropriated such funds as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, which sums
shall be available until expended.
[p. 45]
"OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
"SEC. 210. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to displace, super-
sede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or
responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of
two or more States, or two or more States and the Federal Govern-
ment or to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the Inter-
national Joint Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent
Engineering Board and the United States operating entity or entities
established pursuant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty, signed at
Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International Boundary and
Water Commission, United States and Mexico."
TITLE II
SEC. 201. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
is amended by inserting before the heading above section 1:
"TITLE I—WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM"
SEC. 202. Section 5 (d) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, is amended as follows:
" (2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized
to be appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1967 and such sums
as may be appropriated thereafter, sums so appropriated to re-
main available until expended."
SEC. 203. Section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"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 or new or improved methods of joint treatment systems
for municipal and industrial wastes,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 881
and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith. The Secretary is authorized to provide for the conduct
of research and demonstrations relating to the purpose set forth in
clause (1) or (2) by contract with public or private agencies and
institutions and with individuals without regard to sectons 3648 and
3709 of the Revised Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 percentum
of the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for
any fiscal year may be expended during such fiscal year.
" (b) Federal grants under 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 ap-
[p. 46]
propriate 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).
" (c) 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 succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (1) of subsection
(a), including contracts pursuant to such subsection for such
purpose; and
" (2) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of
the next four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $25,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a), including contracts pursuant to such subsection for such
purpose;
" (d) Sums appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain
available until expended. No grant or contract for the purpose of
subsection (a) of this section shall be made for any project in any
fiscal year in an amount exceeding 12% percent of the total amount
authorized for that year."
SEC. 204. Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by striking out "and for each succeeding
fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
-------
882 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$5,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "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, 1972, $10,000,000".
SEC. 205. Effective after June 30, 1967, subsection (b) of section 8
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as
follows:
" (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing 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 polution control agency or agencies and
by the Secretary and unless such project is included in a com-
prehensive 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, or $2,400,000, whichever is
smaller: Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining
cost: Provided further, That, in the case of a project which will
serve more than one municipality, the Secretary shall, on such
basis as he determines to be reasonable and equitable, allocate,
to each municipality to be served by such project its share of the
estimated reasonable cost of such project, and the total of all the
amounts so determined, or $9,600,000, whichever is smaller, shall
be the maximum amount of the grant which may be made under
this section for such project;
[p. 47]
" (3) no grant shall be made for any project under this section
until the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Secre-
tary for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance
of the treatment works after completion of the construction
thereof; and
" (4) no grant shall be made for any project under this section
unless such project is in conformity with the State water pollu-
tion control plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of section
7 of this Act and has been certified by the 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.
The limitations of $2,400,000 and $9,600,000 imposed by para-
graph (2) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of grants
made under this section from funds allocated under the third
sentence of subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to
match all Federal grants made from such allocation for projects
in such State."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 883
SEC. 206. The third sentence of section 8 (c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, is amended by changing the pe-
riod at the end thereof to a colon and inserting the following:
"Provided, That not more than 60 percent of such sums shall be
available without regard to the allocation formula in this sentence
to the Secretary to carry out the provisions of section 206 of this
Act."
SEC. 207. (a) Subsection (d) of section 8 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended, is amended by striking out all begin-
ning with "and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967"
through the end of such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: $200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $400,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $650,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $950,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, and $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972.
Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (g) of section 8 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is amended by changing
the words "this section" to "this Act".
SEC. 208. Section 10 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Act, as
amended, is amended by substituting for the words "interstate
waters", wherever they appear, the words "interstate and navigable
waters" and by adding a new paragraph " (8)" at the end thereof to
read as follows:
" (8) The Governor of a State or a State water pollution con-
trol agency shall have one year from the date of enactment of
this paragraph to file a letter of intent that such State, after public
hearings, will before June 30, 1968, adopt water quality criteria
and a plan, as provided in this subsection, for navigable waters or
portions thereof."
SEC. 209. (a) Section 10 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as
paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively, and by inserting before such
paragraphs a new paragraph as follows:
" (2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, sur-
veys, or studies from any duly constituted international agency
or from the Secretary of State, has reason to believe that any
[p. 48]
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
-------
884 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such pollution, he shall give formal notification thereof to the
State water pollution control agency of the State in which such
discharge or discharges originate and to the interstate water pol-
lution 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 for-
eign country which may be adversely affected by this pollution
to attend and participate in the conference, and the representa-
tive 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. Nothing in
this paragraph shall be construed to modify, amend, repeal, or
otherwise affect the provision of the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty between Canada and the United States relative to the
control and abatement of water pollution in waters covered by
that treaty."
(b) Section 10(d) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended to insert after the first sentence thereof the following:
"In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the chairman of the con-
ference 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."
SEC. 210. Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, is amended by adding two new subsections to read as
follows:
" (k) (1) In connection with any conference called under this
section the Secretary is authorized to require any person whose
alleged activities result in discharges causing or contributing to
water pollution, or whose activities may affect the quality of
the waters involved in such conference, to file with him, in such
form as he may prescribe, a report, based on existing data, fur-
nishing to the Secretary 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. After such con-
ference has been filed, the Secretary shall require such additional
reports relative to such discharges and the use of facilities and
other means to prevent or reduce such discharges to the extent
recommended by such conference. 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 885
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 sub-
section 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
[p. 49]
of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treas-
ury 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: Provided, That the Secretary may upon applica-
tion 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 attor-
neys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United
States, to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
" (1) If the Secretary believes, based on studies, reports, or
inspections made by him, that actual or threatened pollution
deriving from an identifiable source presents an imminent danger
to the health or welfare of persons, or to natural resources, or
to areas of significant scenic or recreational value, and if he
believes that no other effective means of protection are available,
he may request the Attorney General to seek appropriate relief
to abate the actual or threatened pollution. The authority to
seek such relief shall not be limited by other abatement
procedures established under this Act."
SEC. 211. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
is amended by adding immediately after section 16 a new section to
read as follows:
"SEC. 17. In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and
to furnish the Congress with the information necessary for
authorization of appropriations for fiscal years beginning after
June 30, 1972, the Secretary, in cooperation with State water
pollution control agencies and other water pollution control plan-
ning agencies, shall make a detailed estimate of the cost of carry-
ing 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 anal-
-------
886 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ysis of the national requirements for and cost of treating munici-
pal, industrial, and other effluent to attain such water quality
standards as established pursuant to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended, or applicable State law. The
secretary shall submit these studies to the President, together
with his recommendations, by January 1, 1970, and the Pres-
ident shall submit to the Congress such studies and such recom-
mendations as he deems appropriate. There are authorized to
be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out
these studies."
SEC. 212. Section of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152; 33
U.S.C. 407), is amended by inserting after "Army," in the second
proviso the following: "after consulting with the Secretary of the
Interior".
SEC. 213. Sections 2 through 8 of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43
Stat. 604; 33 U.S.C. 432-437), are amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
" (a) 'oil' means oil of any kind or in any form, including
fuel oil, sludge, and oil refuse;
[p. 50]
" (b) 'person' means an individual, company, partnership,
corporation, or association; any owner, operator, master,
officer, or employee of a vessel; any owner, operator, officer,
or employee of a shore installation or terminal facility; and
any officer, agency, or employee of the United States;
" (c) 'terminal facility' means any pier, wharf, dock, or
similar structure to which a vessel may be moored or secured,
or upon, within, or contiguous to which equipment and
appurtenances dealing with oil may be located, including, but
not limited to, storage tanks, pipelines, pumps, and oil trucks;
" (d) 'shore installation' means any building, group of
buildings, manufacturing or industrial plants, or equipment
of any kind adjacent to coastal, interstate, or navigable
waters, and adjoining shorelines of the United States, upon,
within, or contiguous to which equipment and appurtenances
dealing with oil may be located, including, but not limited
to, storage tanks, pipelines, pumps, and oil trucks;
" (e) 'discharge' means any accidental, negligent, or will-
ful spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
or other release of liquid; and
" (f) 'Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 3. (a) Except in case of emergency imperiling life or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 887
property, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and
except as otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, it is unlawful for any person to discharge or permit the
discharge from any boat, vessel, shore installation, or terminal
facility of oil by any method, means, or manner into or upon the
coastal, interstate, or navigable waters, and adjoining shorelines
of the United States.
" (b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this section shall
remove the oil from the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters,
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 coastal, interstate, or navigable waters,
and adjoining shorelines of the United States. When the oil has
been discharge from a boat or vessel, these costs and expenses
shall constitute a lien on such vessel which may be recovered in
proceedings by libel in rem. When the oil has been discharged
from a shore installation or terminal facility, these costs and
expenses may be recovered in proceedings by libel in personam.
" (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 coastal, inter-
state, or navigable waters of the United States; and
" (2) relate to the loading, handling, and unloading of oil
on or contiguous to boats or vessels, shore installations, and
terminal facilities.
[p. 51]
"SEC. 4. (a) Any person, other than an owner or operator of
a shore installation or terminal facility, who violates section 3 (a)
of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder shall, upon con-
viction 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
violation of section 3 (c) or the regulations issued thereunder*
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
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is paid,
The penalty shall constitute a lien on the boat or vessel which
may be recovered in proceedings by libel in the district court of
the United States for any district within which the boat or vessel
may be.
" (c) The owner or operator of a shore installation or terminal
facility from which oil is discharged in violation of section 3 (a)
of this Act or the regulations issued thereunder shall be liable
for a penalty of not more than $10,000 which may be recovered in
proceedings by libel in personam in the district court of the
United States of the district within which the shore installation
or terminal facility is located.
"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.
"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 for
the preservation and protection of coastal, interstate, or navigable
waters. The officers and agents of the United States in charge of
river and harbor improvements, 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 power and authority and
it shall be their duty to swear out and process and to arrest and
take into custody, with or without process, any person who may
violate any of said provisions: Provided, That no person shall be
arrested without process for a violation not committed in the
presence of some one of the aforesaid officials: Provided further,
That whenever any arrest is made under the provisions of this
Act, the person so arrested shall be brought before a commis-
sioner, 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 pres-
ervation and protection of interstate or navigable waters and
shall not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner
affecting the provisions of such laws.
[p. 52]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 889
"SEC. 8. The Secretary is authorized to issue such regulations
as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act."
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 13,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: Replying to your letter of July 7,
requesting views of the International Joint Commission on H.R. 16076,
I wish to advise that since this is an international commission, the
membership of which is equally divided between the United States
and Canada, it is not felt appropriate that it should comment upon
proposed legislation pending in either country.
Please be sure however of our desire to be of whatever assistance is
possible to your committee by way of furnishing any information we
may have.
Sincerely yours,
MATTHEW L. WELSH,
Chairman, U.S. Section:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., July 29,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the
views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 16076, a bill to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make
more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.
Section 1 of the bill provides a short title for it.
Section 2 of the bill amends section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 466, et seq., by authorizing appropriations in
increased amounts for research, investigations, training and informa-
tion, and section 5 is also amended by adding at the end thereof a new
subsection providing that the Secretary of the Interior in consultation
with others shall conduct a study of the extent of pollution from boats
on the Great Lakes and other navigable waters and make recommen-
dations to Congress.
Section 3 of the bill amends section 6 of the act to read as set out
in the bill. This section relates to "Grants for Research and Develop-
ment."
-------
890 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 4 of the bill amends subsection (a) of section 7 of the act
and relates to grants for water pollution control programs.
Section 5 of the bill amends subsection (b) of section 8 of the act
and relates to grants to States, municipalities, intermunicipal, or inter-
state agencies for the construction of treatment works.
Section 6 of the bill further amends section 8 relating to grants.
Section 7 of the bill amends subsection (d) of section 8 of the act
relating to authorizations for appropriations.
[p. 53]
Section 8 is further amended by adding at the end thereof a new
subsection providing that the Secretary of the Interior may make
loans to a State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency
under certain conditions.
Section 9 amends section 10 (d) (1) of the act (relating to enforce-
ment) by inserting after the last sentence therein a provision to the
effect that whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any pol-
lution referred to in subsection (a) of section 10 which endangers the
health or welfare of persons in a foreign country and the Secretary of
State requests him to abate such pollution, he shall give notice to the
State water pollution control agency of the State in which such dis-
charge originates and shall call a conference of such agency or agen-
cies if the effect of the pollution is of sufficient significance. The
foreign country affected shall be invited to attend the conference and
have all of the rights of a State water pollution control agency. This
provision shall apply only to a foreign country which has given the
United States essentially the same rights.
Section 10 (d) 2 of the act relating to conferences called by the
Secretary relating to enforcement proceedings is amended by adding
the following: "In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the Chair-
man 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."
Section 10 of the act is further amended by adding a new subsection
(k) which provides that the Secretary, in any conference called by
him, is authorized to require any person whose alleged activities result
in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution, or whose
activities may affect the quality of the subject waters, to file with him
a report furnishing such information as may reasonably be required
as to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges and the
facilities used to prevent or reduce such discharges. 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 U.S.C. A penalty is provided for
the failure to file any report under this subsection of $100 for each
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 891
day of such failure which shall be recovered by a civil suit and it shall
be the duty of the various U.S. attorneys under the direction of the
Attorney General to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
Section 12 of the bill amends the act by redesignating sections and
adding two new sections under the headings "Clean Rivers Restora-
tion Program," and "Cost and Economic Study."
A planning agency is created to develop a comprehensive plan con-
sistent with a river basin and resources plan and water quality stand-
ards established for interstate waters within the basin, and for other
stated purposes. Grants may be made by the Secretary to assist in
the financing of treatment works under enumerated conditions.
The act is further amended under the heading "Cost and Economic
Impact Study" (p. 21) by adding new section 13. This section
requires the Secretary to make a detailed estimate of the cost of carry-
ing out the provisions of the act and to submit a detailed estimate to
Congress not later than June 10, 1968, and to update such study each
year thereafter.
Section 13 of the bill amends the Refuse Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1152;
33 U.S.C. 407). This act provides, in brief, that it shall be unlawful
[p. 54]
to discharge or deposit refuse matter of any kind other than that flow-
ing from streets and sewers into any of the navigable waters of the
United States. The Refuse Act further provides that the Secretary
of the Army, whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers
anchorage and navigation will not be impaired thereby, may permit
the deposit of any such material in navigable waters, within limits to
be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him.
The bill would amend this act by inserting after the word "thereby"
in the second proviso (summarized above) the following, "and when-
ever the Secretary of the Interior determines that it is consistent with
the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
466, et seq.)." This amendment would make it clear that no permis-
sion could be granted by the Secretary of the Army to deposit any
refuse matter into navigable waters, unless it was determined by the
Secretary of the Interior that the deposit of such refuse would be con-
sistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 14 of the bill amends the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 432)
by revising it entirely. The administration of the act would be trans-
ferred from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Inte-
rior by changing the meaning of the term "Secretary" (p. 23 of the
bill). The act would be broadened as indicated below.
Section 2 of the act as amended (p. 22 of the bill) adds the following
to the definition of a "person," "any owner, officer, or employee of a
-------
892 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
shore installation or terminal facility," and the terms "shore installa-
tion" and "terminal facility" are denned. The term "discharge" is
not defined in the present act but is denned by the bill as "any acci-
dental, negligent, or willful spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emit-
ting, emptying or other release of liquid."
Section 3 (a) adds a provision making it unlawful to discharge oil
from a shore installation or terminal facility. The present law is
confined to boats and vessels.
Section 3 (b) adds provisions not contained in the present act, sum-
marized as follows:
Any person discharging oil by any means described above shall
remove it from the coastal, interstate or navigable waters immedi-
ately. If such person fails to do so, the Secretary may remove the oil
and such person shall be liable to the United States for the costs of
removal in addition to the penalties provided.
The Secretary may prescribe regulations which permit the dis-
charge of oil from boats and vessels under certain conditions and
which relate to the loading, handling, and unloading of oil and to the
removal or cost of removal, or both, of oil from interstate or nav-
igable waters.
Penalties for the violation of the provisions of the act and the regu-
lations prescribed are provided (p. 25 of the bill).
Although many of the provisions of the bill do not concern this
Department, the amendments to the Refuse Act and the Oil Pollu-
tion Act would, it is believed, be of help in the enforcement of laws
relating to the pollution of waters. Also, the amendment to the Oil
Pollution Act by section 3 (b) of the act, as amended (p. 23 of the
bill), with reference to the removal of oil from coastal, interstate or
navigable waters, is desirable because it would act as a deterrent.
The amendment of section 10 (d) (2) of the present act which pro-
vides that every person contributing to the alleged pollution or
[p. 55]
affected by it be given an opportunity to make a full statement of his
views to the conference is proper athough the opportunity would no
doubt be permitted anyway.
It is recommended that section 11 of the bill which amends section
10 of the act by adding a new subsection (k) (1) be amended. The
recommended amendment would be to strike out the comma following
the word "processes", to insert in lieu thereof a period (line 4, p. 13 of
the bill), and to strike out the remainder of the sentence following
the comma which reads, "and all information reported shall be con-
sidered confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the
United States Code." This would result in this provision reading
-------
9527—EPA
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 893
as follows: "No person shall be required in such report to divulge
trade secrets or secret processes."
For the purpose of convenience and clarity, section 1905 is quoted
in its entirety; it reads as follows:
"§1905. Disclosure of confidential information generally
"Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of
any department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or
makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law
any information coming to him in the course of his employment or
official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made
by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department
or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns
or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or
apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or
source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person,
firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income
return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or par-
ticulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as pro-
vided by law; shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or
employment." June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 791.
The reasons for recommending the elimination of the language
quoted above are as follows:
1. The language left in the bill protects the person furnishing
the report by providing that "No person shall be required in such
report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes." To the
extent that any alleged polluter of water is concerned, this pro-
vision appears to be sufficient. Section 1905 further prohibits
the divulging of any information not authorized by law, and
mentions "trade secrets."
2. The language to be stricken, if left in the bill, would broaden
section 1905, in effect it would amend it so as to subject officers or
employees of the United States under this act to a penalty not
exacted from others. The only reference to confidential matters
in the statute is to "confidential statistical data" and the bill
would make "all information reported" subject to the statute. In
view of this all-inclusive provision a cloud would be cast on the
use of all the information contained in the report, and uncertainty
and confusion would exist as to the extent any information
obtained could be used.
3. Proceedings under the act could be delayed by the claim that
the use of all information contained in the report was prohibited
[p. 56]
-------
894 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and it could become necessary to obtain a court interpretation on
this question before proceeding, and, if such illegal information
were used, the claim might be made that its use nullified the
entire proceeding.
4. Officers and employees under the Water Pollution Control
Act should not be subject to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment of
1 year arising from the use of information contained in a report
unless it involved trade secrets or secret processes or use not
authorized by law as now provided.
Whether this legislation should be enacted involves considerations
as to which the Department of Justice defers to the Department of the
Interior. However, if it is to be enacted this Department believes
that it should first be amended as indicated above.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to
the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administra-
tion's program.
Sincerely,
RAMSEY CLARK,
Deputy Attorney General.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, July 20, 1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter dated July 7,
1966, requesting our views on H.R. 16076, a bill to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more
effective certain programs pursuant to the act. The bill may be cited
as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments and Clean
Rivers Restoration Act of 1966."
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act vests no responsibilities
in the Department of Labor except those relating to administration
of certain labor standards applicable to construction of sewerage
treatment works under section 8. Our comments are therefore lim-
ited to the matter of labor standards.
The bill would make a substantial addition to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by inserting in new sections 12 and 13, a clean
rivers restoration program contemplating the making of grants by the
Secretary of the Interior for construction pursuant to comprehensive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 895
pollution control and abatement plans. Appropriately, the new sec-
tion 12 (f) would apply to this construction the same labor standards
as now apply to construction of sewerage treatment works under
section 8.
We suggest that the same labor standards be similarly applied in
the amended section 6 in the case of grants for the development of
demonstration projects for methods of (1) controlling the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage and other wastes from
sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage, or
(2) advanced waste treatment and water purification or new
improved methods of joint treatment systems for municipal and indus-
trial wastes. Such projects may possibly involve some construction
work.
[p. 57]
The Davis-Bacon Act itself would appear applicable to demonstration
projects involving construction work undertaken through contracts
by the Secretary of the Interior under section 6.
Time has not permitted receiving the advice from the Bureau of
the Budget as to the relationship of the pending legislation to the
program of the President.
Sincerely,
W. WILLIAM WIRTZ,
Secretary of Labor.
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., August 1,1966.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the
views of this Department on H.R. 16076, to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective
certain programs pursuant to such act.
The proposed legislation would authorize a $6 billion, 6-year pro-
gram of grants to municipalities for sewage treatment construction,
and a loan program of $250 million to States and municipalities to
assist them in financing their share of construction under grants, when
the Secretary of the Interior determines that reasonable non-Federal
loans are not available; and a $45 million a year grant program for
the development of methods to demonstrate new or improved methods
of controlling pollution from combined sewers, and to demonstrate
advanced waste treatment and new methods of joint treatment for
municipal and industrial wastes.
-------
896 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
In addition, the bill would authorize a study of the extent of pollu-
tion from boats and vessels and would establish procedures for inter-
national conferences on water pollution. It would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to establish regulations controlling the dis-
charge of oil from boats, and relating to loading, handling, and unload-
ing of oil on boats and vessels, shore installations and terminal
facilities; set penalties for the unauthorized discharge of oil; and
authorize Coast Guard and Customs officers to assist in administering
and enforcing these provisions.
The President, in his message of February 23,1966, on the preserva-
tion of America's natural heritage, proposed a comprehensive attack
on water and air pollution, including a clean rivers demonstration
program and new Federal powers to control pollution.
The Department recommends favorable consideration by your com-
mittee of legislation which incorporates the President's recommenda-
tions, in lieu of action on H.R. 16076.
The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget
that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's
program to the submission of this report to your committee.
Sincerely yours,
FRED B. SMITH,
General Counsel.
[p. 58]
SECTION INDEX OF BILL H.R. 16076 AS REPORTED BY
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Entire original bill as introduced was struck out in the line type of
bill as reported, pages 1 to 27.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
897
TITLE I
Following sections are entire new title (title II) to existing Federal
Water Pollution Control Act:
Section of
bill as
reported
101
New section of
existing act
201-211
201
202
203
(a)
(b)
204
205
(1)
(2)
(3)
206
207
(1)
(2)
208
209
210
211
Subject
. Title II — Clean rivers restoration program
. Statement of purpose
, Submission of plan
. Review of plan
By agencies
By Secretary of Interior
. Congressional approval
, Grant program for treatment works
Incentive grants
Supplementary grants
Priority
Approval of grants from other agencies
Administrative expenses
Intrastate agency
Interstate agency
Use of Federal employees
Specific designations and approvals
Labor standards
Definitions
27 34
27
27 28
28-29
28
29
29
29-31
29-30
30
30-31
31
31-32
31
31-32
32
32-33
33
33-34
TITLE II
Following sections are amendments to individual sections of exist-
ing Federal Pollution Control Act:
Section of bill Section of existing
as reported act amended
Subject
Bill
page
201
202:
203:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
i:
(a)
(b)
Preceding sec. 1
of existing act.
5(a)
Addition of heading "Title I—Water Pollution Control Pro- 34
gram."
Research on combined storm and sanitary sewers and chem- 34
leal additives.
Following 5(c) ... Research grants to industries 34-35
5(d) Research—Elimination of separate appropriation ceiling on 35
certain kinds of research.
Following 5 Estuary study 35-38
204
6 ..
6 ..
7(a)
205(1) 8(b)
205(4) 8(b)
206 8(d)
207 Following 8
208 10(f)
209 13(f)
210 New
211
New
Cost estimate and study 38-39
Study of State and local personnel training 39
Increase in grants for water pollution control program plan- 39
ning.
Increase in individual and combined project limitation 39
Incentive increase to 40 percent if State matches 30 percent. 40
Increase in construction grants 40-41
Reimbursement 41-42
Hearing board and reports 42-44
Inclusion of Indian tribes as "Municipalities" 44
Transfer of administration of 1924 Oil Pollution Act from 44-45
Secretary of the Army to Secretary of Interior.
Study of financial assistance to industry 45-46
[p. 59]
-------
898 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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):
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
TITLE I—WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
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 pol-
lution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize,
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 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 "Secre-
tary") shall administer this Act through the Administration created
by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an Assistant Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by him, shall super-
vise 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 related to water pol-
lution. 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 (here-
inafter in this Act referred to as the "Administration"). The head
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 899
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 pro-
vided 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
[p. 60]
the Administration's functions 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 Administra-
tion.
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
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 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, con-
sideration 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
-------
900 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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.
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, uni-
form State laws relating to the prevention and control of water pol-
lution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention and
control of water pollution.
[p. 61]
(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.
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 pro-
mote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, control, and pre-
vention of water pollution [.], including, but not limited to, pollution
resulting from the discharge into any waters of untreated or inade-
quately treated sewage or other waste from sewers which carry storm
water or both storm water and sewage or other wastes, and the tem-
porary use of new or improved chemical additives which provide
substantial immediate improvement to existing treatment processes.
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 901
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 insti-
tutions 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
research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water
[p. 62]
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 dissem-
inate 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) 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, the treatment of
industrial waste. No grant shall be made under this subsection in an
amount in excess of $1,000,000, no grant shall be made for more than
70 per centum of the cost of the project, and no grant shall be made
for any project unless the Secretary 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 pre-
-------
902 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
venting pollution of waters by industry, which method shall have
industry-wide application.
[(d) (1)] (e) 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
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.
[ (2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed
$25,000,000.]
I (e) J (f) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field
laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one
to be located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the 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 institu-
tions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research
might be carried out.
I (f) 1 (9) 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 varying
conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water
quality needs of those to be served by such waters, and evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal prac-
[p. 63]
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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 903
(7i) (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, conduct
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 con-
sider 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 inves-
tigations and surveys to supplement existing information in repre-
sentative 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.
(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
-------
904 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
unimpaired natural connection with open sea and within which the
sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land
drainage.
(i) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
other than subsection (h), not to exceed $75,000,000 per fiscal year for
each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June
30, 1969. Not less than 25 per centum of any amounts appropriated
to carry out this section for a fiscal year shall be expended during
such fiscal year in carrying out subsection (d) of this section.
[p. 64]
[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 assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and
sewage or other wastes, and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith, The Secretary is authorized
to provide for the conduct of research and demonstrations relating
to new or improved methods of controlling the discharge into any
waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste
from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage
or other wastes, by contract with public or private agencies and insti-
tutions and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and
3709 of the Revised Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 per centum
of the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for
any fiscal year may be expended under authority of this sentence
during such fiscal year.
[ (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project
pursuant to this section unless such project shall have been approved
by an appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies
and by the Secretary; (2) no grant shall bs made for any project in
an amount exceeding 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; (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 of a new or im-
proved method of controlling the discharge into any water of un-
treated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other
wastes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 905
[(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the next three succeeding
fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purposes
of this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until
expended. No grant or contract shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized by
this section in any one fiscal year.]
COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY
Sec. 6. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and to
furnish the Congress with the information necessary for authorization
oj appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1967, the
Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control agencies
and other water pollution control planning agencies, shall make a de-
tailed 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 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
[p. 65]
for the three-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.
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, [and
for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $5,000,000] for each 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, 1969,
-------
906 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$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.
(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 Sec-
retary 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 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 rea-
sonable 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 train-
ing personnel for water pollution control work and including the cost
of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations relat-
ing 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—
[p. 66]
(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;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 907
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be fol-
lowed 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
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 rea-
sonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water pollu-
tion 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 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 Secretary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall
be conclusive; 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.
-------
908 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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
[p. 67]
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 33l/z 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
subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such
period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the
interstate 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 909
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 subsection
was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to
such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such subsec-
tion. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facilities
of the Treasury Department, is 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
[p. 68]
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 grants 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 compre-
hensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) except as other-
wise provided in this clause, 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, or in an amount exceed-
ing [$1,200,000] $2,400,000, whichever is the smaller: Provided, That
the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Provided further,
That, in the case of a project which will serve more than one munici-
pality [ (A) ] the Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines to be
reasonable and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served
by such project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such
project, and shall then apply the limitations provided in this clause
(2) to each such share as if it were a separate project to determine
the maximum amount of any grant which could be made under this
section with respect to each such share, and the total of all the
amounts so determined or [$4,800,000] $9,600,000, whichever is the
smaller, shall be the maximum amount of the grant which may be
made under this section on account of such project [, and (B) for the
purpose of the limitation in the last sentence of subsection (d), the
share of each municipality so determined shall be regarded as a grant
-------
910 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for the construction of treatment works]; (3) no grant shall be made
for any project under this section until the applicant has made pro-
vision satisfactory to the Secretary for assuring proper and efficient
operation and maintenance of the treatment works after completion
of the construction thereof; (4) 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 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; and (5) no grant
shall be made under this section for any project in any State in an
amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant has been made thereunder
for each project in such State (A) for which an application was filed
with the appropriate State water pollution control agency prior to
one year after the date of enactment of this clause and (B) which the
Secretary determines met the requirements of this section and regu-
lations thereunder as in effect prior to the date of enactment of this
clause. [The limitations of $1,200,000 and $4,800,000 imposed by
clause (2) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of grants made
under this section from funds allocated under the third sentence of
subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to match equally all
Federal grants made from such allocation for projects in such State.]
The percentage limitation of 30 per centum imposed by clause (2) of
this subsection shall be increased to 40 per centum, and the dollar
limitations imposed by such clause shall not apply, 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)
[p. 69]
of all projects for which Federal grants are to be made under this
section from such allocation.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects or 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 neces-
sity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or pro-
posed 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 appropriated
pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year ending on or before
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 911
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 accordance
with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in the
ratio that the population of each States 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 appro-
priated 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 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 be-
cause of lack of funds: Provided, however, 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 Fed-
eral 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 accord-
ance with the provisions of this section, for payments with respect to
projects in such State which have been approved under this section.
For the 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 capital income for
each State and for the United States shall l>s determined on the basis
of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of the conti-
nental United States for the three most recent consecutive years
for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce.
[p. 70]
-------
912 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(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, [and $150,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967. Sums so appropriated shall remain avail-
able until expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds so appropri-
ated 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 municipalities
of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.]
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $300,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $400,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, $650,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, and $950,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Sums
so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
(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
engineering, 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
official State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered
under State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metro-
politan or regional planning, for a metropolitan area within which
the assistance is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality desig-
nated for such purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case
of interstate planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive
plan developed or in process of development for such metropolitan
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 913
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, in-
stitutional, and
[p. 71]
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 lo-
cality, 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 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. 9148; 40 U.S.C. 276c).
(h) If, prior to commencement of construction of any treatment
works in advance of the availability of funds for a grant under this
section, the Secretary approves such project, and the State, munici-
pality, intermunicipal, or interstate agency thereafter constructs such
project and submits an application to the Secretary approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies for a
grant for such project, the Secretary, upon his approval of such appli-
cation, is authorized to make a grant under this section for such
project to be paid from future appropriations. No such grant shall
be made (1) unless all of the provisions of this Act have been com-
plied with to the same extent and with the same effect as though the
grant were to be made for future construction of the project, (2) in
an amount exceeding a grant which would otherwise be made under
this section for the future construction of such project. Neither an
approval of the project by the Secretary prior to construction, nor
the making of a grant by the Secretary for a project to be paid from a
future appropriation, nor any other provision of this subsection, shall
-------
914 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
be construed to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United
States to provide funds to make or pay any grant for a project.
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.
(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
[p. 72]
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
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 subsistence,
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 915
(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 person-
nel 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 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 con-
trol agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, 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-
cordance with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines
that such State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3) of
this subsection, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter be the
water quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or por-
tions 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 if the Secretary or the Governor of any State affected
by water quality standards established pursuant to this subsection
[P. 73]
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
-------
916 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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.
(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
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
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 author-
ized 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 pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies and municipalities involved 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 Secre-
tary should be approved or modified and transmit its findings 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 recommendations.
If the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the standards as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 917
published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of water qual-
ity in accordance with the Hearing Board's recommendations which
will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
[p. 74]
(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 tribu-
taries 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 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 for in this subsection, together with the recommen-
dations of the conference and Hearing Board and the recommen-
dations 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 determination of all other issues relating to the
alleged violation. The court, giving due consideration to the practica-
bility 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 pollu-
tion of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons
in a State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (caus-
-------
918 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ing or contributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notifica-
tion thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate
agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate and shall call promptly a conference of such agency
or agencies and of the State water pollution control agency and inter-
state agency, if any, of the State or States, if any, which may be ad-
versely 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 con-
trol 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 legiti-
mate uses of the waters is not of sufficient significance to warrant ex-
ercise of Federal jurisdiction under this section. The Secretary shall
also call such a conference whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys,
or
[p. 75]
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 substantial economic injury results from
the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate
commerce because of pollution referred to in subsection (a) and ac-
tion of Federal, State, or local authorities.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and for-
ward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the confer-
ence a summary of conference discussions including (A) occurrence
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 919
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 pollu-
tion 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 to 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 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
[p. 76]
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
-------
920 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 per-
son shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes, and all information reported shall be considered confiden-
tial 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 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, un-
der 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
pollution) 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 behalf of
the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court
in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 921
to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction
to enter
[p. 77]
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 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.
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 pollu-
tion 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.
-------
922 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 under-
[p. 78]
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 Comp-
troller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized
representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and ex-
amination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the re-
cipients 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
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 923
(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[.J, 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
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any 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 con-
struction, 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,
[p. 79]
the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances,
and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 16. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act".
TITLE II—CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Sec. 201. It is the purpose of this title to accelerate pollution con-
trol and abatement programs through the preparation and develop-
ment of basin pollution control and abatement plans and through the
establishment of additional incentives to encourage waste treatment
consistent with water quality standards.
-------
924 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SUBMISSION OF PLAN
Sec. 202. In the case of intrastate waters, whenever the Governor
of the State wherein such waters are located develops a basin pollu-
tion control and abatement plan, he is authorized to submit such plan
for approval by the Secretary and Congress in accordance with this
title. In the case of interstate waters, whenever not less than 50 per
centum of the Governors of the States wherein such waters are located
develop a basin pollution control and abatement plan, they are au-
thorized to submit such plan for approval by the Secretary and Con-
gress in accordance with this title. In the case of interstate waters,
whenever an interstate agency develops a basin pollution control and
abatement plan for waters under its jurisdiction, such agency is
authorized to submit such plan for approval by the Secretary and
Congress in accordance with this title. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, in the event that the Upper Colorado River
Basin is involved, the Governors of at least three of the four States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming or, in the event the
Columbia River Basin is involved, the Governors of at least three of
the four States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, must de-
velop, or concur in the development of, a basin pollution control and
abatement plan, including any such basin plan developed by an inter-
state agency.
REVIEW OF PLAN
Sec. 203. (a) Upon submission of a proposed basin pollution con-
trol and abatement plan to the Secretary, he shall transmit such plan
to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Water Re-
sources Council, and, when appropriate, the Secretary of State for
review. Within sixty days of transmission of such plan, such officers
and the Council shall notify the Secretary of their views, comments,
and recommendations with respect to such plan.
(b) The Secretary shall review the proposed basin pollution con-
trol and abatement plan together with the views, comments, and
recommendations received pursuant to subsection (a) of this section
and, if he determines that the plan will adequately and effectively
maintain the waters covered by the plan at the level of quality estab-
lished by the applicable water quality standards for those waters, he
shall approve the plan.
[p. 80]
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
Sec. 204. After the Secretary approves a basin pollution control
and abatement plan in accordance with section 203 of this title, he
shall transmit such plan together with all views, comments, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 925
recommendations received from any department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the Federal Government to Congress for approval of such
plan by Congress by a specific statute of approval.
GRANT PROGRAM FOR TREATMENT WORKS
Sec. 205. Whenever a basin pollution control and abatement plan
is approved by Congress in accordance with this title, the Secretary
is authorized to make grants to States, municipalities, and interstate
agencies from funds appropriated and allocated under authority of
section 8 of this Act to assist in financing the construction of treat-
ment works within such basin subject to the following limitations:
(1) the amount of any grant approved by the Secretary shall
not exceed 40 per centum of the estimated reasonable construc-
tion costs of such treatment works, except that the percentage
limitation of 40 per centum imposed by this clause shall be in-
creased to 50 per centum in the case of grants made under this
section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State under
section 8 (c) of this Act 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;
(2) no grant shall be made to assist in financing any such
works which are receiving a Federal grant under any other pro-
vision of law, and no Federal grant shall be made under any
other provision of law to assist in financing any treatment works
for which a grant has been made under this title, except a supple-
mentary grant under section 214 of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act oj 1965 or a supplementary grant under sec-
tion 101 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965;
(3) no grant shall be made unless such works have been ap-
proved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency
or agencies and have been certified by such agency or agencies
as entitled to priority over other eligible projects on the basis of
financial as well as water pollution control needs.
APPROVAL OF GRANTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
Sec. 206. After Congress approves a basin pollution control and
abatement plan, application for a grant to assist in financing the con-
struction of treatment works in such basin made under any other pro-
vision of law shall not be approved by the head of any other Federal
agency, by the Appalachian Regional Commission, or any other re-
gional commission established under authority of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 unless, in the judgment of
-------
926 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Secretary, such works substantially conform to such basin plan.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Sec. 207. The Secretary is authorized to make a grant to pay not
to exceed 50 per centum of the administrative expenses of a desig-
nated planning agency in preparing a basin pollution control and
abatement plan
[p. 81]
for submission for approval under this title. Only a planning agency
designated as follows shall be eligible for such a grant:
(1) in the case of intrastate waters, the Governor may desig-
nate an agency of State government as the planning agency;
(2) in the case of interstate waters, not less than 50 per centum
of the Governors of the States in which such waters are located
may designate either agencies of the governments of such States,
or an interstate agency.
USE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
Sec. 208. The head of each department, agency, and instrumen-
tality of the Federal Government is authorized to detail employees of
such department, agency, or instrumentality to assist any State or
interstate agency in the preparation of a basin pollution control and
abatement plan for submission and approval under this title, upon a
request from such State or interstate agency for such assistance.
SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS AND APPROVAL
Sec. 209. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the
Tennessee Valley Authority is designated as the planning agency for
the Tennessee River Basin, and the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion created by the Delaware River Basin compact is designated as
the planning agency for the Delaware River Basin as defined for the
purposes of such compact. Upon development of a basin pollution
control and abatement plan (1) by such Authority and approval of
such plan by the Board of Directors of such Authority or (2) by such
Commission and approval by such Commission, such plan shall be a
basin pollution control and abatement plan which shall be transmitted
directly by such Authority or such Commission to Congress for ap-
proval in accordance with this title.
LABOR STANDARDS
Sec. 210. 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 section
205 shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 927
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. 276a—276a-5). The Secretary of Labor shall
have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this section, the
authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered
14, 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).
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 211. For the purposes of this title—
(1) the term "basin" includes, but is not limited to, rivers and
their tributaries, streams, coastal ivaters, estuaries, bays, lakes,
and portions thereof, as well as the lands drained thereby.
(2) the term "construction" shall have the same meaning as it
has in section 8 of this Act.
[p. 82]
SECTIONS 2 AND 7 OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
* % # # >[J # *
SEC. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
(a) The term "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including
fuel oil, oil sludge, and oil refuse;
(b) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, corpora-
tion, or association; any owner, master, officer or employee of a ves-
sel; and any officer, agent, or employee of the United States;
(c) The term "coastal navigable waters of the United States"
means all portions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, and all inland waters navigable in fact in which
the tide ebbs and flows;
(d) The term "Secretary" means the [Secretary of War] Secretary
of the Interior.
*******
[SEC. 7. That in the administration of this Act the Secretary may
make use of the organization, equipment, and agencies, including
engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed under his direc-
tion in the improvement of rivers and harbors, and in the enforcement
of existing laws for the preservation and protection of navigable
waters. And for the better enforcement of the provisions of this
Act, the officers and agents of the United States in charge of river
and harbor improvements, and the assistant engineers and inspectors
employed under them by authority of the Secretary, and officers of
the Customs and Coast Guard Service of the United States, shall have
-------
928 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 per-
son who may violate any of said provisions: Provided, That no per-
son shall be arrested without process for a violation not committed
in the presence of some one of the aforesaid officials: And provided
further, That 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. In the administration of this Act, the Secretary may make
use of the organization, equipment, and agencies, including engineer-
ing, clerical, and other personnel employed by him or the Secretary
of the Army for the preservation and protection of navigable waters.
For the better enforcement of the provisions of this Act, the offices
and agencies of the United States in charge of river and harbor im-
provements and the assistant engineers and inspectors employed un-
der 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 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 officials. Whenever any arrest is made under the pro-
visions of the said sections the person so arrested shall be brought
forth/until before a commissioner, judge, or court of the United States
for examination of the
[p. 83]
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.
For the information of the Members of the House, the following
reorganization plan is set forth below:
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1966
PREPARED BY THE PRESIDENT AND TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE AND
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, FEBRUARY
28, 1966, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE REORGANIZATION
ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 203, AS AMENDED
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SECTION 1. TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES.— (a) Except
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 929
as otherwise provided in this section, all functions of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare and of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act (33 U.S.C. 466
et seq.), including all functions of other officers, or of employees or
agencies, of that Department under the Act, are hereby transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior.
(b) The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is hereby
transferred to the Department of the Interior.
(c) (1) The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, together with
its functions, is hereby transferred to the Department of the Interior.
(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare (including those of his designee) under section 9 of the Act
shall be deemed to be hereby transferred to the Secretary of the
Interior.
(3) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall be an
additional member of the said Board as provided for by section 9 of
the Act and as modified by this reorganization plan.
(d) (1) The Hearing Boards provided for in sections 10 (c) (4) and
10 (f) of the Act, including any Boards so provided for which may be
in existence on the effective date of this reorganization plan, together
with their respective functions, are hereby transferred to the Depart-
ment of the Interior.
(2) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under the said sections 10 (c) (4) and 10 (f) shall be deemed to be
hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior shall give the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare opportunity to select a member of each
Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sections 10 (c) (4) and 10 (f) of
the Act as modified by this reorganization plan.
(e) There are excepted from the transfers effected by subsection
(a) of this section (1) the functions of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare under clause (2) of the second sentence of section 1 (b)
of the Act, and (2) so much of the functions of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare under Section 3 (b) (2) of the Act as
relates to public health aspects.
[p. 84]
(f) The functions of the Surgeon General under section 2 (k) of the
Water Quality Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 905) are transferred to the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Within 90 days after this
reorganization plan becomes effective, the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall present to
-------
930 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the President for his approval an interdepartmental agreement pro-
viding in detail for the implementation of the consultations provided
for by said section 2 (k). Such interdepartmental agreement may be
modified from time to time by the two Secretaries with the approval
of the President.
(g) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under sections 2 (b), (c), and (g) of the Water Quality Act of
1965 are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Interior: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Interior may exercise the authority to pro-
vide further periods for the transfer to classified positions in the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Administration to commissioned officers
of the Public Health Service under said section 2 (b) only with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(h) The functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare under the following provisions of law are hereby transferred
to the Secretary of the Interior:
(1) Section 702 (a) of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 490).
(2) Section 212 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act
of 1965 (79 Stat. 16).
(3) Section 106 of the Public Works and Economic Develop-
ment Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 554).
SEC. 2. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—There shall be
in the Department of the Interior one additional Assistant Secretary
of the Interior, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall, except as the Secre-
tary of the Interior may direct otherwise, assist the Secretary in the
discharge of the functions transferred to him hereunder, who shall
perform such other duties as the Secretary shall from time to time
prescribe, and who shall receive compensation at the rate now or
hereafter prescribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of the Interior.
SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS.—The provisions
of sections 2 and 5 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat.
1262) shall be applicable to the functions transferred hereunder to
the Secretary of the Interior to the same extent as they are applicable
to the functions transferred to the Secretary thereunder.
SEC. 4. INCIDENTAL PROVISIONS.— (a) So much of the personnel,
property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, allo-
cations, and other funds, employed, used, held, available, or to be
made available in connection with the functions transferred to the
Secretary of the Interior or the Department of the Interior by this
reorganization plan as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
shall determine shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior
at such time or times as the Director shall direct.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 931
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget shall deem to bs necessary in ordsr to effectu-
ate the transfers referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be
carried out in such manner as he shall direct and by such agencies
as he shall designate.
[p. 85]
(c) This reorganization plan shall not impair the transfer rights
and benefits of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service
provided by section 2 of the Water Quality Act of 1965.
SEC. 5. ABOLITION OF OFFICE.— (a) There is hereby abolished that
office of Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the
incumbent of which is on date of the transmittal of this reorganization
plan to the Congress the Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare designated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare under the provisions of section 1 (b) of the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall make
such provisions as he shall deem to be necessary respecting the wind-
ing up of any outstanding affairs of the Assistant Secretary whose
office is abolished by subsection (a) of this section.
[p. 86]
SUPPLEMENTARY VIEWS
While supporting the provisions of H.R. 16076 as reported by the
House Committee on Public Works, we feel that, even with the appre-
ciable improvements it offers, it does not go far enough. It is clear
that a sustained and truly massive attack upon pollution is overdue.
Admittedly the bill represents a very substantial increase in the
grant programs presently available. Still, it falls embarrassingly
short of the goals established in the bill as passed unanimously by the
Senate. We can find no reason to regard the Senate bill as excessive
when compared with the enormity and critical urgency of the problem.
The House committee bill provides a total of $2.3 billion in new
authorizations for a 4-year period, or an average of $575 million annu-
ally. The Senate passed measure, by comparison, would provide a
total of $6 billion for a 6-year period including the current fiscal
year, or an average of $1 billion annually. Comparative annual
authorizations are shown in the following chart.
-------
932 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUTHORIZATIONS
Senate bill House corn-
Fiscal year ending June 30— (as passed on mittee bill
July 14, 1966)
1967' '$150,000,000 '$150,000,000
1968 600,000,000 300,000,000
1969 1,000,000,000 400,000,000
1970 1,250,000,000 650,000,000
1971 1,500,000,000 950,000,000
1972 1,500,000,000
Totals 6,000,000,000 2,450,000,000
' $150,000,000 already authorized by existing law for fiscal 1967.
For the 4 years of fiscal 1968 through fiscal 1971, the Senate-
approved program would furnish almost twice as much financial
ammunition in the war against pollution as the House committee bill
offers.
The amount contained in the Senate bill is, to be sure, a great deal
of money, but we believe it is fully warranted. Its cost averages only
about $5 a year per citizen, or 42 cents a month—little more than the
price for a package of cigarettes or a gallon of gas or a can of beer—
for clean water, the one commodity without which no citiz:n can live.
We do not believe that this is too much.
Assuring the adequacy and purity of the Nation's water supply
is the single most crucial domestic problem confronting the United
States in our time. It warrants an all-out crash program. Half-
way measures will no longer suffice. The pollution of our waters is
rapidly reaching crisis proportions. It can only get worse unless
we move with vision and boldness and match the amplitude of our
words with the rectitude of our deeds.
[p. 87]
The waters of America are severely, some of them very danger-
ously, infected. No region of the country is immune, and no major
American stream today remains undefiled. In spite of our bast efforts
to date, the problem has grown faster than our solutions.
Our Great Lakes are decaying, glutted with human and industrial
filth, developing at their central cores vast liquid "deserts" (in the
case of Lake Erie, 2,600 square miles) so sapped of oxygen that aquatic
life is doomed. Merely to clean up the Great Lakes and restore their
purity will require many years of intensified effort and an estimated
$20 billion for this task alone.
Last year, when the hot hand of drought closed a sweaty fist upon
our northeastern seaboard, many communities could have been spared
the privations of restrictive water rationing if their streams had been
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 933
usable. The broad Hudson River, flowing uselessly through the heart
of New York City, could have eradicated that city's critical water
deficit entirely, had its waters been fit for consumption. But it was
too foul to drink and too thick to purify. Four little children ate a
watermelon fished from the Hudson and died.
One cupful of water taken at random from the Connecticut River
near Hartford was found to contain 26 different infectious bacteria,
including typhoid, paratyphoid, cholera, tuberculosis, tetanus, and all
the known viruses including polio.
The oysterbeds of Chesapeake Bay produce only about one-tenth
their former harvest because of increasing contamination. Shellfish
from contaminated beds are the most notorious carriers of hepatitis.
Dead fish killed by the poisoning of our rivers numbered more than
100,000 in each of at least 5 different locations throughout our coun-
try last year.
Hardly any American river—except in a few sparsely settled areas
—is free of purification of some type.
Even underground water tables are subject to pollution. An epi-
demic in Riverside, Calif., last summer afflicted 18,000 citizens and
claimed a number of lives before bacteriologists traced the source to
the city's water supply, which for 75 years had been safe and pure
since it comes from 30 deep wells. Suddenly, due to a subterranean
contamination, death and debilitating disease lurked in the water taps
of the city.
No less than 20 billion gallons of water every day are being spoiled
and wasted in the United States because of pollution. This is ravaged
water that otherwise could be used and reused. This 20 billion gallons
represents fully one-fourth of our total pure water needs, when the
amounts required daily by irrigation, industry, and power gsneration
are deducted. Its loss affects the lives, the economy, the health and
the pleasure of far more than half of our population.
When compared with present authorization levels, the House com-
mittee bill represents truly substantial progress. When compared
with the demonstrated need confronting the United States, however,
it seems less impressive.
The amounts of funding necessary from all sources to cure the
menace of pollution by 1972 range variously upward to as much as
$100 billion. Against these figures, we do not believe that the $6
billion as recommended in the Senate bill is in any sense excessive.
Others have estimated that, merely to stand still—merely to keep
[p. 88]
pace with the ever-increasing flow of waste poured into our streams
by the growth of our cities and the proliferation of our industries—
-------
934 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
merely to avoid an increase in the degree of contamination which
already afflicts our streams—a sum of at least $20 billion would be
required between now and 1972. And we do not believe that simply
maintaining the status quo is sufficient.
It is not as though we had no proven means of attacking the prob-
lem. The water pollution control program was launched a full decade
ago. Essentially, it was the creation of the House and of the House
Public Works Committee. The construction grant approach was
conceived and sponsored by Representatives John A. Blatnik and
Robert E. Jones, who have made truly significant contributions in
this field.
During the first 8 years of this national program, it directly encour-
aged the building of 5,994 modern purification plants in communities
throughout the country. Approximately $500 million in Federal
grants had stimulated local investments of more than $3 billion in
water purity. So the basic construction grant philosophy is no longer
experimental. We know it works. It remains now for Congress to
expand the program sufficiently to cope with the monumental size of
the problem.
Over the years the program has been refined and improved. Indi-
vidual grant ceilings have been raised to provide meaningful assist-
ance to our larger communities, the principal sources of pollution.
Initially, no project could qualify for a grant of more than $600,000.
Under the legislation presently offered, an individual project in which
two or more communities may cooperate may receive as much as $9.6
million in assistance. But this very fact, reducing the number of
projects which may be assisted with a given amount of money, makes
it all the more imperative that the total available authorization be
increased accordingly.
We are in no sense unmindful of the budgetary situation confront-
ing our country nor of the concern over inflation which presently pre-
occupies many in both the legislative and executive branches of our
Government. Yet inflationary and recessionary fluctuations, admit-
tedly disturbing, are and have been essentially transitory in char-
acter. They wax and wane. The water pollution problem, however,
has been many years in the making and will be increasingly with us,
come high prices or low, until we summon the determination to assault
it boldly on all fronts.
Whatever the vicissitudes of the price index, the long-range need in
this country will be for continued economic growth to feed and employ
our rapidly growing population. And nothing can so retard economic
growth as a lack of usable water. Ultimately, we shall be forced to
face this problem in its full and awesome dimensions. The longer we
put it off, the greater the final cost will be.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 935
Certainly the American public will applaud and support an even
bolder program than is encompassed in the House committee bill.
However, they may feel about certain other expenditures, the Ameri-
can people are willing to pay whatever it costs for clean, pure water.
It is signficant, we think, that the Senate adopted the higher figures
by a unanimous vote of 90-0. For a domestic financial authorization
in this range, such unanimity is almost without precsdent. It be-
[p. 89]
speaks, in our opinion, a readiness and even an anxiety on the part of
the public at large to get on with the job in the most expeditious way
possible.
What could be more important?
No other domestic program of our Government, however praise-
worthy, can so profoundly or so personally affect the lives of so many
Americans. Poverty programs help one economic strata of our peo-
ple. Crop support programs assist one segment of the economy.
Civil rights bills aid certain ethnic groups. Regional programs, such
as Appalachia, the Great Plains, and the Tennessee Valley, touch
only geographic slices of America. The area redevelopment approach
reaches scattered pockets throughout the land. The purity of our
water, on the other hand, affects every American, his children, and
his grandchildren.
The House committee bill is a good one. We simply believe that a
level of authorizations nearer to the Senate-approved figures would
make it even better.
JIM WRIGHT.
KENNETH J. GRAY.
ED EDMONDSON.
RICHARD D. MCCARTHY.
JOHN R. SCHMIDHAUSER.
ROBERT E. SWEENEY.
JAMES J. HOWARD.
[P. 90]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 16076
We support H.R. 16076, as reported by the Committee on Public
Works, for we believe that it is a constructive step toward alleviating
the deplorable conditions of pollution which plague our Nation's
waters. However, we are constrained to bring to the attention of the
Members of the House certain matters relating to the bill which, in
-------
936 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
our opinion, are not dealt with adequately in the preceding report of
the committee.
"CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION PROGRAM"—A MISNOMER
Title I of the reported bill amends the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act by adding thereto a new title II, entitled "Clean Rivers
Restoration Program." The stated purpose of this title is to accel-
erate pollution control and abatement programs through the prepara-
tion and development of basin pollution control and abatement plans
and through the establishment of additional incentives to encourage
waste treatment consistent with water quality standards.
The "clean rivers" label for legislation was used this year by Presi-
dent Johnson in his message "Preserving Our Natural Heritage,"
which was submitted to Congress on February 23, 1966, and printed
as House Document No. 387, 89th Congress, 2d session. In this mes-
sage, the President proposed a clean rivers demonstration program as
a beginning "to clean and preserve entire river basins from their
sources to their mouths." Two days later, on February 25, the Secre-
tary of Interior submitted recommended legislation to the Congress
to carry out the President's proposal, title I of which is entitled
"Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966." This recommended legisla-
tion, by its own language, is limited in application to selected river
basins. However, when testifying before the committee, Secretary
Udall said this title was actually intended to apply to all cities and
communities wherever situated, -whether in a river basin or not.
His testimony, and that of other witnesses, clearly disclosed that the
proposed Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, aside from providing
for basin planning, is nothing more than an expansion of the existing
Federal program of grants for construction of municipal sewage
treatment plants.
The clean rivers restoration program in title I of the reported bill is
a vast improvement over the administration's proposal, but, like the
administration's Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, it is not going
to clean up the rivers of the Nation. It does not provide grants for
the construction of industrial waste treatment facilities, or for the
prevention or control of agricultural pollution from surface runoff
carrying pesticide and fertilizer chemicals, or for the removal of
sludge and filth which rests on the bottoms and banks of long-
polluted rivers, or for the supplementary treatment of waters where
residual problems of quality occur even where municipalities and
industries have constructed treatment works. The clean rivers resto-
ration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 937
program in H.R. 16076, as reported, which label the administra-
tion insisted upon retaining, does promote the concept of basin
planning, but the provisions for actually combating pollution are
merely another program of grants for construction of municipal sew-
age treatment works, which is in addition to the existing grant pro-
gram for the same purpose.
We support this new program because it provides incentives for
basin planning. But we want to make it abundantly clear that, not-
withstanding the implication of its title, the clean rivers restoration
program will not result in clean, sparkling rivers throughout the
country. Our waters are being polluted from many sources unrelated
to municipal sewage, and grants for the treatment of municipal ssw-
age meet only one part of the much broader pollution problem. Any
cleaning up of the rivers of the Nation unrelated to the treatment of
municipal sewage, resulting from Federal law, will be because of the
pollution abatement enforcement provision and requirements lor
water quality standards in existing law and not because of the "clean
rivers" title of this bill.
Publicity given to the administration's proposed clean rivers pro-
gram has so distorted its limited application and effectiveness as to
flagrantly mislead the Congress and the American people into believ-
ing that it will accomplish miraculous results never intended and
admittedly beyond its reach. We want to correct this misconception
here and now.
The committee, however, has laid the foundation for possible future
legislation to ultimately provide for more comprehensive pollution
control and abatement. The committee accepted an amendment
offered by Congressman Don Clausen, which is section 211 of the bill,
to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of methods for providing incentives to assist
in the construction of facilities and works by industry to reduce or
abate water pollution. This study shall include, but not be limited
to, the possible use of tax incentives as well as other methods of finan-
cial assistance. The reported bill also provides for 70 percent Federal
grants for research and demonstration projects for prevention of
pollution of waters by industry. Both of these provisions are highly
desirable, and they may point the way to a future solution of the
pollution problems created by industry. But it should be clearly
understood that the "clean rivers" title of the reported bill does not
provide any action program for the treatment of industrial waste
that is not discharged into a municipal sewer system and treated in a
municipal sewage treatment works. This, of course, excludes the
thousands of industrial plants, including many of the largest ones,
which are located along the rivers and other waters of the country
-------
938 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and which may discharge untreated or only partially treated waste
directly into such waters, as well as use the water in their manufac-
turing processes.
The "clean rivers" title makes no attempt to establish an action
program of Federal assistance to combat pollution caused by surface
runoff from agricultural and other lands. Controlling water quality
in agricultural areas without hindering agricultural production, which
production must necessarily increase in the future to meet the grow-
ing needs of our expanding population, is a complex and important
matter. The Secretary is urged to give this problem high priority
under his existing study and research authority.
[p. 92]
The mislabeling of title I of the reported bill, as the "clean rivers
restoration program," is unfortunate, for it is obvious that the grant
provisions of this legislation are not going to result in clean rivers.
Title I is a forward step in the war on pollution, which we fully sup-
port. We hope that its misleading title will not result in such dis-
appointment from its results as to undermine public confidence in the
entire Federal water pollution control program.
INCREASES IN AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
One of the most troublesome aspects in the consideration of this
legislation was determining the amount of money to be authorized for
the purpose of making Federal grants to aid in the construction of
sewage treatment works. This problem arose primarily from the
wide discrepancy between the various proposals before the committee,
and the absence of accurate and reliable information to support any
of the proposals.
The original administration proposal would have added nothing to
the amounts already authorized for the present construction grant
program, but would have provided an additional $50 million for
fiscal year 1967 and unlimited amounts thereafter for the proposed
clean rivers program.
The Senate-passed bill (S. 2947) would authorize $6 billion for fiscal
years 1967 to 1972, inclusive, for the two grant programs for con-
struction of sewage treatment works.
A revised administration proposal submitted after the Senate had
passed S. 2947 would authorize the appropriation of $3.45 billion for
fiscal years 1967 to 1972, inclusive.
The committee was generally agreed that some acceleration in the
Federal grant program is needed. The question was as to the degree
of acceleration. We certainly feel that we should not undertake a
crash program without better evidence of actual needs than we now
have.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 939
The compromise agreed to by the committee was to authorize the
annual amounts recommended in the revised administration proposal,
but only through fiscal year 1971. In our opinion, this is the absolute
maximum which can be justified. Under this compromise, the amount
authorized for fiscal year 1968 is exactly double that authorized for
1967, the amount for 1969 is 2J/2 times the 1967 level, the 1970 authori-
zation is 4% times the 1967 level, and the authorization for 1971 is
6V3 times the 1967 level.
This is acceleration with a vengeance.
We could not have agreed to such a huge increase in the size of this
program at this time had not the increase been coupled with additional
inducements to the States to join the effort to clean up our valuable
waterways, rather than leaving the task to Federal and local
authorities.
Since 1959, the minority has asserted the position that there needed
to be greater State financial participation in the construction of sew-
age treatment works. In 1961, the minority even more strongly
asserted this position, and in the minority views on the legislation then
pending before the Congress, the 1961 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, it spelled them out in
explicit terms, as follows:
[p. 93]
We believe that, rather than compounding the increasing
decline in construction of treatment works independent of Fed-
eral subsidy which will result from a mere doubling of the
amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for Federal grants,
as now provided in H.R. 6441, if there is to be any increase in
the amount of funds appropriated for Federal grants it should
be directed toward providing an effective incentive to accelerate
needed construction by offering an inducement to the States to
respond to their responsibilities and participate in the cost of
treatment plants.
This can be accomplished, without reducing the level of the
present construction grant program under existing law, by
requiring that State funds match any sums authorized to be
appropriated, by H.R. 6441, which are in excess of the $50 million
annual authorization provided in existing law. If enlargement
of the Federal grant program to construct local sewage treatment
works is inescapable, then it is high time that the States face up
to their responsibilities and assist in defraying the costs of such
facilities.
After 6 long years of advocacy by the minority of greater State
financial participation in the construction of sewage treatment works,
-------
940 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234) provided incen-
tives to the States to participate, but only with respect to a part of
the funds authorized for fiscal years 1966 and 1967. H.R. 16076, as
reported by the committee, contains substantial inducements to the
States to participate in the cost of projects under both the accelerated
existing program and the proposed new clean rivers program. This
will not only bring the States more actively into the program, as we
have urged so long, but will also reduce the need for future Federal
and local funds by the amount of the States' contributions.
In determining the degree of acceleration of the Federal grant pro-
gram, we must consider the ability of the States and communities to
utilize the Federal funds made available. It will take time for the
States and communities to "tool up" for a program which would be
doubled in the first year and increased to over six times the present
level in just 4 years. Preparation of plans, and making arrangements
to finance the State and local shares of the cost of projects will take
a great deal of time. Furthermore, the availability of materials and
qualified contractors and the ability of States and local governments
to sell bonds at acceptable interest rates may be controlling factors.
During the hearings, the committee heard that at least one State
(Vermont) has no backlog of unfinanced sewage treatment plants, in
the sense of need for Federal money. Mr. Reinhold W. Thieme, mem-
ber of the executive committee of the Interstate Conference on Water
Problems, and commissioner on water resources in Vermont, testified
with respect to his State:
Our program at the present time is about all that we could
support either financially or through the capabilities of contrac-
tors that have been dealing with these services. In fact, we have
had some where we have not been able to get bids because the
contractors were all busy.
[p. 94]
While this situation may not exist in many or even any other States,
it illustrates the fact that we cannot solve the problem by simply
pouring out floods of Federal money. The amounts to be made
available for Federal grants must bear some relationship to the ability
of the States and local communities to utilize such grants. We believe
that the amounts which would be authorized by H.R. 16076 are the
absolute maximum which could be wisely used, and may exceed the
ability of many of the States.
It is our belief that those who advocate increased authorizations to
the level of a crash program are guided by their emotions more than
by facts and evidence as to the actual needs, and are perhaps overlook-
ing other Federal programs which provide assistance in the construe-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 941
tion of sewage treatment works. The following programs must be
considered:
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.—Under this
act, Federal grants up to 50 percent of the total cost and loans up to
100 percent of the total cost are available for "the acquisition of land
and improvements for public works, public service, or development
facility usage, and the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, alter-
ation, expansion, or improvement of such facilities, including related
machinery and equipment" within redevelopment areas. Sewage
treatment works can be and have been financed under this act.
In addition to this, section 101 of the act authorizes supplementary
grants for the purpose of increasing the Federal contribution up to
80 percent of the cost of projects constructed under other Federal
grant-in-aid programs, including sewage treatment works financed
under the Federal Water Pollution Act.
Under the act, specific amounts are not set aside for sewage treat-
ment plants, but a total of $500 million is authorized for all grants
and supplemental grants for the fiscal years 1966 to 1969, inclusive,
and annual appropriations for making and participating in loans are
authorized up to $170 million for fiscal years 1966 to 1970, inclusive.
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965.—This act, Public
Law 89-4, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants
for the construction of sewage treatment works in the Appalachian
region in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended. The act authorizes a sum not to
exceed $6 million to be appropriated for the program.
In addition to this, section 214 of the act authorizes supplementary
grants to increase the Federal contribution up to 80 percent of the
cost of constructing projects under other Federal grant-in-aid pro-
grams, including sewage treatment works under the Federal Water
Pollution Act. A total of $90 million is available for making supple-
mentary grants under section 214.
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965.—The Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law 89-117, provides for
Federal grants of up to 50 percent of the total cost of the project to
finance specific projects for basic public water facilities, including
works for storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of water,
and for basic public sewer facilities in areas with comprehensive
planning as defined in the act. Such Federal grants may also be
made for the advance purchase of land to be utilized for future con-
struction of works thereon. The act authorized $200 million per
annum for each of the fiscal years 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, exclu-
sively, for such purposes totaling another $800 million from the
Federal Treasury.
[p. 95]
-------
942 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act, as amended.—
Under this act, as amended in 1965 (Public Law 89-240), the Secre-
tary of Agriculture may make grants totaling up to $50 million each
fiscal year to finance "specific projects for the development, storage,
treatment, purification, or distribution of water or the collection,
treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas."
In addition to this, the act (as amended by Public Law 89-240)
authorizes the Secretary to make or insure loans to finance, among
other things the "conservation, development, use, and control of
water, and the installation or improvement of drainage or waste
disposal facilities" in rural areas.
As used in the act, the term "rural areas" does not include any area
in any city or town which has a population more than 5,500 inhabi-
tants, thus assuring that the financial assistance will go to those areas
which are least likely to have adequate taxing authority, bonding
capacity, or other financial resources.
Public Facility Loans (42 U.S.C. 1491-1497) .—This program pro-
vides long-term construction loans to local public agencies for needed
public works for which financing is not otherwise available on reason-
able terms and conditions. Loans may be made to finance up to
100 percent of the project cost for a wide range of non-Federal public
works, including sewage treatment works.
Proposed Demonstration Cities Act of 1966.—Title II of the Demon-
stration Cities Act of 1966, as reported by the House Committee on
Banking and Currency, provides for Federal grants of up to 70 percent
of the total costs for facilities within a metropolitan area as defined in
the act and meeting all qualifications for metropolitan comprehensive
planners set forth therein. Water pollution control and sewage treat-
ment facilities are eligible for such assistance under the provisions
of the bill, if enacted in its present form.
We have discussed these facts in an attempt to place this matter in
proper perspective, and to consider the admittedly critical problem
on a factual rather than an emotional basis.
We believe that the authorizations for construction grants con-
tained in H.R. 16076 can be supported. We have no reliable evi-
dence that the $6 billion which would be authorized by S. 2947 as
passed by the Senate is needed or can be fully used.
We feel very strongly that it would be a bad mistake to provide for
an authorization of $6 billion at this time. The question may bs asked
if there is admitted uncertainty in the exact amount, why not take
the higher figure and leave it to the Committees on Appropriations
to appropriate only the amounts actually needed. This might appear
to make sense except for some overriding facts. For instance, the
inherent danger which lies in the use of a figure far greater than the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE: HISTORY 943
amount we believe can be geared into the program at this time.
The figure may actually be dangerous in the sense that it leads to a
completely false sense of progress. The principal objective to be
achieved now is to make the States, cities, and communities so con-
scious of the threat of water pollution that they will make every
effort to produce maximum results in the way of increased planning
and increased financial assistance. A figure of $6 billion might easily
be taken to mean that the Federal Government has solved the prob-
lem; that it has applied the dollar formula to achieve a panacea;
that it has followed the Washington formula of applying dollars to
[p- 96]
solve the problem. The fact that the figure is an authorization and
not an appropriation will be overlooked by most people. The fact
that the actual appropriations may bear no resemblance to this
figure will not mitigate this false sense of progress.
Instead of a bill which will urge States, cities, and communities to
exert their utmost to accelerate the program, it may well have the
exact opposite effect and make everybody think that the problem is
well in hand. And all this because of a sleight-of-hand reduction of
a mythological total cost of $100 billion to an unsupported figure of
$20 billion for work to be accomplished in the immsdiate future which
itself has no fixed time period, finally to arrive at an authorization
total of $6 billion determined by multiplying $20 billion by an admit-
tedly incorrect factor of 30 percent. The $6 billion, in our opinion,
is something less accurate than the computations used to put a man
in orbit, and we had better wait for better figures before we delude
the American public by this mirage.
WILLIAM C. CRAMER.
JOHN C. KUNKEL.
JAMES R. GROVER, Jr.
DON H. CLAUSEN.
CHARLES A. HALLECK.
CHARLOTTE T. REID.
ROBERT C. McEwEN.
JAMES D. MARTIN.
JOE SKUBITZ.
[p. 97]
-------
944 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2j(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 1367, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
AND CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION ACT OF 1966
JULY 11, 1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2947]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order
to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to
such act having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 2947 is to—
(1) Establish the Clean Rivers Restoration Program as a sup-
plement to the existing water pollution control program for
planning and construction of treatment works on a river basin
basis. This title will enable designation of planning agencies for
each river basin or portion thereof in a State or States, at the
request of the Governor or Governors, for the purpose of prepar-
ing detailed pollution control and abatement plans. After des-
ignation of a planning agency, the Secretary may make grants
not to exceed 50 percent of a project's cost if (a) the Governor
agrees to establish water quality standards for all rivers and
streams in the State and (b) if the State provides 30 percent of
the cost of each project.
(2) Eliminate existing dollar ceiling limitations on individual
and joint sewage treatment construction project grants and pro-
vide a 30-percent grant for every approved project regardless of
the total cost of any single or joint project.
(3) Provide a bonus of 10 percent of the total project cost for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 945
any project which conforms with a comprehensive plan developed
or in process of development for a metropolitan area.
[P-1]
(4) Authorize a total of $6 billion in appropriations for Federal
sewage treatment construction grants through fiscal year 1972.
(5) Increase the authorization for appropriations for grants
to States and interstate agencies for programs support from $5
million to $10 million annually for 5 years provided the States
increase their share.
(6) Authorize appropriations of $25 million annually for 5
years specifically for grants and contracts for research, develop-
ment, and demonstration of advanced waste treatment and water
purification methods and for development and demonstration of
new or improved methods of joint treatment systems for
municipal and industrial wastes.
(7) Provide for establishment of a revolving fund in the
Treasury of the United States in order that the Secretary may
make loans to appropriate local authorities for not more than the
amount equal to the local required share for treatment works,
interceptor sewers, and ancillary needs, provided such commu-
nities agree to pay the cost of maintaining and operating the
facilities.
(8) Authorize the Secretary to apply to cases of international
water pollution the enforcement procedures and authorities pro-
vided in the act for abating pollution situations wholly within the
United States.
(9) Provide that the chairman of a conference shall afford an
opportunity for any person contributing to or affected by alleged
pollution to present a statement of his views to the conferees.
(10) Provide a mechanism whereby the Secretary may require
submission of relevant information based on existing data on the
part of any person whose alleged activities result in discharges
which increase or contribute to water pollution or whose activities
may affect the quality of waters involved in a conference.
(11) Provide that the Secretary shall, by January 10, 1968,
submit to the Congress a comprehensive analysis of the national
requirements for and cost of treating municipal, industrial, and
other effluents, and other information.
(12) Amend the Refuse Act of 1899 to require consistency with
the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(13) Amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, to extend its applica-
tion to navigable and interstate, as well as coastal waters, and the
adjoining shorelines of the United States, and to extend applica-
-------
946 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion of the prohibition on oil discharges from vessels to boats,
shore installations and terminal facilities.
HEARINGS
Public hearings on S. 2947 were held by the committee on April 19,
20, 26, 27, 28, and May 5, 10, 11, and 12. Officials of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of the Interior,
representatives of State and local governments, water pollution con-
trol agencies, conservation organizations, labor unions, industry, and
other groups testified at these hearings or presented their views for
the record. Significantly, 27 Members of the Senate, representing
both political parties, either appeared or filed statements in support
of a broadened Federal commitment to water pollution control and
abatement.
[p. 2]
The need for an expanded water pollution control and abatement
program as expressed by S. 2947 and its $6 billion authorization was
emphasized and reemphasized throughout the hearings. A number
af other specific improvements in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act were recommended to the committee, some of which are embodied
in S. 2947 as amended.
GENERAL STATEMENT
S. 2947 can be considered the first omnibus water pollution control
act. It extends and broadens the existing program; it provides a new
emphasis in the clean rivers concept; it strengthens other existing law,
including the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 and it manifests the total
commitment of the Federal Government to abatement of the pollu-
tion one of the Nation's most vital resources.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF BILL
CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION PROGRAM
The Clean Rivers Restoration Program as established in S. 2947 is
a modification of title I of S. 2987, the administration's proposal. It is
an expansion of the concepts developed by the Congress in the water
quality standards provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965. The
committee, in authorizing a clean rivers program, has provided a
method whereby necessary planning can be achieved in river basins
or portions of river basins as part of a broader approach to pollution
control.
The committee does not intend that the impetus created by the
Water Quality Act be slowed by the use of river basin planning. The
standard setting procedure established in 1965, while not progressing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 947
as rapidly as it might due to the delay created by transfer of the
Water Pollution Control Administration to the Department of the
Interior, should not be altered or delayed by this act.
Under the clean rivers program, the Secretary is authorized to
make 50-percent grants for construction of treatment works and sawer
facilities within a designated river basin or portion thereof.
In return for the additional 20-percent Federal grant provided
under the clean rivers program, the States must expand their com-
mitment to effective pollution control. S. 2947 provides that the
States must, among other things, in order to qualify projects for the
50-percent grant, provide 30 percent of the cost of each project within
the designated river basin or portion thereof. The States must also
give satisfactory assurance that enforceable water-quality standards
either are in effect or will be established on all waters within the
State.
The planning agency designated under the clean rivers program is
expected to develop comprehensive pollution control and abatement
plans which are consistent with water quality standards established
pursuant to the Water Quality Act and provide the most effective
and economic means of sewage treatment, including multimunicipal
or municipal-industrial treatment works construction.
The plan, when appropriate, should demonstrate that treatment
facilities proposed will provide for the improvement, as well as the
maintenance, of -water quality standards within the basin or portion
[p. 3]
thereof and should suggest meaningful ways to finance that share of
project costs not covered by Federal and State grants.
The Secretary, in approving a proposed plan, should pay special
attention to those recommendations within the plan as to the means
developed for retiring the non-Federal-State share of the cost of each
project. Sewer charges and metering systems may ba effective
methods to accomplish the above objective.
The committee reiterates its position that pollution must be effec-
tively controlled and abated at the earliest possible date and that no
unnecessary roadblocks should be placed in the way of construction
of vitally needed treatment works and sewer systems.
GENERAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
The committee has amended the Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for an accelerated research program. Sums authorized in
1961 are inadequate for an aggressive and imaginative research effort.
New authorization of $20 million for fiscal year 1968, $25 million for
1969, and $30 million for 1970 will permit funding to enable the Water
-------
948 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Pollution Control Administration to carry out a research program at
the level indicated in the report issued by the Office of Science and
Technology, "A Ten-Year Program of Federal Water Resources
Research," February 1966.
In addition to the major problems of municipal and industrial
wastes and storm and combined sewer discharges, accelerated
research is needed to deal with problems resulting from handling and
disposal of radioactive wastes, waste discharged from boats and ships,
household or small waste disposal systems, accelerated eutrophication
and algae blooms, animal feedlot wastes, agricultural runoff, acid
mine drainage, and other diverse sources of pollution.
Research on water quality requirements for all water uses and the
persistence and degradation of pollutants in the water environment
must be accelerated to help establish water quality criteria and stand-
ards. Improved techniques for sampling and identification of pol-
lutants are needed to insure an effective implementation of a water
pollution control program.
Many of the research projects should be carried through the pilot
plant and field evaluation phases so the effectiveness of the research
results can be confirmed and demonstrated on a practical scale.
Of particular interest to the committee is the fresh and nontradi-
tional approach to solution of water pollution problems by the aero-
space industry. Gov. Edmund G. Brown of California called attention
to the capabilities of these industries and the possible utilization
of the technology developed for the space program in water pollu-
tion control and water reuse. The State of California has already
initiated substantial programs in this area.
The committee understands that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration has in the past contracted with this industrial
group to perform research. The committee urges that the Water
Pollution Control Administration, with the additional funds author-
ized in this bill, exploit that space technology as it may be applicable
to the problems of water reuse.
In addition to the excellent in-house research capability, the Secre-
tary is urged to make appropriate use of grant and contract authority
[p. 4]
to obtain the full benefit of the industrial, private, and academic
research potential.
ESTUARY STUDY
The committee has authorized a study of the Nation's estuaries and
estuarine zones. This amendment to S. 2947 is an outgrowth of
legislation introduced by Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 949
provide for necessary comprehensive studies of these areas.
On introduction of his bill, S. 3240, Senator Tydings noted that no
basic data now exists on the extent and nature of pollution of estu-
arine zones of the United States. The questions posed by Senator
Tydings made a significant impact on the committee.
It is expected that the Department of Interior, in carrying out the
estuarine study authorized in S. 2947, will avail itself of relevant
expertise, both inside and outside the Federal Government, to insure
that the best minds in the Nation are brought into this study. The
broad and thoughtful study of the entire system of estuarine zones
in this country, including those bays and harbors of Hawaii, will,
to quote Senator Tydings, "provide vital information necessary so
that the estuary environment we leave our children is a healthy,
ordered, and attractive one."
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
In its report entitled "Steps Toward Clean Water," the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution noted that encouraging progress
has been made in research toward development of advanced waste
treatment methods under the directive provided by the Congress in
1961 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
committee finds that there still remains an inordinate lag between
research and effective application of research findings.
Particular concern attaches to the problem of industrial waste
treatment. These wastes now are either treated in the industrial
plans or discharged without treatment into public waters.
Although some segments of industry have made progress in the
treatment of their wastes, a larger proportion still have not undertaken
programs to treat their effluent.
Considering the rising costs of individual industrial treatment
facilities, an alternative must be provided to the choice of inadequate
treatment or the removal of the industrial activity from the specific
area. A most promising alternative is the potential development of
public treatment systems for industrial and nonindustrial effluent.
S. 2947 therefore provides specific extension of the authority for
appropriations to assure necessary continuing and intensified research
for the development and demonstration of advanced waste treatment
methods. S. 2947 also provides for grants and contracts for research,
development, and demonstration of new or improved methods for
compatible and economically feasible joint treatment of municipal
and industrial wastes.
The committee does not intend joint industrial-municipal waste to
be limited to treatment of mixed wastes. Obvious economies could
result from operation of industrial-municipal plants "under one roof"
-------
950 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
even though wastes, due to particular nature of the industrial sewage,
are not compatible.
[p. 5]
Elimination of two operating crews, costly land acquisition, dupli-
cation of some capital facilities such as operations centers, etc., all
could substantially reduce treatment costs. And industrial treatment
facilities constructed by a unit of government would be free of tax
obligations.
S. 2947 authorizes appropriations of $25 million annually through
fiscal year 1971 and increases demonstration grants to 75 percent in
order to encourage participation by local agencies. The committee
found that participating public agencies could not readily match the
50-percent demonstration grants under existing law.
PROGRAM GRANTS
Federal program grants to States and interstate agencies have been
effective in stimulating and assisting in State and local efforts to
investigate water pollution problems and to develop procedures for
corrective measures. However, there is a tendency on the part of
certain States to reduce their annual expenditures to the point where
there are insufficient funds to match Federal contributions. Realistic
incentives must be provided to improve State water pollution control
programs and to halt the tendency to allow such programs to be
weakened.
S. 2947 therefore provides that the Federal grants program be
increased from $5 million annually to $10 million annually. In addi-
tion, it is recommended that no State be allocated funds from the $5
million increase unless its expenditures are increased above those
expended for fiscal year 1966, to match the additional Federal grant.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act affords clear recognition
of the primary rights and responsibilities of the States in preventing
and controlling water pollution. Moreover, the States have been
encouraged to assume and effectively discharge their appropriate role
in the national effort to protect and conserve water quality.
The Federal Government provides financial assistance to State and
interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing
and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control of
water pollution. The objective of this program is to provide a realistic
incentive for State governments to provide their agencies with neces-
sary financial resources commensurate with their responsibilities.
Federal funds in the amount of $5 million annually are currently
authorized to be made available for this purpose. This authority,
unless renewed by the Congress, expires on June 30, 1968.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 951
It is necessary then to extend the Federal grant authority, to pre-
vent the reduction of State funds, and to require that the State and
interstate agencies match the additional increased grant amount with
funds representing an accompanying increase over the level of their
current expenditures.
The need for increased State expenditures remains, heightened by
the new provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the programs
authorized in S. 2947. State programs must be strengthened in order
to carry out their responsibilities in the intensified construction grants
program, to increase the number of qualified, well-trained personnel,
to establish water quality standards consistent with the purposes of
the act, to participate in the development of comprehensive plans for
water pollution control, and to enforce the abatement of existing
pollution and violations of water quality standards.
[P. 6]
WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS AND $6 BILLION AUTHORIZATION
Municipal wastes, discharged untreated or inadequately treated,
comprise one of the two major sources of the pollution that threaten
the Nation's important water resource. The value of the incentive
program of Federal grants to assist municipalities in the construction
of required treatment works has been effectively demonstrated. How-
ever, the statutory authority for supporting funds for this program
expires on June 30, 1967, unless extended by Congress.
The present backlog of need should be eliminated in all communi-
ties with the installation of secondary treatment works and predict-
able future needs should be met. Yet the mounting costs of these
projects impose a difficult burden on communities.
S. 2947 removes the dollar ceiling on grants in the present law and
provides for a Federal grant of 30 percent of the total project costs.
This greater Federal share emphasizes the total inadequacy of current
levels of authorization. Therefore there is authorized to be appro-
priated, in order to carry out this program, a total of $6 billion
through fiscal year 1972.
In enacting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956,
Congress declared its policy to provide financial aid to municipalities
in connection with the prevention and control of water pollution.
Implementation of this policy has been principally in the form of
grants to assist municipalities in the construction of necessary treat-
ment works. A huge backlog of treatment facility needs was created
during the long period of disregard and neglect that preceded Federal
legislation in this field. The staggering financial burden attendant
upon the backlog was clearly beyond the fiscal capability of the
-------
952 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Nation's cities and towns. To an appreciable extent, it remains so
today.
The committee inquired at length into all aspects of the construc-
tion grants program during the conduct of its hearings. Testimony,
statements, and data were received from Governors, mayors, and
officials responsible for the treatment and disposal of sewage wastes,
from, representatives of State and municipal organizations, from in-
dustry, conservation organizations, and other interested citizen
groups, and from administration officials responsible for the effective
operation of the grants program. Careful and thorough consideration
has been given to their views.
Statistics, updated to June 30, 1965, are indicative of the accom-
plishments of the construction grants program since its inception
early in 1957. A total of 6,200 projects with a combined eligible
cost of approximately $2.6 billion have received Federal financial
assistance in the amount of $658 million, of which $108 million was
provided under the Accelerated Public Works Act. This level of
activity, although truly commendable, has been sufficient only to
keep pace with the needs created by steady population growth and
increased urbanization, and to replace facilities which age, technical
advancement, or population relocation rendered obsolescent.
The backlog of unmet needs remains to aggravate the problem of
providing for the continuing population and urban growths and obso-
lescence factors. The size of the backlog, while not fully defined, is
formidable. In this regard, the committee is particularly disturbed
by the failure of the State water pollution control agencies to develop
and furnish complete information on construction requirements.
[P. 7]
Their response to the 1965 annual survey of waste treatment needs
conducted by the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers estimated
the backlog at 5,277 projects costing $1.8 billion. The actual backlog
is conceded to be much in excess of this "known" backlog. Needs of
one State alone, as presented to the committee, approach this figure.
Dr. Hollis Ingraham, testifying for Governor Rockefeller of New
York, stated "that barrier is the staggering expense of overcoming
the huge backlog of needed sewage treatment works—$1.7 billion in
New York alone."
Interceptor sewers to serve new areas, the needs of communities
in some States which are required to be identified by official action,
and adequately reflected needs of major metropolitan areas are not
included in this total. The breakdown of the 1965 annual survey
lists only 52 projects needed to serve populations in excess of 100,000
with an associated construction cost total estimated at $378 million.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 953
At the committee's request, data in regard to the needs of the Nation's
100 largest cities (all with populations in excess of 100,000) was com-
piled. The reported present needs of 80 of these cities are for 367
projects estimated to cost $1.3 billion. It is apparent that the annual
survey backlog falls short by at least $1 billion in accurately reflect-
ing the needs of the larger municipalities. To this must be added
deficiencies in estimates for the smaller communities.
Appropriate upgrading of treatment requirements to conform with
water quality standards will further add to the cost of eliminating
the backlog. Thirty percent of the 5,277 projects included in the
annual survey backlog are currently deemed to require only primary
treatment. If secondary treatment is considered necessary for these
projects, an increase of $800 million would accrue to the States' $1.8
billion backlog estimate. In its November 1965 report, "Restoring
the Quality of Our Environment," the Environmental Pollution Panel
of the President's Science Advisory Committee stated:
Estimates of required expenditures to provide secondary treat-
ment of wastes for 80 percent of our population by 1975 are on
the order of $20 billion, of which Federal funds will be a substan-
tial part.
The primary incentive aspect of the Federal construction grants,
while remarkably successful, has not been realized in one very im-
portant area. The Nation's larger municipalities with their commen-
surately larger and ever-growing needs have not found the Federal
grants an adequate stimulus.
The dollar ceiling limitations imposed on the grant amount have
effectively lowered the Federal share for their projects well below
the 30-percent assistance provided to the smaller communities. In
many cases, the grant offered to assist the larger project is in the
range of 10 to 15 percent of its total cost. Cities such as Chicago, 111.,
Nashville, Tenn., Detroit, Mich., and St. Louis, Mo., whose treatment
needs entail expenditures of $67 to $196.5 million, are understandably
less than encouraged by a grant in the amount of $1.2 million as
presently authorized.
In his statement supporting an expanded Federal commitment,
Mayor Ralph Locher, of Cleveland, Ohio, testified:
If there is no Federal help available, $900 million, which should
be approximately Cleveland's share for eliminating
[p. 8]
pollution, is equivalent to nearly 15 years of our general fund
budget of $62 million. Think of it. For the next 15 years we
would have to devote as much to water pollution as we now
-------
954 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
spend for all city operations other than utilities. There is only
one word to describe that—"impossible."
The committee finds that the needs of the larger municipalities
comprise an appreciable, if not indeed a major, component of the
total municipal wastes problem.
REIMBURSEMENT
Pressures on the Federal dollar make impossible immediate appro-
priation of all funds necessary for sewage treatment plant construc-
tion. Some States are prepared to go ahead on their own more
rapidly than the availability of Federal funds.
Senator Jacob Javits of New York pointed out that his State was
prepared to go ahead with its own funds if reimbursement of the
Federal share could be provided.
The committee concurs with the senior Senator from New York
and commends his State for its positive action in proceeding to solve
its pollution problem. S. 2947 contains a prefinancing provision which
will allow those States to be reimbursed for approved projects from
the Federal share as it becomes available in the regular allocation
process.
The committee, however, strongly suggests that the existence of
the prefinancing provision does not, of itself, mean that the Federal
share of a project's cost will be provided. Those States wishing to
take advantage of this provision must remember that in anticipating
allocations for approved projects they are assuming a certain risk.
But that risk and the Federal policy making it possible should ac-
celerate construction and reduce costs.
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING INCENTIVE
Metropolitan areas are the major source of sewage. If an adequate
level of waste treatment is to be attained without bankrupting our
cities, joint planning and, where feasible, joint construction of treat-
ment works is essential. The committee has provided that such
metropolitan area planning shall be encouraged through provision of
an additional 10 percent of project costs under the basic program.
This is an increase of 7 percent over the amount authorized under the
Water Quality Act.
It is expected that metropolitan areas in river basins designated
under title I will, as part of the plan, be encouraged to construct joint
facilities. Therefore, the additional 10 percent provided under section
8 does not apply to 50-percent grants made under the clean rivers
program.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 955
LOAN PROGRAM
The committee, in authorizing establishment of the loan program
to offset non-Federal shares, recognized the need of some communi-
ties for additional financial help.
In many of the Nation's depressed areas, sewage treatment facilities
are vitally needed but the tax base is so eroded that municipalities
can neither levy taxes nor float bonds sufficient to meet the local share
of a project's cost.
[p. 9]
In consideration of such hard-pressed communities, loans in an
amount not to exceed the total amount of the assigned local share of
the estimated reasonable cost of construction of the required project
will now be available from the Federal Government. Such loans are
to be made only if the funds applied for are not otherwise available
from private lenders or from other Federal agencies on terms which
in the opinion of the Secretary will permit the accomplishment of the
project. They are repayable in 40 years and bear interest at a rate
favorably equivalent to but riot less than the rate payable on the
public debt.
The committee expects this program to be administered on the
basis of need arid further expects those fiscally distressed communities
with the most serious pollution problems to ba afforded preference
under this section.
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
Streams pursue their natural courses despite such arbitrary political
demarcations as State lines or even international borders. Pollution,
carried across national borders by afflicted streams, menaces the
health and welfare of citizens in one country as seriously as in another.
Considerations of amity and harmony between neighboring countries
have resulted in the formulation of treaties whereby each has pledged
the delivery of waters of satisfactory quality. The treaties, however,
stop short of empowering their established administering bodies ac-
tually to enforce their studied recommendations for abating pollution
and improving water quality. Essentially, such recommendations are
referred to their respective governments for indicated actions.
Such actions, the committee believes, may be more promptly and
effectively taken by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to apply
to cases of international water pollution the enforcement procedures
and authorities provided in the act for abating pollution situations
wholly within our own Nation. The national interest requires that
we should have equivalent rights and privileges in any pollution sit-
uation that endangers the health or welfare of our own citizens. Ac-
-------
956 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cordingly, conditions of reciprocal advantages to the United States
are made a prerequisite in the exercise of the Secretary's authority
under this provision of the act.
EXPANDED CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION
The conference stage, the initial procedure specified by the act for
enforcing the abatement of pollution, appropriately brings together
the State and Federal interests to consider and agree, if possible, on
measures that the States themselves may take under their own au-
thorities to resolve the pollution situation. Local interests participate
only at the express invitation of the State agency conferee. The com-
mittee believes that this undesirably restricts a concerned municipal-
ity, industry, or other interested parties from presenting views for the
consideration of the conference. The bill imposes, therefore, a
responsibility on the chairman of the conference to afford the opportu-
nity for any person contributing to, or affected by, the alleged pollu-
tion to present a statement of his views to the conferees. In the
interest of orderly progress of the conference, the chairman may
prescribe the method or form of presentation.
[p. 10]
SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION
Effective measures to abate pollution are necessarily based on in-
formation and data as to the character and extent of the pollution,
its sources, and its effects upon legitimate water uses. Adequate
information and data on the discharges of wastes causing or contrib-
uting to the pollution must be gathered before such effective measures
may be formulated. In most instances, such information and data
are cooperatively made available and exchanged to their mutual
benefit by the State, local, and Federal interests. In the absence of
such cooperation, the Federal responsibility remains and the gather-
ing of the required facts often imposes an undue burden and expendi-
ture in time, personnel, and monetary resources that must be devoted
to this task. The development of sound standards designed to protect,
conserve, and enhance the quality of our waters poses equal require-
ments as to availability and sufficiency of information and data.
Pollution abatement measures are initially developed at the con-
ference stage of the act's enforcement procedures. Federal establish-
ment of water quality standards begins in like manner with a
conference of Federal, State, local, and industry representatives. In
order that each of these proceedings will have available sufficient data
the bill authorizes the Secretary to require the submission of relevant
information on the part of any person whose alleged activities result
in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution, or whose
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 957
activities may affect the quality of the waters involved in the confer-
ence. Protection is afforded to trade secrets and secret processes.
Failure to respond to the Secretary's request may result in forfeiture
of $100 per day while such failure continues. This provision, in the
committee's opinion, will measurably increase the promptness and
effectiveness of Federal enforcement and water quality standards
activities.
COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY
As noted above in the discussion of the expanded grant program,
there is a significant lack of information relative to the national re-
quirements for the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other
effluent. The $6 billion authorized by the committee is based on an
estimate of a $20 billion cost for attaining a minimum of secondary
municipal treatment. This $20 billion neither includes the cost of
industrial waste treatment nor the cost of separation of storm and
sanitary sewers. Existing information indicates that the cost of
pollution control could well exceed $100 billion.
In order that the Congress can effectively authorize the necessary
funds to meet the growing cost of pollution control, a comprehensive
analysis of all cost is essential. The committee therefore directs the
Secretary to obtain such detailed estimate for the 5-year period begin-
ning July 1, 1968, for submission to the Congress no later than
January 10,1968.
The committee notes with some distress a continuing problem of
receiving adequate information on water pollution control needs from
State and Federal agencies. It therefore strongly urges that the
administration expand its efforts, not only to obtain information but
to deliver such data to the appropriate congressional committees.
Also, the committee agrees with the recommendation of Senator
Vance Hartke of Indiana that "the scope and impact of this vast
[p. 11]
problem (pollution control) makes imperative that program reports
are made available to all Members of the Congress." Program re-
ports, combined with the information contained in the comprehensive
study, should better enable the Congress to make the necessary deci-
sions relative to the continuing Federal commitment to water pollu-
tion control.
STUDY OF BOAT AND VESSEL POLLUTION
The St. Lawrence Seaway, in fulfillment of its purposes and long-
held expectations, has served to transform the waters in the Nation's
heartland, in particular the Great Lakes, into channels of increased
-------
958 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
world and domestic commerce and trade. It is no longer an unusual,
albeit still a dramatic, sight to see giant oceangoing vessels plying the
waters of the Great Lakes. Our inmost ports have bscome world
harbors. Concurrent with the heavy growth in vessel traffic, we are
witnessing an astounding rise in recreational boating use of these
same waters. The earned leisure and affluence of our citizens is
nowhere more clearly reflected than in the vast fleets of boats of
various sizes that dot the waters and cluster in ports and marinas
along the lake shores. Waste and refuse discharges from these ves-
sels and boats are already creating pollution problems in the Great
Lakes. If allowed to continue unchecked, these problems will
mount rapidly and become ever more serious.
Effective programs to control the dumping of refuse and discharge
of wastes into all navigable waters from boats and vessels must be
developed without delay. The committee is convinced, however, that
a full study of the extent and nature of this pollution is an essential
prerequisite to the development of such effective programs. Accord-
ingly, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the
study in consultation with other directly concerned Federal agencies
and to appoint a technical committee of representatives of these
agencies and other persons to advise him in formulating recommenda-
tions for dealing with boat and vessel pollution. The results of the
study, together with the recommendations for an effective control
program, are to be submitted to the Congress no later than July 1,
1967.
Among other proposals for controlling such pollution, considera-
tion was given to legislation to specify that the water quality stand-
ards, approved by the Secretary in accordance with the Water Quality
Act of 1965, include provisions for controlling vessel, boat, and marina
pollution sources. The committee regards the water quality stand-
ards provisions as entirely comprehensive and extending fully to
all sources of pollution. To this end, therefore, standards developed
by the States or established by the Secretary should provide for the
protection of water quality against these sources of pollution as well
as all others.
REFUSE ACT AMENDMENT
The Congress first acted to assert the Federal interest in the pre-
vention and control of water pollution by prohibiting the deposit of
refuse in navigable waters. This provision, approved March 3, 1899,
has as its primary concern the prevention of impediments and ob-
structions to navigation. A proviso attaching to the general prohibi-
tion authorizes the Secretary of the Army, who is responsible
[p. 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 959
for administration of the Refuse Act, to permit deposit of such refuse
if anchorage and navigation are not injured thereby. S. 2947 adds to
this condition a required determination by the Secretary of the In-
terior that such deposit of refuse is consistent with the purposes of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This additional condition
will assure that deposits of refuse permitted which have no injurious
effect on anchorage and navigation will not be allowed to injuriously
affect other legitimate uses of waters to which the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act extends.
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
The provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, are designed to pro-
tect the Nation's coastal waters against this important source of
pollution discharged from vessels. Its administration is primarily
directed to preventing a menace to navigation although recognition
is also provided to deleterious effects upon health or sea food and
danger to persons or property. The opening of the Great Lakes to
vessel traffic and the remarkable increase in boat and vessel traffic
generally upon the navigable and interstate waters of the country
require that similar prohibitive and protective measures bs applied
in these waters. Accordingly, the bill amends the Oil Pollution Act,
1924, in several respects and extends its application to navigable and
interstate as well as coastal waters and the adjoining shorelines of
the United States. Oil discharges are prohibited not only from ves-
sels but from boats, shore installations, and terminal facilities. The
shore installations which are intended to be within the scope of this
act are those facilities at which oil is a primary production factor and
which either receive oil or oil products from, or discharge oil or oil
products to, boats, vessels, and terminal facilities. In addition to the
penalty imposed for violation upon a person, separate penalties are
provided against a boat or vessel and against the owner or operator
of a shore installation or terminal facility from which oil is discharged.
All costs and expenses reasonably incurred in removing the dis-
charged oil from the waters are made a liability against the responsi-
ble person in addition to the penalties themselves. Administration of
the act's provisions is transferred from the Secretary of the Army to
the Secretary of the Interior, consistent with his responsibilities and
authorities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
PENDING QUESTIONS
TECHNICAL TRAINING PROGRAMS
Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland brought to the attention of
the committee the vital need for increased short-term training for
-------
960 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
operators of sewage treatment plants. The committee concurs with
Senator Tydings' concern over the availability of adequately trained
technical and professional personnel in the water pollution field.
The Nation's intensified efforts to overcome the pollution problem
create similarly intensified needs for adequate resources of technically
trained and competent personnel in all aspects of water pollution
control. Proper and efficient operation and maintenance of these
plants is the key to the effectiveness of the water pollution control
program. If such operation and maintenance are not provided, we
will have expended our efforts and our substance largely to no
purpose.
[p. 13]
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act presently includes au-
thority in its existing provisions for training purposes. The grants
provided to State water pollution control agencies are available to
cover the costs of training personnel and the Secretary is authorized
to make grants to public and private agencies and institutions and to
individuals for training and demonstration projects. He is authorized
additionally to provide training in technical matters to public agency
personnel and other suitably qualified persons.
There is obviously a greater need to implement and widen the use
of existing authorities. Training courses, both short and long term,
should be inaugurated and conducted for training municipal and in-
dustrial waste treatment plant operators on a regular basis under
these authorities.
Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts provided the commit-
tee with an extensive analysis of the personnel problem prepared
by Dr. N. Bruce Hanes, Director of Environmental Engineering at
Tufts University. Dr. Hanes pointed out that full implementation
of new and growing water pollution programs may be impeded due
to a lack of available manpower equipped with the necessary skills.
Senator Kennedy also provided the committee with correspondence
between himself and the Secretary of Labor, W. Willard Wirtz, in
which the Senator, among other things, suggested the desirability of
convening "a national conference to determine the needs of skilled
workers created by recent legislation designed to improve our natural
environment, and whether our Federal programs are adequately
oriented to meet the needs."
The committee believes Senator Kennedy's suggestion to be of the
highest order of importance and urges that—
(1) The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration re-
port to the Congress on the question of skilled manpower for
operation of pollution control programs;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 961
(2) That such national conference as recommended by the
Senator be called at the earliest date consistent with orderly
procedure; and
(3) That the Department of Labor and the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare reexamine existing manpower
development programs and other education programs to deter-
mine the extent to which those programs may be used for the
training of needed skilled personnel.
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 facilities.
This is not a matter over which the Senate Public Works Committee
has jurisdiction but it affects the overall effort to meet water pol-
lution control and abatement needs. This committee strongly
recommends that the appropriate congressional committees give
consideration to tax relief proposals for industrial 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, nonremunerative. 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.
[p. 14]
The committee suggests that there are several alternative methods of
aiding 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 Ribi-
coff of Connecticut, in legislation cosponsored by, among others, the
chairman of the subcommittee, 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 having great
pollution problems and marginal economic efficiency.
The committee has recommended greater emphasis on joint
municipal-industrial treatment systems operated by public agencies.
Such systems are eligible for assistance under the sewage treatment
grant program.
-------
962 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The proposal by the American Paper Institute for specific Federal
grants to municipalities to construct industrial waste treatment fa-
cilities would provide an effective means of meeting the needs of
both the marginal industries as well as the profitable industries. Such
a Federal grant approach would not be inconsistent with public
policy because the grant would, in effect, be made to a unit of govern-
ment. This approach differs from that proposed by Senators Cooper
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 financing industrial pollution control, the committee re-
iterates its strong recommendation that the appropriate committees
consider tax relief legislation.
RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION
During its hearings on S. 2947 and other legislation relating to
water pollution control, the committee heard testimony regarding
radioactive pollution in the Colorado River Basin from exposed
uranium mill tailings piles, slag heaps resulting from the uranium
milling process.
Officials of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, and the Colorado River Water
Quality Control Project were asked to discuss a report by FWPCA
entitled "Disposition and Control of Uranium Mill Tailings Piles in
the Colorado River Basin."
The primary area of inquiry was as to whether there is immediate
or long-term hazard associated with water erosion of the tailings
piles. The report established that, in the past, at a period of peak
release of contaminants from operating mills, there was a serious
problem with regard to the presence of concentrations of radium 226
in the Animas and San Miguel Rivers.
Fish taken from the San Miguel River in 1956 and 1957 were as
much as 98 times more radioactive than natural background levels,
and bottom fauna from the Animas River in 1961 contained radium
contaminations as much as 30 times greater than normal.
Due to an effective control program instituted by the FWPCA and
the State of Colorado, the levels of radioactivity in surface waters
[p. 15]
of the Colorado River Basin are reported to have been reduced to the
point where the FWPCA considers the radium levels to be one-third
of the maximum permissible levels for drinking water.
Both the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the
Atomic Energy Commission agreed that instances such as the San
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 963
Miguel and Animas Rivers situations were a result of incomplete
control of waste discharges from operating mills. The committee,
however, was concerned by information in the report which indicated
that the problem in the Colorado River Basin still remains due to
inadequate control of the exposed tailings piles.
Water and wind erosion of the tailings piles result in deposits of
radium 226 (half life, 1,620 years) and thorium 230 (half life, 80,000
years) in the river bottom. Also, the potential of concentration of
radioactive materials in crops irrigated by Colorado River water and
in people who consume water from the river concerned the committee.
There was general disagreement between FWPCA and the AEC as
to the nature of the hazard from the piles. Mr. Murray Stein, chief
enforcement officer for FWPCA, indicated that the Water Pollution
Control Administration was not satisfied that long-term hazard did
not exist and noted that the Administration recommended stabiliza-
tion of the piles. Dr. Peter Morris of the Atomic Ensrgy Commission
stated: "I do not think the data available at this time support a
conclusion that there is long-term radiological hazard."
The committee is not convinced that the radioactive hazard can be
passed off so easily and urges the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration move expeditiously to establish responsibility for con-
trol of the tailings piles, and provide the committee with adequate
assurance that any control measures applied will be sufficient to
achieve adequate long-term protection of the health of the people
who live within the area, or depend upon the use, of the Colorado
River.
The committee feels that the Atomic Energy Commission has not
satisfactorily discharged its responsibilities toward the prevention of
radioactive pollution in the Colorado River Basin. The AEC has a
clear obligation to protect the public from radioactive hazards gen-
erated by activities it licenses, regardless of the traditional regulation
of radium by the States. Further, through its licensing procedures
and the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, the AEC has the authority
necessary to control radioactive releases from tailings piles of oper-
ating and closed mills. In view of the concern of the FWPCA and
the Public Health Service, the committee believes the AEC has not
fulfilled its regulatory function or exercised its authority to prevent
radioactivity from the tailings piles in the Colorado River Basin.
The Counsel for the AEC testified that the AEC could require sta-
bilization of the tailings piles if the pile represented a risk to the public
health and safety. The FWPCA testified that the piles did represent
such a risk. Senator Muskie suggested that the President's Execu-
tive Order 11258, dealing with prevention and control of water
pollution from Federal activities, contained a section which provided
-------
964 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the AEC with more general regulatory authority. This section 1,
subsection (3) states:
Pollution caused by all other operations of the Federal Gov-
ernment such as water resources projects and operations under
Federal loans, grants, and contracts, shall be reduced to the
lowest level practicable.
[p. 16]
This order was issued after the committee urged prompt steps to
abate pollution from Federal installations, and from facilities of
recipients of Federal grants and contract funds.
Although the AEC's counsel offered a legal opinion to the contrary,
the committee feels that this Executive order confers upon the AEC
sufficient regulatory authority to control the pollution from the
uranium mill tailings piles of operating mills under contract to the
Government, and that the AEC can provide direction for those own-
ers of nonoperating mills (which operated under Government con-
tract) to provide adequate control of the tailings piles.
The question of radioactive pollution from uranium mill tailings
in the Colorado River Basin is just one aspect of the problem of dis-
position of radioactive wastes. A more far-reaching and long-range
problem is the potential hazard from release of radioactivity associ-
ated with nuclear powerplants.
Dr. Malcolm L. Peterson, in a statement on behalf of the Greater
St. Louis Citizens' Committee for Nuclear Information, told the
committee:
Because nuclear powerplants do not pollute the air with smoke,
nor produce any of the ingredients of photochemical smog, they
are regarded as "clean," but it should not be forgotten that radio-
activity, though invisible, is also a contaminant.
The committee is concerned that standards promulgated relative
to industrial exposure to radioactivity may not be applicable to the
general population. The statistical average-man concept of radia-
tion exposure standards does not recognize persons in the popula-
tion who may adversely react to lower levels of exposure or to those
persons who, for medical and other reasons, may have to be exposed
to greater than natural background levels of radioactivity.
The Federal Radiation Council and other groups concerned with
limits of exposure to radioactivity have suggested that there can be
no single permissible or acceptable level of exposure without regard
to the reason for permitting the exposure; that the general practice
should be to reduce exposure to radiation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 965
Senator E. L. (Bob) Bartlett of Alaska, in a speech before the
Senate on June 23, 1966, noted that:
The National Advisory Committee for Radiation in its report
to the Surgeon General has proposed a greatly increased Federal
effort to strengthen our research and training programs in radi-
ology, to strengthen our laboratory and statistical resources and
to develop standards of acceptable radiation exposure that make
clear "the balance of profit and risk" involved in all matters per-
taining to the human application of ionizing radiation.
Senator Bartlett went on to say:
The present guidelines are drawn without adequate knowledge
and without adequate consultation with representatives of the
life sciences. Until now the safety standards have been adminis-
tered largely by the men who make the radiation. They are
hardly unbiased.
[p.17]
Further, an ad hoc committee of the National Committee on Radia-
tion Protection has stated:
Because of our present limited information, an accurate esti-
mate of the hazard and the benefits of a specific level of radiation
is not possible. Therefore, pending more precise information, we
recommend that the population permissible dose for manmade
radiation be based on the average natural background level.
Because of the potential long-term genetic effects associated with
any level of radioactive exposure, it is not possible to demonstrate at
this time that present AEC standards are adequate. The question of
radioactive exposure is so important and the existing knowledge is
sufficiently sparse that the committee must accept the concept that
"the population permissible dose for manmade radiation be based on
the average natural background level."
It is the committee's intent, therefore, to observe closely those
peaceful uses of nuclear energy which may have the effect of increas-
ing human exposure to radiation. The committee intends to explore
fully the question of disposition of radioactive wastes from all sources
and has requested an initial report on what is being done to develop
information necessary to assure protection of the public health from
the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and the Division of
Radiological Health. It is the committee's intention, if the information
received so justifies, to hold extensive hearings into the question of
disposition of radioactive wastes from nuclear powerplants and other
sources.
-------
966 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Finally, the committee wishes to commend Senator E. L. (Bob)
Bartlett of Alaska for the extensive information he has provided the
committee relating to radioactive pollution. Senator Bartlett has
spoken out on this subject on numerous occasions both on and off
the Senate floor. The committee expects to rely on his expertise on
this subject at such time as additional hearings are scheduled.
[p. 18]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, 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):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.)
TITLE I—WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
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 Administra-
tion 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 Administra-
tion in administering this Act and (2) the administration of all other
functions of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare related
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 967
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
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Administration"). The
head of the Administration shall be appointed, and his compensation
[p. 19]
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 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
Administration's functions and may for that purpose use funds avail-
able 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
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 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
-------
968 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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.
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; en-
courage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform
State laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollution;
and
[p. 20]
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.
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,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 969
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—
(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 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
promising 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 solution
of such problem.
[p. 21]
(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-
-------
970 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) (1) 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.
[ (2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to
be appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and
the total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed
$25,000,000.]
(2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and $30,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and each fiscal yea.r there-
after, and sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain fiald 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.
Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near 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 evalua-
tion of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal
practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 971
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 Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources Coun-
cil, and with other appropriate Federal, State, interstate, or local
public bodies
[p. 22]
and private organizations, institutions, and individuals, conduct 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, navigation, 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 in-
vestigations and surveys to supplement existing information in repre-
sentative 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 re-
port 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 annum for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987, and the two suc-
ceeding fiscal years, to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
(5) The term "estuarine zones" means an environmental system
consisting of an estuary and those transitional areas which are con-
-------
972 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sistently 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.
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.
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 assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and
sewage or other wastes, and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith. The Secretary is authorized
to provide for the conduct of research and demonstrations relating to
new or improved methods of controlling the discharge into any
waters
[p. 23]
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from
sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage
or other wastes, by contract with public or private agencies and
institutions and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and
3709 of the Revised Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 per centum
of the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for
any fiscal year may be expended under authority of this sentence
during such fiscal year.
[ (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
an 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 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; (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 of a new or
improved method of controlling the discharge into any water of un-
treated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other
wastes.
[ (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 973
year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the next three succeeding
fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purposes of
this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until ex-
pended. No grant or contract shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized by
this section in any one fiscal year.]
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 sew-
age 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 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. The Secretary is authorized to provide for the conduct of
research and demonstrations relating to the purpose set forth in clause
(1) or (2) by contract with public or private agencies and institu-
tions and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709
of the Revised Statutes; except that not to exceed 25 per centum of
the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for any
fiscal year may be expended under authority of this sentence during
such fiscal year.
(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;
(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
[p. 24]
(3) IVo 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).
(c) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated—
-------
974 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(1) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of
the next three succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (1) of subsection
(a), including contracts pursuant to sucfi subsection for such.
purpose; and
(2) for the fiscal year ending June 30,1967, and for each of the
next four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $25,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a), including contracts pursuant to such subsection for such
purpose.
Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended. No
grant or contract for the purpose of either such clause (1) or (2)
shall be made for any project in any fiscal year in an amount exceed-
ing 12Vz per centum of the total amount authorized for the purpose
of such clause in such fiscal year.
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,
[and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000] 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,
1972, $10,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies to
assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
(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 975
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
[p. 25]
cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations
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 pol-
lution 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 fol-
lowed 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
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
-------
976 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 in any place in the United States. The findings of fact by the
Sec-
[p. 26]
retary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be
conclusive; 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 SSVs 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 977
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
subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such
period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or
the interstate 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
[p. 27]
was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to
such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such sub-
section. 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
-------
978 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 comprehen-
sive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) except as otherwise
provided in this clause, 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, or in an amount exceeding
$1,200,000, whichever is the smaller: Provided further, That, in the
case of a project which will serve more than one municipality (A) the
Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines to ba reasonable and
equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served by such project
its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such project, and shall
then apply the limitations provided in this clause (2) to each such
share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made under this section with
respect to each such share, and the total of all the amounts so deter-
mined or $4,800,000, whichever is the smaller, shall be the maximum
amount of the grant which may be made under this section on account
of such project, and (B) for the purpose of the limitation in the last
sentence of subsection (d), the share of each municipality so deter-
mined shall be regarded as a grant for the construction of treatment
works; (3) 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; (4) 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 certi-
fied by the 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; and (5) no grant shall be made under this
section for any project in any State in an amount exceeding $250,000
until a grant has been made thereunder for each project in such
State (A) for which an application was filed with the appropriate
State water pollution control agency prior to one year after the date
of enactment of this clause and (B) which the Secretary determines
met the requirements of this section and regulations thereunder as in
effect prior to the date of enactment of this clause. The limitations
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 979
of $1,200,000 and $4,800,000 imposed by clause (2) of this subsection
shall not apply in the case of grants made under this section from
[p. 28]
funds allocated under the third sentence of subsection (c) of this
section if the State agrees to match equally all Federal grants made
from such allocation for projects in such State.]
(6) 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 reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary:
Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Pro-
vided further, That, in the case of a project which will serve more
than one municipality, the Secretary shall, on such basis as he de-
termines to be reasonable and equitable, allocate to each municipality
to be served by such project Us share of the estimated reasonable cost
of such project; (3) 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 (4) 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 State water pollution control agency as en-
titled to priority over other eligible projects on the basis of financial
as well as water pollution control needs.
(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 neces-
sity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or pro-
posed 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 appropriated
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 accordance
-------
980 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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-
[p. 29]
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: Provided, however, 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 Fed-
eral 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 payments with respect to proj-
ects in such State which have been approved under this [section.]
section, except that in the case of any project on which construction
was initiated in such State after June 30, 1986, and which meets the
requirements for assistance under this section but was constructed
without such assistance, such allotments for any fiscal year ending
prior to July 1,1972, shall also be available for payments in reimburse-
ment of State or local funds used for such project prior to July 1,1972,
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,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 981
and which was constructed with assistance pursuant to this section
but the amount of such assistance was a lesser per centum of the cost
oj 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, 1972, to the
extent that assistance could have been provided under this section if
adequate funds had been available. 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 par 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 bs 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, [and $150,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967. 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]
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $600,000,000 for
[p. 30]
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, $1,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, $1,500,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and
$1,500,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972. Sums so
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
(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-
-------
982 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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, remod-
eling, 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] total construction costs 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 compre-
hensive plan developed or in process of development for such metro-
politan area. For the purposes of this subsection, the term
"metropolitan area" means either (1) a standard metropolitan sta-
tistical 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.
(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 local-
ity, 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 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).
(h) (1) Upon application the Secretary may make a loan to any
State, municipality., or inter-municipal or interstate agency to which he
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 983
has agreed to make a grant pursuant to this section, for the purpose of
helping
[p. 31]
to finance its share of the cost of construction for which such grant
is to be made. Any such loan shall be made only (A) after the
Secretary determines that such State, municipality, or agency has
made satisfactory provision for assuring proper and efficient operation
and maintenance of the treatment works being constructed after com-
pletion of such construction, and (B) if such State, municipality, or
agency shows it is unable to secure such funds from non-Federal
sources upon terms and conditions which the Secretary determines
to be reasonable and consistent with the purposes of this section.
Loans pursuant to this subsection shall bear interest at a rate which
the Secretary determines to be adequate to cover the costs of the
funds to the Treasury as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
taking into consideration the current average yields of outstanding
marketable obligations of the United States having maturities com-
parable to the maturities of loans made pursuant to this subsection.
(2) Loans pursuant to this subsection shall mature within such pe-
riod as may be determined by the Secretary to be appropriate but not
exceeding forty years.
(3) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection but not
to exceed a total of $250,000,000. No loan or loans pursuant to this
subsection with respect to any one project shall exceed an amount
equal to 10 per centum of such total.
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,
having 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.
(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
-------
984 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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
[p. 32]
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 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.
(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 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 985
(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
accordance with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines
that such State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3)
of this subsection, 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-
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.
[p. 33]
(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 establish-
ing such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appro-
priate 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 pro-
mulgated 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 Sec-
retary. Each State which would be affected by such standards shall
be given an opportunity to select one member of the Hearing Board.
-------
986 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 or otherwise engaged
on the work of such Hearing Board, shall be entitled to receive com-
pensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per
diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes or regu-
lar 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 pollution control agencies, interstate agencies
and municipalities involved 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 standards as published or promulgated by the
Secretary, the standards shall take effect on receipt by the Secretary
of the Hearing Board's recommendations. If the Hearing Board
recommends modifications in the standards as published or promul-
gated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall promulgate revised regu-
lations 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 tribu-
taries 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 authorized by
this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators and other in-
terested parties of the violation of such standards. In any suit
brought under the provisions of this subsection the court shall
receive in evidence a
[p. 34]
transcript of the proceedings of the conference and hearing provided
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 987
for in this subsection, together with the recommendations of the
conference and Hearing Board and the recommendations and stan-
dards 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 de-
termination of all other issues relating to the alleged violation. The
court, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the phys-
ical 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 pollu-
tion of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons
in a State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (caus-
ing or contributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notifica-
tion thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate
agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate and shall call promptly a conference of such agency
or agencies and of the State water pollution control agency and inter-
state 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 con-
trol 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 legiti-
mate 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
-------
988 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
referred to in subsection (a) and endangering the health or welfare
of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge or dis-
charges originate is occurring; or he finds that substantial economic
injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish prod-
ucts in interstate commerce because of pollution referred to in
subsection (a) and action of Federal, State, or local authorities.
(2) Wherever 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
[p.35]
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 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 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 rep-
resentative 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 provision of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between
Canada and the United States relative to the control and abatement
of water pollution in waters covered by that treaty.
[(2)] (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 per-
son contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportu-
nity 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.
[(3)] (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-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 989
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 pol-
lution 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) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the Sec-
retary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollution
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 dis-
charges 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
[p. 36]
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. 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 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 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.
-------
990 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(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
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 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 sub-
section (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 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
[p. 37]
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to
State law.
(Jc) (1) In connection with any conference called under this section
the Secretary is authorized to require any person whose alleged
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 991
activities result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollu-
tion, or whose activities may affect the quality of the waters involved
in such conference, 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. After such con-
ference has been held, the Secretary shall require such additional
reports to the extent recommended by such conference. Such report
shall be made under oath or otherwise, as the Secretary may pre-
scribe, 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.
(2) If any person required to file any report under 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
oj $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: Provided,
That 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.
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
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 ba effected by any such discharges shall also
-------
992 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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.
[p. 38]
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
connection with which such assistance is given or used, and the
amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking sup-
plied 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
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. 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 com-
pact 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 993
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 appur-
tenances, 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 pursu-
ant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage,
industrial wastes, or other wastes.
[p. 39]
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 14. 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 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 construc-
tion, 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
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.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 16. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act".
COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY
Sec. 17. In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and to fur-
nish the Congress with the information necessary for authorization
of appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1972, the
Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control agencies
-------
994 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 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 begin-
ning July 1,1968, to the Congress no later than January 10,1968, such
study to be updated each year thereafter.
STUDY OF POLLUTION FROM BOATS AND VESSELS
Sec. 18. (a) For the purpose of protecting the public health and
welfare, the Secretary, 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, shall conduct a study of the extent of pollu-
tion from boats and vessels on such part of the Great Lakes as is under
the jurisdiction of the United States, in harbors or ports of such lakes
under such jurisdiction and on other navigable waters of the United
States, and shall report the results of such study, together with rec-
ommendations for an effective program to control the dumping of
refuse and the discharge of waste from boats and vessels on such
waters, to the Congress no later than July 1, 1967.
(b) The Secretary shall appoint a technical committee to meet at
his discretion and advise in the formulation of recommendations
pursuant to
[p. 40]
this section. Such committee shall be composed of representatives
of the Departments of the Interior, Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, the Army, and Commerce, the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, owners and operators of Great Lakes
vessels, and such other persons as the Secretary may determine.
Members of such technical committee who are not regular full-time
employees of the United States shall, while attending meetings of
such committee or otherwise engaged on business of such committee,
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary,
but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and, while
so serving 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 section 5 of the Administrative Expenses
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 995
Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
(c) For the purposes of this section the term—
(1) "Waste" includes human toilet waste, wash and laundry
waste, and kitchen and galley waste; and
(2) "refuse" includes garbage, dunnage, and other trash.
TITLE II—CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION PROGRAM
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the "Clean Rivers Restoration
Act of 1966".
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Sec. 202. It is the purpose of this title to authorize pollution control
and abatement programs designed to reclaim, restore, and maintain
the natural waters of the Nation through the preparation and devel-
opment of comprehensive river basin pollution control and abatement
plans and through the establishmsnt of economic incentives to encour-
age waste treatment consistent with water quality standards effected
as a result of section 10 (c) of this Act.
PLANNING AGENCIES
Sec. 203. In furtherance of the purposes of this title, the Secretary
shall, at the request of the Governor or Governors of one or more
States, designate a planning agency which provides for adequate rep-
resentation of appropriate Federal, State, interstate, local, or when
appropriate, international interests in the river basin or portion
thereof involved and which is capable of developing an effective,
comprehensive water quality control and abatement plan that is part
of or consistent with a comprehensive river basin water resources
plan.
COMPREHENSIVE RIVER BASIN PLANS
Sec. 204. Each planning agency designated pursuant to section
203 of this title shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and
abatement plan which is part of or consistent with a comprehensive
river basin water resources plan and which—
(1) is consistent with any water quality standards established
for interstate waters within the river basin pursuant to section
10 (c) of this Act;
(2) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems as
will provide the most effective and economical means of collection,
[p. 41]
-------
996 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
storage, treatment, and purification of wastes and provides means
to encourage both municipal and industrial use of such works and
systems; and
(3) provides for maintenance and improvement of water qual-
ity standards within the basin or portion thereof and includes
proposed methods of adequately financing those facilities as may
be necessary to implement the plan.
SUBMISSION OF PLAN
Sec. 205. Upon completion of a proposed comprehensive pollution
control and abatement plan or portion thereof, each planning agency
shall transmit the plan to the Governor of each State, each interstate
agency, international commission, and each local agency covered by
the plan or portion thereof. Each such Governor, agency, or commis-
sion shall have sixty days from, the date of the receipt of the proposed
plan to submit views, comments, and recommendations. The planning
agency shall consider such views, comments, and recommendations
and may make appropriate changes or modifications in the proposed
plan. The planning agency shall then submit the proposed plan to
the Secretary together with the views, comments, and recommenda-
tions of each such Governor, agency, or commission.
REVIEW WITHIN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Sec. 206. (a) Upon receipt of a proposed comprehensive pollution
control and abatement plan or portion thereof from a planning agency,
the Secretary shall transmit it to the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the
Water Resources Council, and, when appropriate, the Secretary of
State, for review.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development, the Water Resources Council,
and the Secretary of State, shall notify the Secretary of the Interior,
within sixty days, of the results of their review.
(c) The Secretary shall review the plan or portion thereof and the
recommendations received under subsection (b) and under section
205, and, if he determines that the plan or portion thereof adequately
and effectively complies with section 204 of this Act, he shall approve
the plan or portion thereof.
GRANT PROGRAM FOR TREATMENT WORKS
Sec. 207. After designation of an appropriate planning agency for
any river basin or portion thereof, the Secretary may accept applica-
tions from and make grants to local, State, or interstate agencies from
such funds as may be appropriated pursuant to section 8 of this Act to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 997
assist in financing construction of treatment works within such river
basin or portion thereof subject to the following limitations:
(1) the amount of the grant shall not exceed 50 per centum of
the estimated reasonable construction costs of such treatment
works;
(2) no application for a grant shall be approved until the Sec-
retary determines that the proposed project (a) is consistent with
and carries out the purpose of this title, (b) will be properly and
efficiently operated and maintained, (c) is designed so that an ade-
[p. 42]
quate capacity will be available to serve the reasonably fore-
seeable growth need of the area, (d) when located, in whole or in
part, in urbanized areas, meets any requirements with respect to
planning and programing as have been prescribed by the Secre-
tary of Housing and Urban Development with respect to water
and sewer projects under title VII of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965, and (e) provides, when appropriate,
for joint waste treatment;
(3) no grants shall be available to assist in financing the con-
struction of any such works which are receiving a Federal grant
under other provisions of law, except the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965 or title I of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965;
(4) no application for a grant shall be approved unless the
Governor of the State in which the project is located provides
satisfactory assurance that statewide water quality standards
consistent with section 10 (c) of this Act are in effect or will be
established in such State;
(5) no application for a grant shall be approved unless the
State in which the project is located agrees to provide not less
than 30 per centum of the estimated total project cost; and
(6) no application for a grant shall be approved for any project
in such river basin or portion thereof after three years following
the date of designation of such planning agency unless such proj-
ect is in conformance with a plan approved pursuant to section
206 (c).
LABOR STANDARDS
Sec. 208. 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 section
207 shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the
same type of work on similar construction in the locality, as deter-
-------
998 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mined 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. 276a—276a-5). The Secretary of Labor shall have,
with respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection, the
authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered
14, 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).
APPROVAL OF GRANTS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
Sec. 209. After the Secretary approves a comprehensive pollution
control and abatement plan or portion thereof for a river basin or
portion thereof, an application for a grant to assist in financing the
construction of treatment works in such basin or portion thereof made
under any other provision of law shall not be approved by the head
of any other Federal agency, by the Appalachian Regional Commis-
sion or other regional commissions established pursuant to the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 unless it substantially
conforms, in the judgment of the Secretary, to such plan.
AUTHORIZATION OF PLANNING EXPENSES
Sec. 210. (a) In carrying out the provisions of section 204 of this
Act, the Secretary is authorized to pay such expenses of each planning
agency as are necessary to implement formulation of the plan. Each
[p. 43]
planning agency shall prepare a budget annually and transmit it to the
Secretary.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, which sums shall
be available until expended.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 211. For the purposes of this title—
(1) the term "planning agency" includes, but is not limited to,
interstate agencies, or commissions established by or pursuant
to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress;
(2) the term "local, State, or interstate agencies" includes
agencies of States, municipalities, and other political subdivisions
of a State, public corporate bodies, public agencies and instru-
mentalities of one or more States, Indian tribes, conservancy
districts, interstate agencies, or commissions established by or
pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress;
(3) the term "construction" includes preliminary planning to
determine the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment
works, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 999
investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working draw-
ings, specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the
construction of treatment works; and the erection, building,
acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works; and the inspection and supervision of the
construction of treatment works; and
(4) the term "river basin" includes, but is not limited to, land
areas drained by a river and its tributaries, streams, coastal
waters, estuaries, bays, and lakes.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
Sec. 212. Nothing in this title shall be construed to displace, super-
sede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or
responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of
two or more States, or two or more States and the Federal Govern-
ment or to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the Inter-
national Joint Commission, United States and Canada, the Permanent
Engineering Board and the United States operating entity or entities
established pursuant to the Columbia River Basin Treaty; signed at
Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International Boundary and
Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899
(30 Stat. 1152; 33 U.S.C. 407)
SEC. 13. That it shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit,
or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited
either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any
kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill
of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever
other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom
in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States, or into
any tributary of any navigable water from which the same shall float
or be
[p. 44]
washed into such navigable water; and it shall not be lawful to
deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to bs deposited material of any
kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on the bank
of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same shall bs
liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or
high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation
shall or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing herein
-------
1000 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
contained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the operations in con-
nection with, the improvement of navigable waters or construction of
public works, considered necessary and proper by the United States
officers supervising such improvement or public work: And provided
further, That the Secretary of War, whenever in the judgment of the
Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be injured
thereby, and whenever the Secretary of the Interior determines that
it is consistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), may permit the deposit of any
material above mentioned in navigable waters, within limits to be
denned and under conditions to be prescribed by him, provided appli-
cation is made to him prior to depositing such material; and whenever
any permit is so granted the conditions thereof shall be strictly
complied with, and any violation thereof shall be unlawful.
OIL POLLUTION ACT OP 1924
(43 Stat. 604; 33 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, [That this Act may
be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act, 1924."
[SEC. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
[ (a) The term "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including
fuel oil, oil sludge, and oil refuse;
[ (b) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, corpora-
tion, or association; any owner, master, officer, or employee of a vessel;
and any officer, agent, or employee of the United States;
[(c) The term "coastal navigable waters of the United States"
means all portions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, and all inland waters navigable in fact in which the
tide ebbs and flows;
[ (d) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of War.
[SEC. 3. That, except in case of emergency imperiling life or prop-
erty, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as
otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as
hereinafter authorized, it shall be unlawful for any person to dis-
charge, or suffer, or permit the discharge of oil by any method, means,
or manner into or upon the coastal navigable waters of the United
States from any vessel using oil as fuel for the generation of propulsion
power, or any vessel carrying or having oil thereon in excess of that
necessary for its lubricating requirements and such as may be
required under the laws of the United States and the rules and regula-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1001
tions prescribed thereunder. The Secretary is authorized and impow-
ered to prescribe regulations permitting the discharge of oil from
vessels in such quanti-
[p. 45]
ties, under such conditions, and at such times and places as in his
opinion will not be deleterious to health or sea food, or a menace to
navigation, or dangerous to persons or property engaged in commerce
on such waters, and for the loading, handling, and unloading of oil.
[SEC. 4. That any person who violates section 3 of this Act, or any
regulation prescribed in pursuance thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500
nor less than $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year nor
less than thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each
offense. And any vessel (other than a vessel owned and operated by
the United States) from which oil is discharged in violation of section
3 of this Act, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance thereof, shall
be liable for the pecuniary penalty specified in this section, and clear-
ance of such vessel from a port of the United States may be withheld
until the penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien on
such vessel which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in
the district court of the United States for any district within which
the vessel may be.
[SEC. 5. A board of local inspectors of vessels may, subject to the
provisions of section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, and of the Act
entitled "An Act to provide for appeals from decisions of local inspec-
tors of vessels, and for other purposes," approved June 10, 1918,
suspend or revoke a license issued by any such board to the master
or other licensed officer of any vessel found violating the provisions
of section 3 of this Act.
[SEC. 6. That no penalty, or the withholding of clearance, or the
suspension or revocation of licenses, provided for herein, shall be
enforced for any violation of this Act occurring within three months
after its passage.
[SEC. 7. That in the administration of this Act the Secretary may
make use of the organization, equipment, and agencies, including
engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed under his direc-
tion in the improvement of rivers and harbors, and in the enforcement
of existing laws for the preservation and protection of navigable
waters. And for the better enforcement of the provisions of this
Act, the officers and agents of the United States in charge of river and
harbor improvements, and the assistant engineers and inspectors
employed under them by authority of the Secretary, and officers of
the Customs and Coast Guard Service of the United States, shall have
-------
1002 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 said provisions: Provided, That no
person shall be arrested without process for a violation not committed
in the presence of some one of the aforesaid officials: And provided
further, That 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. 8. That this Act shall be in addition to the existing laws for
the preservation and protection of navigable waters and shall not be
construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting the
provisions of those laws.
[p.46]
[SEC. 9. That the Secretary is authorized and directed to make
such investigation as may be necessary to ascertain what polluting
substances are being deposited into the navigable waters of the
United States, or into nonnavigable waters connecting with navigable
waters, to such an extent as to endanger or interfere with navigation
or commerce upon such navigable waters or the fisheries therein;
and with a view to ascertaining the sources of such pollutions and by
what means they are deposited; and the Secretary shall report the
results of his investigation to the Congress not later than two years
after the passage of this Act, together with such recommendations for
remedial legislation as he deems advisable: Provided, That funds
appropriated for examinations, surveys, and contingencies of rivers
and harbors may be applied to paying the cost of this investigation,
and, to adequately provide therefore, the additional sum of not to
exceed $50,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for examina-
tions, surveys, and contingencies of rivers and harbors.]
That this Act may be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act, 1924".
Sec. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
(a) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including fuel
oil, sludge, and oil refuse;
(b) "person" means an individual, company, partnership,
corporation, or association; any owner, operator, master, officer,
or employee of a vessel; any owner, operator, officer, or employee
of a shore installation or terminal facility; and any officer, agent,
or employee of the United States;
(c) "terminal facility" means any pier, wharf, dock, or similar
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1003
structure to which a vessel may be moored or secured, or upon,
within, or contiguous to which equipment and appurtenances
dealing with oil may be located, including, but not limited to,
storage tanks, pipelines, pumps, and oil trucks;
(d) "shore installation" means any building, group of build-
ings, manufacturing or industrial plants, or equipment of any kind
adjacent to the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters, and ad-
joining shorelines of the United States, upon, within, or contigu-
ous to which equipment and appurtenances dealing with oil may
be located, including, but not limited to, storage tanks, pipelines,
pumps, and oil trucks;
(e) "discharge" means any accidental, negligent, or willful
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or other
release of liquid; and
(f) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 3. (a) Except in case of emergency imperiling life or prop-
erty, or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as
otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as
hereinafter authorized, it is unlawful for any person to discharge or
permit the discharge from any boat, vessel, shore installation, or ter-
minal facility of oil by any method, means, or manner into or upon
the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters, and adjoining shorelines
of the United States.
(b) Any person discharging or permitting the discharge of oil from
any boat, vessel, shore installation, or terminal facility into or upon
the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters of the United States shall
remove the same from the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters,
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
[p. 47]
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 coastal, interstate, or
navigable waters, and adjoining shorelines of the United States.
When the oil has been discharged from a boat or vessel, these costs
and expenses shall constitute a lien on such vessel which may be re-
covered in proceedings by libel in rem. When the oil has been dis-
charged from a shore installation or terminal facility, these costs and
expenses may be recovered in proceedings by libel in personam.
(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
-------
1004 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
menace to navigation, or dangerous to persons or property en-
gaged in commerce on coastal, interstate, or navigable waters;
(2) relate to the loading, handling, and unloading of oil on or
contiguous to boats or vessels, shore installations, and terminal
facilities; and
(3) relate to the removal or cost of removal, or both, of oil
from the coastal, interstate, or navigable waters, and adjoining
shoreline 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 op-
erated 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 the 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 the boat or vessel
may be.
(c) The owner or operator of a shore installation or terminal fa-
cility 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 which may
be recovered in proceedings by libel in personam in the district court
of the United States of the district within which the shore installation
or terminal facility is located.
(d) Any person who violates any regulation prescribed under sec-
tion 3 (c) of this Act shall, if there has been no discharge of oil, be lia-
ble for a penalty of not more than $100.
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.
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
preservation and protection of interstate or navigable waters. And
for better enforcement of the provisions of this Act, the officers and
agents of the United States
[P- 48]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1005
in charge of river and harbor improvements, 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
said provisions: Provided, That no person shall be arrested without
process for a violation not committed in the presence of some one of
the aforesaid persons: And provided further, That whenever any ar-
rest 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 interstate or navigable waters and shall not be
construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting the
provisions of such laws.
[p. 49]
1.2j(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.K. REP. No. 2289, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1
CLEAN WATERS RESTORATION ACT OF 1966
OCTOBER 15, 1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 2947]
The committee of conference 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 effective certain programs pursuant to such act, having
-------
1006 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Clean Waters Restoration Act of
1966".
TITLE I
Sec. 101. Section 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
" (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 capa-
ble of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control
and abatement plan for a basin.
" (2) Each, planning agency receiving a grant under this subsec-
tion 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;
[P-1]
" (B) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems
as will provide the most effective and economical means of col-
lection, 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."
TITLE II
Sec. 201. (a) Section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended to read as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1007
"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 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 re-
search and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of
waters by industry inchiding, 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 ap-
propriate 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:
" (1) No grant shall be made under this section in excess of
$1,000,000;
[p. 2]
" (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
-------
1008 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 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 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 succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b)."
(b) Section 5 of such Act is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new subsections:
" (g) (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 es-
tuaries 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, navigation,
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 in-
vestigations and surveys to supplement existing information in repre-
sentative 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—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1009
" (A) an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the eco-
nomic and social well-being of the people of the United States
and of the effects of population 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
[p. 3]
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, 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.
" (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."
(c) (I) Subsection (d) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by striking out " (1)" and by striking out all
of paragraph (2) of such subsection.
(2) The amendment made by this subsection shall take effect July
1, 1967.
Sec. 202. (a) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by striking out "and for each suc-
ceeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968, $5,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "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".
-------
1010 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is further amended by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following:
"including the training of personnel of public agencies."
Sec. 203. (a) Subsection (b) of section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows:
" (b) Federal grants under 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 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 reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary;
(3) no grant shall be made unless the grantee agrees to pay the re-
maining cost; (4) no grant shall be made for any project under this
section until the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Sec-
retary 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 un-
less such project is in conformity with the State water pollution con-
trol 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 finan-
cial as well as water pollution control needs; (6) the percentage lim-
itation of 30 per centum imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall
be increased to a
[P-4]
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 sub-
section (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 in-
creased 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1011
case of interstate waters, and under State law in the case of intrastate
waters.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect July 1,1967.
Sec. 204. The next to the last sentence of subsection (c) of section
8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended by striking
out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma
and the following: "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 such assistance, such allotments for any
fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1971, shall also be available for pay-
ments 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 pur-
suant 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 pur-
suant 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."
Sec. 205. Subsection (d) of section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by striking out "and $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967." and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: "$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."
Sec. 206. Section 10 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as para-
graphs (3) and (4), respectively, and by inserting immediately after
paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
" (2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys, or
studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason to
-------
1012 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this section
which
[p. 5]
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 rep-
resentative 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."
Sec. 207. Section 10 (d) (3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (as redesignated by this Act) is amended by inserting after the
first sentence thereof the following: "In addition, it shall be the re-
sponsibility 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."
Sec. 208. (a) Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
" (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 dis-
charges and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1013
such discharges 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 subsec-
tion 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
oj 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 oj 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 miti-
gate 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."
[p. 6]
(b) Subsection (f) of section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended (1) by striking out " (/)" and inserting in lieu
thereof " (f) (1)", (2) by inserting immediately after the third sen-
tence thereof the following: "It shall be the responsibility of the
Hearing Board to give every person contributing to the alleged pollu-
tion or affected by it an opportunity to make a full statement of his
views to the Hearing Board.", and (3) by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraphs:
"(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 exist-
ing 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
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.
-------
1014 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (3) If any person required to file any report under paragraph (2)
oj 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 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 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."
Sec. 209. Paragraph (f) of section 13 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by striking out the period at the end
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following:
"and an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization."
Sec. 210. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
is amended by renumbering existing section 16 as section 19 and by
adding immediately after section 15 the following new sections:
"Sec. 16. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and to
furnish the Congress with the information necessary for authoriza-
tion of appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1968,
the Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control agen-
cies 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
oj 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
and such comprehensive study of such cost for the five-
[p-7]
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1015
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 dis-
charged, 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
investigation to Congress, together with his recommendations for
any necessary 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."
Sec. 211. (a) The Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 604; 33 U.S.C.
431 et seq.), is amended to read as follows: "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 juel
oil, sludge, and oil refuse;
" (2) 'person' means an individual, company, partnership, cor-
poration, 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 spill-
ing, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, or emptying of oil;
" (4) 'navigable waters of the United States' means all portions
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 imperling life or prop-
erty or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as
-------
1016 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
otherwise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as
hereinafter 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
[p. 8]
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 addi-
tion 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 expenses shall con-
stitute a lien on such boat or vessel which may be recovered in pro-
ceedings by libel in rem.
" (c) The Secretary may prescribe regulations which—
" (T) 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 en-
gaged 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 1017
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 provi-
sions of section 3 of this Act.
"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
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 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,
[p. 9]
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 navigable waters of the United States and shall
not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting
the provisions of such laws."
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect on the thirtieth day which begins after the date of enact-
ment of this Act.
GEO. H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBERT E. JONES,
JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI,
JIM WRIGHT,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
WILLIAM H. HARSHA,
JOHN C. KUNKEL,
Managers on the Part of the House.
-------
1018 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
FRANK E. Moss,
FRED R. HARRIS,
J. CALEB BOGGS,
GEORGE MURPHY,
.Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 10]
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 amendment of the House
to the bill (S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs
pursuant to such act, submit the following statement in explanation
of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recom-
mended in the accompanying conference report:
The House amendment struck out all of the Senate bill after the
enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The committee of conference recommends that the Senate recede
from its disagreement to the amendment of the House with an amend-
ment, which is a substitute for both the text of the Senate bill and the
text of the House amendment, and that the House agree to the same.
Except for conforming clerical and technical changes, the differ-
ences between the House amendment and the substitute agreed to in
conference are noted below.
TITLE I
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Title I of the House amendment amends the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act by adding to it a new title II containing sections 201
through 211 the provisions of which are hereafter set forth.
The purpose of this new title II is stated in section 201 to be the
acceleration of pollution control and abatement programs through
preparation and development of basin pollution control and abate-
ment plans and through the establishment of additional incentives to
encourage waste treatment consistent with quality standards.
Section 202 of the proposed title II authorizes the Governor of a
State to develop a basin plan in the case of intrastate waters and the
Governors of States and appropriate interstate agencies to develop a
basin plan in the case of interstate waters. Certain specific require-
ments for majority approval are established in the case of the Upper
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1019
Colorado River Basin, the Columbia River Basin, and the Hudson
River Basin.
Section 203 of the proposed title II provides for review of the pro-
posed basin plan after its submission to the Secretary of the Interior,
by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, the Water Resources Council and, when appropriate, the Secre-
tary of State. After this review the Secretary of the Interior is
required to approve the plan if he determines that it will adequately
and effectively maintain the waters covered by it at a level of quality
established by the applicable water quality standards.
Section 204 of the proposed title II provides for the transmission
of the plan by the Secretary of the Interior to Congress for its ap-
proval by specific statute.
[p. 11]
Section 205 of the proposed title II authorizes grants to aid in
financing construction of treatment works within a basin after a basin
plan therefor has been approved. The basic amount of the grant is
40 percent, but this can be increased to 50 percent if the State agrees
to pay at least 25 percent of the cost of all projects for which Federal
grants are to be made from the same allocation. A further provision
of this section prohibits duplication of grants, except supplementary
grants under the Appalachia Act or the Economic Development Act.
In addition the section prohibits a grant unless the treatment works
have been approved by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency and certified as entitled to priority over other projects.
Section 206 of the proposed title II prohibits other Federal grants
from being made under any other provision of law once a basin plan
has been approved unless in the judgment of the Secretary the works
for which the grant is to be made conform to the basin plan.
Section 207 of the proposed title II authorizes the Secretary to make
grants of up to 50 percent of the administrative expenses of a plan-
ning agency in preparing a basin plan. In the case of intrastate waters
this planning agency must be an agency of State government. In the
case of interstate waters the planning agency must be either agencies
of State governments or an interstate agency.
Section 208 of the proposed title II authorizes the detail of Federal
employees to assist a State or interstate agency in the preparation of
a basic plan.
Section 209 of the proposed title II specifically provides that the
Tennessee River Valley Authority and the Delaware River Basin
Commission are planning agencies for the purposes of this act and
provides that basin plans prepared by them are to be submitted di-
rectly by them to Congress.
-------
1020 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 210 of the proposed title II makes the provisions of the act,
commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act, applicable to these
grants.
Section 211 of the proposed title II defines the terms "basin" and
"construction" for the purposes of the title.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
The conference substitute proposes a new title I in place of both
the title I contained in the Senate bill and the title I contained in the
House amendment.
Section 101 of title I of the proposed conference substitute amends
section 3 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by adding a
new subsection (c) to that section. Paragraph (1) of this subsection
(c) requires the Secretary to make a grant to pay up to 50 percent of
the administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period of 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 capa-
ble of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control
and abatement plan for a basin. This grant is to be made only upon
request of the Governor of a State, or a majority of the Governors
when more than one State is involved.
Paragraph (2) of this new subsection (c) requires a planning
agency receiving a grant to develop a comprehensive pollution con-
trol and abatement plan for the basin (1) which is consistent with any
appli-
[p. 12]
cable water quality standards established pursuant to current law
within the basin, (2) which recommends such treatment works
and sewer systems as will provide the most effective and economical
means of collecting, storing, treating, and purifying wastes, (3) which
recommends means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of
such works and systems, (4) which recommends maintenance and
improvement of water quality standards within the basin or portion
thereof, and (5) which recommends methods of adequately financing
those facilities necessary to implement the plan.
Paragraph (3) of this subsection (c) defines the term "basin" to
include rivers and their tributaries, streams coastal waters, sounds,
estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof, as well as the lands
drained thereby. This is the same definition of this term as is con-
tained in the House amendment.
It is the intention of the conferees that administrative expenses as
used in this subsection includes planning expenses.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1021
TITLE II
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 202 of the House amendment makes five amendments to
section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The first of
these amendments includes within the scope of the research author-
ized to be carried out by section 5, (1) research with respect to pol-
lution resulting from the discharge of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water,
or both storm waters and sewage or other wastes, and (2) research
into the temporary use of new or improved chemical additives which
provide substantial immediate improvement to existing treatment
processes.
The second of these amendments adds a new subsection (d) to sec-
tion 5 authorizing grants for research and demonstration for preven-
tion of pollution of water by industry, including, but not limited to,
the treatment of industrial wastes. No grant can be made for more
than $1 million nor be more than 70 percent of the cost of the project,
and the project must serve a useful purpose in the development or
demonstration of a method for preventing pollution which has indus-
trywide application.
The third of these amendments would repeal paragraph (2) of sub-
section (d) of the existing law which is a limitation on the appropria-
tions to carry out that subsection of not more than $5 million per year
with an overall limitation of $25 million to carry out the subsection.
The fourth of these amendments adds a new subsection (h) to sec-
tion 5 requiring a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution in
the estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States.
The fifth of these amendments adds a new subsection (i) to section
5 containing an overall limitation on the authorization of appropria-
tions to carry out section 5 of not to exceed $75 million per fiscal
year for fiscal 1967, 1968, and 1969, with a requirement that at least
25 percent of the appropriation for each fiscal year must be expended
in carrying out research on industry pollution as authorized by sub-
section (d).
[P. 13]
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 201 (a) of the conference substitute amends section 6 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize in subsection (a)
thereof the Secretary to make grants to States, municipalities, or
intermunicipal or interstate agencies for the purpose of assisting in
-------
1022 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
developing projects to demonstrate new or improved methods of
controlling the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
or other wastes from sewers carrying storm water or both storm
water and sewage or other wastes, and grants to assist in developing
projects to demonstrate advanced waste treatment and water puri-
fication methods (including temporary use of new or improved chem-
ical 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 shall be subject to the following limitations: (1) the project
must have been approved by the appropriate State water pollution
control agencies and the Secretary, (2) no grant shall be made in an
amount exceeding 75 percent of the estimated reasonable cost of the
project, and (3) no grant shall be made for a project unless it will
serve as a useful demonstration for a purpose set forth in subsec-
tion (a).
Subsection (b) of the proposed new section 6 authorizes the Secre-
tary to make grants for research and demonstration projects for pre-
vention of pollution of water by industry including the treating of
industrial waste. These grants shall be subject to the following limi-
tations: (1) no grant shall be made in excess of $1 million; (2) no
grant shall be made for more than 70 percent of the cost of the project;
and (3) no grant shall be made for any project unless it will serve
a useful purpose in developing or demonstrating a new or improved
method of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollu-
tion by industry, which method must have an industry-wide
application.
Subsection (e) of the proposed new section 6 authorizes for fiscal
years 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969, $20 million per year to carry out
this section. It is the intention of the conferees that these funds shall
first be available for the purposes of section 6 (a) (1) (storm and dual
sewer systems research) and to the extent not needed for such pur-
poses for the other research authorized by this section. For fiscal
years 1967, 1968, and 1969, $20 million per year is authorized for
projects for advanced waste treatment and water purification or new
or improved methods of joint treatment systems, as provided in clause
(2) of subsection (a) of the revised section 6, and $20 million per
fiscal year is authorized for the fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969 for
research on industrial pollution as provided in subsection (b) of the
revised section 6.
Section 201 (b) of the conference substitute amends section 5 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to add a new subsection (g)
requiring a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution including
sedimentation in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the United
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1023
States. This subsection provides for the same study as is contained
in the House amendment. In addition, this section of the conference
substitute adds to such section 5 a new subsection (h) which author-
izes not to exceed $60 million for fiscal year 1968, and $65 million for
fiscal year 1969 to carry out section 5 (other than subsec. (g) which
[p. 14]
contains its own authorization of $1 million per fiscal year through
fiscal year 1969).
Section 201 (c) amends section 5 (d) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act to repeal paragraph (2) thereof which contains a
specific limitation on appropriations for that subsection. This is no
longer necessary in view of the overall limitation provided in the new
subsection (h) of this section.
COST ESTIMATE AND STUDY
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 203 of the House amendment amends section 6 of 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 Water Pollution Control Act, a comprehensive study of
the economic impact on affected units of Government of the cost of
treatment facilities, and a comprehensive analysis of the national
requirements 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 applicable law. The Secretary is required
to submit this estimate and study for the 3-year period beginning
July 1, 1968, to Congress by January 10, 1968, and to update the study
each year thereafter. In addition, the Secretary is required to make
an investigation and study to determine (1) the need for additional
trained State and local personnel to carry out water pollution control
programs and (2) means of using existing Federal training programs
to train such personnel. This report is to be given to the President
and Congress not later than July 1, 1967.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 210 of the conference substitute amends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by adding thereto a new section 16 which would
require the same studies as are required by section 203 of the House
amendment except that the House amendment requires the study for
a 3-year period beginning July 1, 1968, and the conference substitute
requires it for a 5-year period beginning on that date, and the House
amendment requires the study for the purpose of information for
-------
1024 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1967, and the conference substi-
tute requires it with respect to fiscal years beginning after June 30,
1968.
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 204 of the House amendment increases the authorization
for grants for water pollution control programs authorized by section
7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from $5 to $10 million
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and authorizes $10 million for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 202 (a) of the conference substitute increases the authoriza-
tions for grants for water pollution control programs authorized by
[p. 15]
section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from $5 to $10
million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and authorizes $10
million per fiscal year for each subsequent fiscal year to and including
fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
In addition, subsection (b) of section 202 of the conference substi-
tute amends section 7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to include specifically the training of personnel of public agencies as
one of the purposes for which grants authorized by that section may
be used.
LIMITATION ON GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 205 of the House amendment amends subsection (b) of
section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution and Control Act by increasing
the existing dollar limitations on construction grants from $1.2 million
and $4.8 million to $2.4 million and $9.6 million, respectively. It
makes a conforming amendment to this subsection by striking out
clause (2) (B) which is required as a result of the amendment made
to subsection (d) of section 8 by section 206 of the House amendment.
It further amends subsection (b) of section 8 by providing that the
30-percent limitation on construction grants shall be increased to 40
percent and the dollar limitation be made inapplicable in the case
of a specific allocation if the State agrees to pay at least 30 percent of
the estimated reasonable cost of all projects for which Federal grants
are made from that allocation. These amendments are to take effect
July 1,1966.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1025
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 203 of the conference substitute amends section 8 (b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that Federal grants
under section 8 shall be subject to the following limitations: No
grant shall be made (1) unless the project is approved by appropriate
State water pollution control agencies and by the Secretary and is
included in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this
act (this requirement is contained in existing law); (2) in an amount
exceeding 30 percent of the estimated reasonable cost of the project
as determined by the Secretary (the dollar limitations in existing law
are deleted); (3) unless the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost
(this is a provision of existing law); (4) until the applicant has made
provision for assuring proper operation and maintenance of the
treatment works after construction (this is a condition of existing
law); and (5) unless the project conforms to the State plan submitted
in accordance with section 7 and has been certified by the State water
pollution control agency as entitled to priority over other eligible
projects (this provision is the same as existing law). The 30-percent
limitation imposed by clause (2) shall be increased to a maximum of
40 percent in the case of grants made from funds allocated to a State
if the State agrees to pay not less than 30 percent of the estimated
reasonable cost of all projects for which Federal grants are to be made
from that allocation. The 30-percent limitation shall be increased to
a maximum of 50 percent in the case of grants made from funds allo-
cated to the State if the State agrees to pay not less than 25 percent
of the estimated reasonable cost of all projects for which Federal
grants are to be made from that allocation and if enforceable water
[p. 16]
quality standards have been established for the waters into which the
project discharges, in accordance with section 10 (c) of the act in the
case of interstate waters, and under State law in the case of intrastate
waters.
The conferees agree that the adequacy of enforceable water quality
standards established by the State for intrastate waters shall not be
subject to review by the Secretary.
The amendment made to section 8 (b) by section 204 of the
conference substitute is to take effect July 1, 1967.
AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 206 of the House amendment amends subsection (d) of
section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by striking out
-------
1026 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the requirement that at least 50 percent of the first $100 million
appropriated for fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall
be used for grants in municipalities of 125,000 population or under.
This section further amends subsection (d) of section 8 by authorizing
$300 million for construction grants for fiscal year 1968, $400 million
for fiscal year 1969, $650 million for fiscal year 1970, and $950 million
for fiscal year 1971.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 205 of the conference substitute retains the requirement in
section 8 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that at least
50 percent of the first $100 million appropriated for fiscal years be-
ginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used for grants in municipali-
ties of 125,000 population or under. Section 8(d) is amended to
authorize $450 million for construction grants for fiscal 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
authorized for this purpose in the House amendment for 4 fiscal
years and a decrease of $2,450 million under the total amount so
authorized in the Senate bill for 5 fiscal years.
REIMBURSEMENT
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 207 of the House amendment adds a new subsection (h)
to section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This new
subsection (h) provides that if before construction of a treatment
works the Secretary approves the project and the State, local, or
interstate agency thereafter constructs it and submits an application
approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency
for a grant, the Secretary upon his approval of the application is au-
thorized to make a grant for such project to be paid from future
appropriations. No such grant shall be made unless all of the provi-
sions of this act are complied with to the same extent and with the
same effect as though this were a grant for future construction and no
such grant shall be made in an amount exceeding that which would
otherwise be made under this section for future construction of the
project. Neither
[p. 17]
approval of the project by the Secretary nor the making of a grant
to be paid from future appropriations is to be construed to constitute
a commitment or obligation of the United States to provide the funds
to make or pay any grant. The application of this provision is made
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1027
retroactive to any project the construction of which is initiated after
June 30,1966.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 204 of the conference substitute 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 appropriate State water pollution control
agency and which the Secretary finds meets the requirements of sec-
tion 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 reimburse-
ment 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 construction 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 construction than was allowable pursuant to
section 8, such allotments shall also be available for payments and
reimbursement 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 requirements of this
section nor any other provision of section 8 (c) is to be construed to
constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States to provide
funds or to make or to pay any grant for such project.
In the case of projects commenced after June 30, 1966, which were
constructed with assistance pursuant to section 8 but which assistance
was a lesser percent of the cost than allowable pursuant 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 conference substitute.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 208 of the House amendment amends subsection (f) of
section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require the
hearing board to give every person contributing to the alleged pollu-
tion or affected by it an opportunity to make a full statement of his
-------
1028 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
views to the board. In addition, this subsection is amended to pro-
vide that in connection with any hearing the Secretary is authorized
to require any person whose alleged activities result in discharges
causing or contributing to water pollution to file a report furnishing
such information as may reasonably be required as to the character,
kind, and quality of the discharges and the use of facilities or other
[p. 18]
means to prevent or reduce such discharges by the person filing the
report. No person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes. Failure to file a report after 30 days' notice shall be
punishable by a civil penalty of $100 per day.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 207 of the conference substitute amends section 10 (d) (3) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as redesignated) to provide
that 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. There was no comparable provision in the House
amendment.
It is the understanding of the conferees that the chairman of a
conference called in connection with water pollution control or abate-
ment may require the statements of the persons contributing to or
affected by the alleged pollution to be filed with the conference in
writing rather than being given orally in every instance.
Section 208 of the conference substitute amends section 10 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to add a new subsection (k)
to that section. Paragraph (1) of this new subsection (k) provides
that at the request of a majority of the conferees in any conference
called under section 10 the Secretary is authorized to request any
person whose alleged activities result in discharges causing or contrib-
uting to water pollution, to file with him a report (in a form prescribed
by the Secretary in regulations) 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 discharges by the person filing the
report. No one is to be required in such report to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes, and all information reported is to be considered
confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United
States Code.
Paragraph (2) of the new subsection (k) provides that if a person
required to file a report shall fail to do so within the time fixed by
regulations for filing it and he continues to fail to do so for 30 days
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1029
after notice of his default such person may, by order of a majority of
the conferees, be subject to a forfeiture of $100 per day for each day
such failure continues. Such forfeiture is 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 on application may remit or mitigate any such
forfeiture. It is established that it is the duty of the U.S. attorneys
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
It is the intention of the conferees that nothing in this new sub-
section (k) shall be contrued to require any person to submit a report
to the conference if he does not wish to do so. If, however, he agrees
to file such a report and thereafter fails to do so, he shall ba subject to
the penalties provided in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
Section 208 (b) of the conference substitute amends section 10 (f) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in the same manner as is
provided in section 208 of the House amendment.
[p. 19]
DEFINITIONS
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 209 of the House amendment amends the definition of
"municipality" contained in section 13 (f) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide that for the purposes of such act
that term shall include "an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization."
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 209 of the conference substitute is the same as section 209
of the House amendment. It is the intention of the conferees that
this amendment to the definition of municipality shall be applicable
to Indians on State as well as Federal reservations.
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 210 of the House amendment makes two amendments to
the Oil Pollution Act, 1924.
The first of these substitutes the Secretary of the Interior for the
Secretary of the Army as the Federal officer responsible for adminis-
tering the Act.
The second of these amendments makes certain technical changes in
section 7 of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to utilize certain employees of the Secretary of the Army
-------
1030 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and to authorize certain persons employed by the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Interior, officers of the customs and Coast
Guard of the United States, to arrest any person violating the
provisions of the act.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 211 of the conference substitute amends the Oil Pollution
Act, 1924, to make the following changes in that law.
(1) In section (2) the term "discharge" is defined to mean any
grossly negligent, or willful spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, or emptying of oil, the term "navigable waters of the United
States" is defined to mean all portions of the seas within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States and all inland waters navigable in
fact, and the term "Secretary" is defined to mean the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) Section 3 is amended to provide that except in case of an
emergency imperiling life or property or unavoidable accidents, colli-
sion, or stranding, and, except as otherwise permitted by regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, 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. Any person so
discharging or permitting the discharge of oil shall remove it from the
waters and shorelines immediately. If such person fails to do so the
Secretary may remove the oil or arrange for its removal and in addi-
tion to the penalties prescribed in section 4, such person shall be liable
[p. 20]
for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Secretary in
so doing. These costs and expenses constitute a lien on the boat or
vessel recoverable in proceedings by libel in rem. The Secretary is
authorized to prescribe regulations permitting the discharge of oil
so as not to be deleterious to health, marine life, a menace to naviga-
tion, or dangerous to persons or property engaged in commerce on
navigable waters, as well as regulations relating to the removal or
cost of removal, or both, of oil from the navigable waters and adjoining
shorelines of the United States.
(3) Section 4 provides that a person who violates section 3 (a) shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500 or imprisonment not ex-
ceeding 1 year, or both, and any boat or vessel except one owned and
operated by the United States, from which oil is discharged in viola-
tion of section 3 (a) is to be liable for a penalty of not more than
$10,000. Clearance from port for a boat or vessel liable for this pen-
alty may be withheld until the penalty is paid, and such penalty is a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1031
lien on such boat or vessel recoverable in proceedings by libel in rem.
(4) Section 5, except for technical amendments, is the same as
existing law, and would permit the suspension or revocation of a
license of a master or other officer of a vessel found violating section 3
of the act.
(5) Section 6 is amended to authorize the Secretary of the Interior,
with the consent of the Commandant of the Coast Guard or the Sec-
retary of the Army, as the case may be, to utilize certain persons em-
ployed by the Coast Guard or the Department of the Army, and to
authorize certain persons employed by the Secretary of the Army, the
Department of the Interior, officers of the customs and Coast Guard
of the United States, to arrest persons violating the act.
(6) Section 7 provides that the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, is in addi-
tion to other laws for the preservation and protection of the navigable
waters of the United States, and is not to be construed as repealing,
modifying, or in any manner affecting the provisions of such laws.
INCENTIVE STUDY
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 211 of the House amendment authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to make a full and complete investigation 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. In making this study he is required to
consult with the Secretary of the Treasury as well as other depart-
ment and agency heads. The report shall be submitted to Congress
on this study not later than January 30, 1968.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 210 of the conference substitute amends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to add thereto a new section 18 requiring the
same investigation and study as is required by section 211 of the
House amendment.
[p. 21]
INVESTIGATION OF POLLUTION FROM WATERCRAFT
HOUSE AMENDMENT
Section 212 of the House amendment requires the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of
pollution of the navigable waters of the United States from litter and
sewage from watercraft using such waters and methods of abating
-------
1032 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
this pollution. This report shall be submitted to Congress not later
than July 1, 1967.
CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Section 210 of the conference substitute amends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by adding a new section 17 thereto which
requires the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secre-
tary 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, to conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of pollution of all navigable waters of the
United States from litter and sewage from watercraft using such
waters and methods for abating such pollution. This report shall
be submitted not later than July 1, 1967.
POLLUTION AFFECTING FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Section 206 of the conference substitute adds a new paragraph (2)
to section 10 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which
provides that whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of certain infor-
mation from an international agency, has reason to believe that pollu-
tion endangering the health and welfare of persons in a foreign
country is occurring, and is requested to abate such pollution by the
Secretary of State, to give notice to the State water pollution control
agency of the State in which the discharge or discharges originate and
to the interstate water pollution control agency involved, if any, and
to call a conference if he believes such pollution is sufficient to warrant
such action. The foreign country adversely affected shall be invited
through the Secretary of State to attend and participate and is given
the right of a State pollution control agency. This paragraph is to
apply only to a foreign country which the Secretary determines has
given the United States essentially the same rights with respect to
prevention and control of water pollution as is given that country by
this paragraph. Neither the 1909 boundary treaty between the
United States and Canada nor the water utilization treaty of 1944
between Mexico and the United States is modified, amended, repealed,
or otherwise affected as a result of this paragraph.
[p. 22]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1033
HOUSE AMENDMENT
The House amendment contained no such provision.
GEO. H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBERT E. JONES,
JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI,
JIM WRIGHT,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
WILLIAM H. HARSH A,
JOHN C. KUNKEL,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 23]
1.2j(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 112 (1966)
1.2j(4)(a) July 13: Considered and passed Senate, pp. 15585-15603,
15605-15620,15624-15633
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CON-
TROL AMENDMENTS AND CLEAN
RIVERS RESTORATION ACT OF
1966
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of
the unfinished business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
2947) to amend the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act in order to improve
and make more effective certain pro-
grams pursuant to such act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Louisiana?
There being no objection, the Sanate
proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2947).
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is no
accident that the Senate is considering
major pollution abatement and control
legislation for the second day in a row.
Yesterday, we approved—by a vote of
80-0—amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Today we are taking up amendments to
the Water Quality Act of 1985 and the
basic Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. There are 48 sponsors on today's
bill. It has the unanimous support of
the members of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works.
All of this is an indication of the im-
portance the American people attach
to the improvement of the quality of our
environment. The President has called
for action. Our constituents have called
for action. And we have developed leg-
islation designed to repair the damage
of past and present waste and to up-
grade the quality of our Nation's waters.
We can, as Members of this Congress,
take pride in the legislation we have de-
veloped. It bears the fruit of many
minds on both sides of this Chamber. I
want to pay tribute to the late chairman
of our committee, Senator Pat Me-
-------
1034
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Namara, who created the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution; to our dis-
tinguished chairman, the senior Senator
[p. 15585]
from West Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH],
who has challenged us to greater efforts,
and to my colleague, the junior Senator
from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], who, as
ranking minority member, has been a
strong right arm in our efforts to elimi-
nate harmful pollution from our air and
waters. I want to express my thanks,
also, to other members of the subcom-
mittee and the full committee, to the
committee staff and to the staffs of com-
mittee members who have worked long
and hard to perfect the legislation de-
veloped by our committee.
In the early days of our work, I some-
times despaired of progress in this field.
But in the last year we have seen a re-
markable shift in opinion and support.
Industries who once opposed us are
now eager to get on with the job. State
officials who viewed our proposals with
alarm want to coordinate their pollution
control programs more effectively with
other States and with the Federal Gov-
ernment. Federal officials who were
open in their skepticism now find our
legislation useful and challenging.
And behind all these changes is the
voice of the American people, demanding
an end to the waste of our resources, in-
sisting on an effective program, sup-
ported by the needed funds to do the
job.
Mr. President, we have a mandate—
from our constituents and from our
posterity—to get on with the job of pro-
tecting our water resources. We do not
have much time. We do not have all the
answers. But we know enough about
our needs and about the magnitude of
our problems to make a substantial be-
ginning toward ending the burdens of
inadequate and poor quality water
supplies.
As an example of the demand for ac-
tion we are receiving from our constitu-
ents, I ask unanimous consent to insert
at this point in the RECORD a series of
articles and editorials from Maine news-
papers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, these
are but a sampling, from one State—a
State which has an abundance of water
resources. The problems of Maine can
be multiplied a hundredfold for the Na-
tion as a whole. The legislation we are
offering today is designed to help an-
swer these problems.
The bill pending before the Senate to-
day, S. 2947, can be considered the first
omnibus water pollution control act.
It extends and broadens the existing
program; it provides a new emphasis in
the clean rivers concept; it strengthens
other existing law, including the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924; and it manifests
the total commitment of the Federal
Government to abatement of the pollu-
tion of one of the Nation's most vital
resources.
Last year the Congress enacted the
Water Quality Act, authorizing the es-
tablishment of water quality standards
on all the Nation's interstate rivers. The
Water Quality Act was a major step to-
ward achieving the ultimate goal of con-
trol and abatement of water pollution.
That act recognized the States' primary
responsibility in this area, by providing
an opportunity for the States to adopt
water quality criteria applicable to inter-
state waters or portions thereof, within
each State. The water quality criteria,
combined with a plan for implementa-
tion and enforcement of the criteria
adopted, when approved by the Secre-
tary, will be the water quality standards.
It is important that this distinction be
made. Water quality standards include
both the criteria and the plan.
Following passage of the act, the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution
held extensive hearings throughout the
Nation and in Washington on the finan-
cial needs to support an adequate water
quality program. On the basis of that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1035
information, S. 2947, cosponsored by 48
Members of the Senate, was introduced.
The bill you have before you today is a
modified form of S. 2947. Several pro-
visions are identical to those in the orig-
inal bill, including authorization of $6
billion as the minimum Federal invest-
ment to provide adequate municipal sec-
ondary treatment for 80 percent of the
population. This figure represents 30
percent of the committee's estimate of
a $20 billion total cost of those facilities.
That $20 billion does not include either
treatment of industrial effluent or sepa-
ration of storm and sanitary sewers,
both of which will require multi-million-
dollar investment. I want to emphasize
the fact that $20 billion is a conservative
estimate; $6 billion is the minimum Fed-
eral share of an adequate program for
the next 6 years.
S. 2947 also includes elimination of
dollar ceilings on grants to State, local,
and interstate agencies for the construc-
tion of sewage treatment works.
S. 2947, as amended, provides for an
intensified basic research program by
authorizing funds for research on water
quality requirements for all water uses,
for research into the handling and dis-
posal of radioactive wastes, and for other
research, including the problems associ-
ated with waste discharge from boats
and ships, household or small waste dis-
posal systems, eutrophication, which is
the special problem of Lake Erie—ani-
mal feedlot wastes, agricultural runoff,
and numerous other specific pollution
problems.
S. 2947, as amended, authorizes a re-
search and demonstration program into
advanced waste treatment and water
purification and joint municipal-indus-
trial treatment facilities.
S. 2947 provides for a vitally needed
study of the pollution of the estuaries
and estuarine zones and increases funds
available for Federal program grants to
State and interstate agencies from $5
million annually to $10 million annually.
The committee believes it is essential
to accelerate our research and develop-
ment effort, with special emphasis on
contract research.
The bill also authorizes a loan program
to aid communities in depressed areas
where sewage treatment facilities are
vitally necessary, but where the tax base
is so eroded that the communities can
neither levy taxes nor float bonds suffi-
cient to meet the local share of the proj-
ect's cost.
Other major provisions of the bill in-
clude a prefinancing provision whereby
those States which are prepared to go
ahead more rapidly to construct ap-
proved projects with State or local funds
are authorized to use later Federal fund
allocations to reimburse the State or lo-
cal government for the Federal share of
such projects. The reimbursement fea-
ture is limited to the life of the monetary
authorization under S. 2947.
Metropolitan areas have special pol-
lution control problems. The volume of
sewage is great. Land costs are high.
Multiple jurisdictions make coordinated
planning and action difficult. To en-
courage such joint action, the committee
offers an incentive of a 10-percent Fed-
eral grant bonus where the project is
certified as consistent with metropoli-
tanwide plans. This would improve
programs and cut costs.
The committee also has applied to the
problem of international pollution the
authority provided in the act for abating
pollution situations wholly within the
United States; has expanded participa-
tion in the conference stage of the en-
forcement proceeding; has provided a
method for the Secretary to obtain in-
formation necessary as to the character
and extent of pollution; has provided
for a study of the costs of an effective
national pollution control program,
presently estimated at approximately
$100 billion; and has provided for a
study of pollution from boats and ves-
sels on the Nation's navigable waters.
S. 2947 amends the Refuse Act of 1899
to assure that its administration is con-
sistent with the purposes of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, and has
-------
1036
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
amended the Oil Pollution Act of 1924,
extending the enforcement provisions of
that act and transferring its administra-
tion to the Secretary of the Interior.
The Clean Rivers Restoration Act was
proposed by the administration and is
included as title I of S. 2947. It author-
izes planning pollution control and
abatement on a river basin basis and of-
fers incentives for sewage treatment
construction under such plans. In es-
sence, the clean rivers program is an ex-
pansion of the concepts expressed in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1965 relative to water quality standards.
In my earlier remarks, I noted that
water quality standards will more than
simply set water quality criteria. In
order to have standards, it is essential to
have both the criteria and the plan for
implementation of those criteria. The
Water Quality Act was designed for ap-
plication within the context of water-
sheds. But the committee did not spec-
ify either the organization of, or the
formulation of, that plan of implementa-
tion in terms of construction plans and
schedules.
The clean rivers restoration program,
as provided in the committee version of
S. 2947, carries the river basin oriented
water quality program the next logical
step.
Under the clean rivers program, the
Secretary of the Interior, at the request
of a Governor, or Governors, of a State,
[p.15586]
or States, will designate a planning
agency with appropriate local, State, and
Federal representation to develop neces-
sary comprehensive plans for the con-
trol and abatement of pollution in a
given river basin or portion thereof.
This title provides that the designated
planning agency will have 3 years in
which to come up with an approved plan.
The plan will include recommendations
for the treatment works and related
sewer facilities, joint municipal or mu-
nicipal-industrial systems, where appro-
priate, and necessary steps to maintain
and improve water quality standards,
and an adequate financing program.
The planning agency has been delib-
erately given broad instructions by the
committee so that it will not be forced to
develop a plan which is inconsistent with
a particular river basin or its existing
political institution. The recommenda-
tions of the planning agency are subject
to review by State, local and Federal in-
terests and prior to acceptance of any
plan. Approval by the Secretary is re-
quired if projects under the plan are to
qualify for Federal assistance under this
title.
As an incentive for the States to initi-
ate planning on a river basin basis, title
I provides that after designation of an
appropriate planning agency, and if fa-
cilities proposed within the river basin
involved meet the qualifications estab-
lished under section 207 of title I of the
act, the Secretary may make a grant in
an amount not to exceed 50 percent of
the total cost of a project.
In order to receive this grant, the
States are required to pay 30 percent of
the cost of the project, and the Governor
must provide satisfactory assurance that
statewide water quality standards con-
sistent with section 10 (c) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act are in effect
or will be established.
In the original administration pro-
posal, the clean rivers restoration plan
included a "one shot" financing plan
which was designed to shift the entire
burden of financing pollution control to
local bodies after an initial Federal in-
vestment. The committee rejected this
approach as impractical and unwise.
In summary, then, the clean rivers
restoration program approaches the pol-
lution abatement problem on a river
basin basis. It provides incentives to
encourage the States to participate in
river basin planning; and in keeping
with the precept of the law that the
States bear the primary responsibility,
the States must agree to assume addi-
tional responsibilities. The Federal
presence is available to insure the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1037
achievement of our national goals, bu
not to centralize control of the Nation's
water resources.
Mr. President, yesterday during debate
on air pollution, I referred to the philos-
ophy of the subcommittee on air anc
water pollution regarding exploratory
efforts on matters which affect the public
health and welfare.
During the hearings on water pollu-
tion the subcommittee took the opportu-
nity to enlighten itself and the public on
potential hazards associated with ex-
posed uranium mill tailings piles in the
Colorado River basin. These piles—slag
heaps resulting from the uranium mill-
ing process—are being eroded by the
waters of the Colorado and oilier natural
forces, thereby depositing quantities of
radium 226 and thorium 230 in the river.
The Colorado is used for both agricul-
tural and domestic use and any contami-
nation of it can adversely affect the pub-
lic health. Witnesses from the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
and the Atomic Energy Commission dis-
agreed as to the potential hazard from
the tailings piles. The committee was
inclined to accept the judgment of Mr.
Murray Stein, chief enforcement officer
of FWPCA, and his technical experts,
who testified that a long-term hazard
does exist from erosion of the pilings.
The committee feels that the Atomic
Knergy Commission has not satisfacto-
rily discharged its responsibilities toward
the prevention of radioactive pollution
in the Colorado River basin. The AEC
has a clear obligation to protect the pub-
lic from radioactive hazards generated
by activities it licenses, regardless of the
traditional regulation of radium by the
States. Further, through its licensing
procedures and title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 20 regulations, the
AEC has the authority necessary to con-
trol radioactive releases from tailings
piles of operating and closed mills. In
view of the concern of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration and
the Public Health Service, the com-
mittee believes the AEC has not fulfilled
its regulatory function or exercised its
authority to prevent radioactivity from
the tailings piles in the Colorado River
basin.
The counsel for the AEC testified that
the AEC could require stabilization of
the tailings piles if the pile represented
a risk to the public health and safety.
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration testified that the piles did
represent such a risk. I suggested that
the President's Executive Order 11258,
dealing with prevention and control of
water pollution from Federal activities,
contained a section which provided the
AEC with more general regulatory au-
thority. This section 1, subsection (3)
states:
Pollution caused by all other operations of
the Federal Government such as water re-
sources projects and operations under Fed-
era! loans, grants, and contracts shall be
reduced to the lowest level practicable
This order was issued after the com-
mittee, and especially the Senator from
Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], urged prompt
steps to abate pollution from Federal
installations, and from facilities of re-
cipients of Federal grants and contract
funds.
Although the AEC's counsel offered a
legal opinion to the contrary, the com-
mittee feels that this Executive order
confers upon the AEC sufficient regula-
tory authority to control the pollution
from the uranium mill tailings piles of
operating mills under contract to the
Government, and that the AEC can pro-
vide direction for those owners of non-
operating mills—which operated under
overnment contracts—to provide ade-
quate control of the tailings piles.
The committee recommended that the
FWPCA move expeditiously to estab-
ish responsibility for control of the tail-
ngs piles, and to provide the Congress
with adequate assurance that any con-
,rol measures applied would be sufficient
o achieve long-term protection of the
lealth of the people who live within the
irea, or depend upon the use, of the
olorado River and its tributaries.
-------
1038
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The committee is also concerned with
the more far-reaching problem of re-
lease of radioactivity associated with
nuclear powerplants. We intend a much
deeper examination of this problem in
future hearings. The committee is con-
cerned that standards promulgated
with reference to a statistical average
man and that an average dose concept
may not be satisfactory to protect per-
sons in the population who may have
peculiar exposure situations or may ad-
versely react to lower levels of exposure.
Mr. President, the legislation we pre-
sent to the Senate today represents a
substantial advance in the war against
water pollution. More importantly, it
opens wider the door to improved water
quality—to the chance for adequate sup-
plies of water for our citizens to drink,
to use in their homes, to enjoy for rec-
reation, and to use in industry and on
the farms. It is imaginative, but sound.
It represents a reasonable compromise
with the administration on its proposals.
The bill is meaningful, and one of which
the Senate can be proud. I urge its
passage.
EXHIBIT 1
[From the Portland (Maine), Sunday Tele-
gram, July 3, 1966]
COASTAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS—AND PROG-
RESS—IN MAINE
". . . From the rolling, sometimes choppy
sea, we view a panorama of rugged coast-
line . . . gracious towns nestled here and
there within sheltered bays; of dories, yachts
and lobster buoys bobbing in the sun; of
islands favoring us with views on all sides, of
forested hills gently sloping to the sea ... a
granite mountain rising swiftly, majestically
above it . . ."
Is this a come-on for the tourist dollar
from Maine's Department of Economic Devel-
opment' Is it a Chamber of Commerce salute
to the glories of the Maine Coast?
Not exactly.
The mildly poetic paragraph above is
found in a Maine Water Improvement Com-
mission 1962 classification study of Maine
tidal waters.
But none of the publicity puffs directed to
potential tourists of the Maine Coast by the
DED and every local chamber of commerce
along this great granite threshold of die
Atlantic would likely include other, less
poetic observations from this WIC study in
their pages
For publicity pieces obviously don't men-
tion the raw sewage and industrial wastes
that those "gracious towns" are pouring
into "the rolling, sometimes choppy sea "
Nor will they describe the resulting pollu-
tion of most of the harbor waters on which
those "dories and yachts" are bobbing—or
the numerous, tremendous clam flats and
their multimillion dollar harvests closed
down by health authorities for pollution—
or the public bathing beaches where pollu-
tion has produced obvious but unadmitted
swimming hazards.
Tourism, of course, is an economic main-
stay of many Maine coastal towns and they
must promote their attractions whether their
waters have pollution problems or not.
[p. 15587]
A few ocean communities have taken im-
pressive steps to clean up bays, beaches and
estuaries as part of their recreational pack-
age. Several other similar town projects are
in the advanced planning stage, though ex-
perience to, date shows a wide gap, especially
in money, between planning and execution.
But too many communities apparently still
have their heads stuck in the sand or mud-
flats, hoping that the worst—a pollution
crisis—won't happen to them, yet doing
nothing to prevent one
And in some cases, the Maine Legislature
seems to have its head stuck in the same
hole.
Pollution of Maine's great rivers, the bulk
of its industrial pollution going back decades,
has drawn tremendous attention in recent
years, thanks to the Maine Water Improve-
ment Commission's surveys and recommen-
dations, and stories of the commission's gains
and defeats in its classification legislation.
But the WIC. under its original mandate
from the Legislature and in its subsequent
studies and recommendations, has been
equally concerned with Maine tidal waters
and shores from Kittery Point to West
Quoddy Head.
Its findings have shown the coast deserves
all the concern it can get on pollution prob-
lems, problems that, for example, have closed
down 106 clam flats, some of them very
large and rich, and all of them totaling an
estimated 20 per cent of the state's annual
harvest potential for this shellfish.
TIDE TAKES CARE OF IT
Pollution almost closed down the State's
biggest beach resort before construction of a
sewage treatment plant rescued its reputation
in the nick of time, and it has fouled the
state's largest harbor and some of its smallest
ones with bacteria-laden Class D water con-
ditions, dangerous to all forms of water
recreation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1039
Since the days that town and individual
sewer lines replaced the farmhouse privy,
Maine's ocean cities and towns have had a
simple answer—pipe it overboard and let
the tide take it out After all, how can you
pollute the Atlantic Ocean9
But, as WIC findings have vividly shown,
it's not a question of polluting the Atlantic
Ocean—it's a question of polluting one's
doorstep to that ocean, tide or no tide
Pollution sets in when the dumping of raw
wastes becomes constant Bacteria and ma-
terials in this waste may die and dissipate
within a few hours after discharge, but they
are being constantly replaced So in a sense
they are not dying and dissipating. And the
greater the rate of discharge, the higher this
pollution constant is
The twice-daily tides with their dilution
and current factors, and the high oxygen
content of the ocean waters they bring in,
undoubtedly are a big help in fighting this
pollution constant, holding it lower than it
otherwise would be But they don't begin
to lick it where a population of any size is
involved.
As an incoming tide tremendously dilutes
polluted harbor or shore waters, an outgoing
tide tremendously concentrates the pollu-
tion of remaining waters It strands much
of the waste materials on exposed flats, where
this concentration builds up while waiting
for the tide's return.
Thus the neighboring cities of Portland,
South Portland and Westbrook, daily dump-
ing all their municipal sewage untreated into
Casco Bay, augmenting it with the industrial
wastes of a major paper mill and numerous
waterfront fish and meat processing plants,
produce CJass D pollution conditions (the
worst recognized by WIC classification) in
Portland's great harbor and main anchor-
age, despite eight foot tides.
And a few other coast communities, with
much smaller harbors to match their much
smaller populations and untreated wastes,
have also graduated to the Class D water-
front pollution big league. Bar Harbor is
one. Belfast is another.
Class C town and resort waterfronts (un-
safe for swimming) are legion along the
coast,
POLLUTED SHELLFISH
The argument is also made that sewage
discharge into tidal waters holds no com-
parison to discharge of such wastes into
inland bodies of water. Because who drinks
salt water9 Besides, aren't the water vol-
umes of estuaries and bays large enough to
pievent the grave damage to aquatic biology
found in polluted inland waters9
The trouble with this theory is that while
communities don't drink the salt water along
their shores, their residents and summer
visitors delight in eating the shellfish and
other marine delicacies that live in these
waters.
And these tasty little animals, marine bi-
ologists find, have a proclivity for absorbing
their environmental waters into their body
tissues without making fine distinctions
about bacteria content or its source That,
for example, is why 106 Maine clam flats
have been closed to harvesting by the Depart-
ment of Sea and Shore Fisheries according
to standards set by the U S Public Health
Service
The department does its own, constant
testing and has sole responsibility for the
opening 01 closing of clam flats
Its tests are so thorough and regular that
the public can rest assured that any clams
offered for sale in Maine are a "clean and
wholesome" product, says Dana E Wallace,
the department's marine resources scientist.
As for damage to the balance of aquatic
life in coastal waters from pollution, this is
still a largely unexplored question and for
that reason alone should demand a cautious
approach if coastal areas value the economics
and attractions of their fish harvesting
industries
No doubt more pollution can be absorbed
than in fresh water, but the organic matter
in human and many industrial wastes is still
food and there are plenty of customers for
it in the teeming microscopic animal world
of salt waters.
As has amply been demonstrated in pol-
luted ponds and rivers, this unnatural food
supply can upset nature's balance of water
biology, allowing tremendous multiplication
of some plant and animal species which may
tax their other food sources and starve out
life dependent on these sources in resulting
competition Theoretically, such an imbal-
ance can work its way up to higher forms
of animal life, including fish, forcing them
to look elsewhere for food
Pollution from the Los Angeles Valley, for
example, has caused a huge multiplication
in sea urchins These spiny and very hungry
little animals have virtually wiped out the
giant ocean floor kelp beds off the Southern
California coast
BATTLEGROUNDS
A single drop of natural salt or fresh water
under a microscope at a few hundred times
magnification ceases to be just a drop of
water, especially if it is favored with a trace
of organic pollution
It becomes instead a bright, quivering
little world of hydrazoa, protozoa, and other
subkmgdoms, transparent little creatures of
vast variety in form and movement.
Some of them are wormlike, endlessly
writhing and coiling their bodies There are
sack-like little animals, seemingly motionless,
who suddenly shoot out and retract their
mouth to capture bypassing bits of food
-------
1040
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
matter.
There are stick-like little animals which
twitch to and fro. And there are shapeless
little blobs of animals that just seem to sit,
possibly contemplating a reproduction of
themselves by simple division.
And for all this activity seen, there is much
more beyond the eye's reach, descending to
the amazing world of bacteria, nature's
simplest and one of her most useful plant
forms.
The analogy is perhaps inappropriate, but
if Maine's pollution abatement efforts could
be put under a microscope, its variety of
activity in this field might seem somewhat
similar.
The activity ranges from communities
which have modernized their sewage systems
and built sewage treatment plants to cure
chronic and dangerous pollution conditions,
down to communities apathetic about the
need and angry about the cost of meeting
WIC classification standards for their waters
The WIC currently has in its files plan-
ning reports on 91 proposed sewage treat-
ment plants and sewer projects. If all were
undertaken as designed, they would cost an
estimated $113.5 million. As it is, facilities
totaling $18.9 million have approached to Jie
construction stage or been completed.
Old Orchard Beach and Bar Harbor, two of
Maine's greatest resort towns, are interesting
contrasts in performance.
Back in August, 1959, at the height of its
summer season, Old Orchard Beach faced
perhaps the gravest economic crisis in its
history. A Water Improvement Commission
report announced that some of the waters at
the beach were at D level, heavily polluted
and quite unfit for swimming. (Even a B-2
or C rating is unfit for swimming.)
The crisis this presented the town "was in
three forms: the rapid spread of publicity
that would keep summer visitors away; the
real danger to public health from further
continuance of the conditions; and the pos-
sibility of heavy WIC penalties for failure to
correct the situation.
Exactly one year later, thanks to earlier
plans, Old Orchard Beach held open house
at its new $687,000 primary sewage treatment
plant at Ocean Park. The town approved
another $400,000 in sewer system interceptors
to eliminate its ocean outfalls, bringing its
bonding for these projects to half a million
dollars, the federal and state governments
funding the balance.
The town then lost no time advertising
itself far and wide as "The Cleanest Beach in
Maine," which has proved its best return on
a painful but proud investment.
At about the same time the WIC put the
fat in the fire for Old Orchard Beach, it dis-
covered similar Class D pollution conditions
at famed Bar Harbor. It recommended that
waters along the town's shoreline, including
a strip of beach, be brought up to a B-l
classification, suitable for swimming and
other clean water uses
After release of the Commission's Hancock
County tidal waters survey in 1962, measures
were inserted in the town warrant to begin
appropriations for a capital improvement
fund to finance eventual corrective measures.
The voters turned it down, and every year
since they have rejected such appropriations.
At Bar Harbor's town meeting this year a
capital improvement fund was established to
start accumulating money for a building to
house town offices If voters wish to transfer
money from this fund for construction of
sewage facilities they could do so, but no
moneys have as yet been appropriated
specifically for correction of water pollution.
In the meantime, the legislature was per-
suaded to lower the WIC's recommended B-l
classification for the shore area to a Class C
requirement. This gives the town a lower
goal to shoot for in pollution control
There's just one little problem. Class C
waters are still not suitable for swimming,
only for boating and fishing, yet the beach
concerned is still heavily used by residents
and visitors every summer.
[p. 15588]
The Maine Water Improvement Commis-
sion has many responsibilities under law, and
in trying to fulfill them it encounters many
problems Public attitude is a big one.
"A ruling majority of the people of Maine,"
observes the commission in its 1965 annual
report, "are sufficiently concerned with cost
(of pollution control) to cause them to resist
really adequate programs.
"This would not be true if the program
was accepted as a genuine public works
activity for the benefit of all, instead of one
to which it is politic to give lip service but
which is otherwise placed on a low priority
level " But for some towns, that "low
priority" level may not be sufficient much
longer.
ENFORCING THE LAW
The WIC has now virtually completed its
classification of Maine coastal waters and
river basins and will start to give more atten-
tion to enforcement of these classifications
in coming months.
Its procedure in water classification begins
with surveys of the existing conditions of a
body of water. Along the coast these in-
clude harbors, estuaries, settled shores, bays
and some islands.
After completing its survey of a coastal
town's shores, the commission is required to
call a public hearing of residents to deter-
mine what use these waters are receiving and
the types of uses the people would like to see
continued or added if possible.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1041
The commissioners and their staff, after
such hearings, make the final deteimination
on what "reasonable" classifications should
be recommended to the legislature, which has
the final say. Thus the law does not try Lo
eliminate all pollution, but merely aims to
reduce it to acceptable levels for given uses
In a good many instances, the Commission
has found that a stretch of shoie showed a
Class B-2, C, or sometimes Class D pollution
problem, but that the stretch of shore was
popular for swimming and the residents
wanted to continue to swim there.
Such a finding would lead the Commission
to recommend an upgrading to a B-l classifi-
cation, a safe level for swimming. With ihe
legislature's approval, the community would
be under orders to bring the waters up lo
that classification, with or without a deadline,
depending on the seiiousness of the situation
The process can be pretty frustrating, for
all its logic.
Some coastal communities have not only
failed to start corrective steps, but have dis-
puted the WIC's classification recommenda-
tions where their voters' voices would be
most effective—in Augusta.
Out of 27 coastal towns surveyed in Han-
cock and Lincoln Counties, the legislature
voted lower classifications than recommended
by the WIC in all but eight. The Commis-
sion's recommendations remained intact only
for Sedgwick, Sorrento, Sullivan, Surry Wis-
casset, Westport, Edgecomb and Alna.
Raeburn W MacDonald, WIC chief engi-
neer, recalls one of these appeals with a grin.
"One bit of testimony before the legislature
was to the effect that nobody ever bathed in
the tidal waters of Hancock County as it was
far too cold for that purpose The only pur-
pose they served was to enhance the view
"In general, however, testimony dwelt
upon the expense involved in providing sew-
age collection and treatment as compared to
the 'negligible benefits' to be realized "
In one instance, a town health officer, a
doctor of medicine, declared to the publisher
of the local weekly paper that the water clas-
sification studies made there by the WIC
engineers were without validity.
His influential observation just happened
to precede a town meeting at which voters
turned down a sewage treatment plant for
which the town would have paid only 20 per
cent of the cost, thanks to matching 30 per
cent federal and state pollution control grants
plus matching 10 per cent federal and state
grants under an accelerated public works
program classification
As a matter of fact, the WIC has had more
than one doctor question its on-the-scene
pollution testing techniques
As much as it can, the commission uses its
trailer laboratory for bacteria tests of water
samples, particularly from salt water. The
laboratory can be virtually backed down to
the water's edge. While not able to make as
exhaustive tests as Department of Health and
Welfare laboratories, it has the important
advantage of speed
That's because coliform bacteria native to
animal and human wastes doesn't live long
in salt water. And it is the count or fre-
quency of these bacteria in given water sam-
ples, together with dissolved oxygen and
biochemical oxygen demand measurements,
that accurately reflect the degree and danger
of the water's pollution to humans from a
disease standpoint and to fish from an oxygen
standpoint.
Possibly consumed by the protozoa in salt
water or killed off by its low temperature or
salinity, at least 80 per cent of these coliform
bacteria will disappear from a sample in
three days In fact, most disappear the first
day, notes MacDonald, but they don't die off
at a predictable time rate that would allow
later laboratory testing to reflect source
conditions
"Therefore, if we want to know what the
situation is at the water's edge, and that is
what we need to know, we've got to do most
of our testing on the spot rather than mail
samples away to a laboratory," he explained.
This holds almost as true for fresh water
tests, and the WIC trailer laboratory has been
on Androscoggin River duty most of the past
year.
When the WIC then turns up frequent Class
C and not a few Class D pollution situations
in most of the heavily, and even moderately
populated sections of the coast, despite dilu-
tion by the ocean and its high kill ratio of
coliform bacteria in salt water, such findings
speak volumes on the potency and immensity
of these discharged wastes.
Portland's great harbor, for example, gen-
erously fed by Portland, South Portland and
Westbrook (whose pollution problems will be
examined in depth next week) is a Class D
and Class C tidal sewer, for all its continued
beauty from a distance But Portland's
Back Bay, a giant tidal pond in the city's
midst, can't even stagger up to its Class D
classification.
Down the shore a piece, beautiful, yacht-
dotted Falmouth Foreside's shore continues
in violation of its B-2 classification and town
fathers recently received another WIC
visitation.
WINDOW ON THE BAY
Rockland's big harbor opens onto Penob-
scot Bay like a window and would seemingly
have few problems But 12 sewer outfalls
along two miles of harbor front, half of them
m Lermond's Cove, plus numerous private
pipes discharging into brooks, followed up by
the contributions of waterfront industries,
produce Class C conditions bordering on D in
sections.
-------
1042
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Back in 1960, the city had an engineering
survey made by Fay, Spoffard and Thorndike,
Boston, which came up with a $1,365,000 plan
for modernizing the sewerage system and
construction of a sewage treatment plant.
The plans have lain dormant for the most
part, however, because the WIC does not yet
view the harbor condition as urgent
The city has constructed several new storm
drains to take some of this load off the old
combined sewer system, and has sought fed-
eral funds for more storm drains, for bulk-
heading of Lermond Cove and for relocating
its outfalls.
The city is also compiling a comprehensive
map of all its own and private sewer lines and
their tie-ins, no mean feat of detective work.
Neighboring Thomaston's St. George River
is in serious trouble, sharing with its Mill
Brook tributary at least 14 sewer outfalls,
some from the town, the rest from Maine
State Prison. The large clam flats in the
river's big tidal bend, once among the finest
in the state, are closed. Thomaston and
state officials are studying a joint sewage
treatment plant for the town and prison
Camden has made a final $56,000 survey in
preparation for an estimated $860,000 sewage
treatment plant and sewerage improvement
program to overcome its lovely harbor's long
time pollution from the Megunticook River's
woolen mill and tannery wastes and from
river and harbor sewer outfalls.
Town officials say the WIC has provided a
lot of help and they look for a start in con-
struction of the treatment plant next year if
full federal assistance is confirmed.
Belfast is digesting a heavy engineering
report from Metcalf & Eddy, Boston civil en-
gineers, recommending a sewage treatment
plant and new sewers to pick industrial
wastes to overcome the inner harbor's Class
D condition. A city Water Improvement
Committee has been organized to sponsor
public information and support for the
project.
Considering that most of their installations
have been built within the past five years, the
roster of Maine coastal communities with sew-
age treatment plants in operation today—13
plants in 11 towns—is worth taking a look at.
Most of the newer plants and their systems
were planned and financed under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act with federal and
state matching grants splitting 60 to 80 per
cent of the cost, with the community financ-
ing the balance, usually through bonding.
The basic matching rate is 30 per cent fed-
eral and 30 per cent state But communities
in "depressed" areas have qualified for an
additional 10 per cent federal grant, also
matched by the state The plants'
Kittery—Admiralty Village treatment plant,
built in 1940, which serves about 1,400 per-
sons. Despite its age, and earlier Imhoff Tank
design, this plant has an efficiency of 89 per
cent suspended solids removal and 25 per cent
biochemical oxygen demand reduction. Un-
fortunately it serves only about 10 per cent of
Kittery's people The town and Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard are discussing additional
facilities.
Ogunquit—This resort town's new treat-
ment plant has been sized to handle part of
Wells' sewage The $385,000 plant, built last
year, is part of a $1 million Ogunquit Sewer-
age District program including interceptors,
force mains and pumping stations.
Kennebunk—This town has two sewage
treatment plants built in 1960 to arrest pollu-
tion of the Mousam River The Water Street
plant serves 1,400, and the Boothbay Road
plant serves 630 persons Both use a primary
treatment process and chlorination.
Biddeford—This city has a $750,000 treat-
ment plant built in 1964 as part of a $1,518
million program to stem this city's pollution
of the Saco River. The city floated a $400,000
bond issue to cover its share of the cost
Saco—This small city has two treatment
plants, an industrial plant built in 1962 and
the Bear Brook Plant built in 1961. Together
they serve about 2,900 persons. Additional
facilities to handle the entire city are in final
planning stages Yet to be worked out, how-
ever, is a method to treat tannery wastes
which contribute heavily to the Saco River's
Class D condition.
Old Orchard Beach—A modern large treat-
ment plant serving 6,600 persons built in
I960. Discussed earlier in this article.
[p. 15589]
Scarborough—A small treatment plant built
in 1963 to serve a shopping center area and to
arrest pollution of the Nonesuch River It
serves a population equivalent of 293.
Cape Elizabeth—A small treatment plant
built two years ago at Pond Cove to serve a
school complex, stores and a housing develop-
ment to reduce pollution of the Spurwink
River. It utilizes an advanced secondary
process.
Freeport—A primary treatment plant utiliz-
ing two Imhoff tanks and chlorinaters It was
built in 1952 to arrest pollution of the Harra-
seeket River and serves most of the town
The town's coastal waters and harbor have a
B-2 rating and classification, however, indi-
cating some pollution, probably from South
Freeport's development.
Wiscasset—Has completed a $300,000 treat-
ment plant to stem the town's pollution of the
Sheepscot River. The primary treatment fa-
cility is located on Sortwell Island and con-
nected to the shore by a causeway.
Boothbay Harbor—Back in 1962 the waters
of this famed harbor were rated "a low D"
in pollution by the WIC—very poor. This
sparked a $1 million sewage treatment plant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1043
and system improvement program The har-
bor waters today meet their B-l classification
Two notable additions to coastal sewage
treatment plants in the next year will be a
$1,008,000 facility at Brunswick, greatly re-
ducing the town's pollution of the Andro-
scoggin River (albeit a drop in the bucket
considering the total pollution of this river,
still unclassified by the WIC) and a $345,000
treatment plant at Yarmouth, part of its
$683,000 program to arrest historic pollution
to the tidal Royal River Both projects began
in May.
THE MATTER OF MONEY
Effective sewage treatment costs money
Towns of 5,000 population and lower can
easily hit half a million dollars in a sewage
treatment plant program, including intercep-
tors, pumps and force mains, not to mention
planning costs.
As communities get bigger, the costs of
hooking them up to a sewage treatment plant,
together with increased plant capacities, boost
initial costs tremendously Thus Portland of-
ficials, looking over their city's engineering
surveys for sewage treatment, find such a
project nudging $20 million.
As the WIC points out in its 1965 report,
limits on federal and therefore state grants
have caused small communities with project
costs within these limits to use them, while
generating reluctance among cities.
The basic grant under the Water Pollution
Control Act, passed several years ago by Con-
gress to get things rolling, was 30 per cent
of basic project costs up to a grant limit of
$600,000, with the state matching another 30
per cent and the community the remaining
40 per cent.
In certain areas the federal government
would add a 10 per cent grant for accelerated
public works purposes, also matched by the
state, leaving the community only 20 per cent
of basic project costs.
Recently Congress upped the federal grant
maximum to $1 2 million for any one project,
also to be state matched.
Although the federal maximum grant for
any single project has doubled, the federal
authority has added little to its total alloca-
tion to the state for any one year. This has
risen from $1,252,100 to only $1,412,060 The
state's matching ceilings have been adjusted
accordingly, and thus one single maximum
grant could virtually use up the entire year's
allocation.
This means just one large project could use
up most of a whole year's federal allocation
Even these new limits, up to $2 4 million is
combined federal and state grants, are "pea-
nuts" to a project the size of Portland's
In addition to the Water Pollution Control
Act, considerable supplementary legislation
has been passed in Congress recently, allow-
ing aid, much of it in 50 per cents grants, io
sewer system pipe installation not directly
connected with treatment plants.
There is no direct federal aid to industries
for sewage treatment facilities, a situation
that is causing industries under cleanup or-
ders to show more and more interest in
purchasing sewage treatment services from
community sewage treatment plants.
WHAT'S YOUR BRAND'
Maine's water improvement statutes pro-
vide five standards for tidal waters classifica-
tion. They are SA, SB-1, SB-2, SC, and SD,
the S used to distinguish them from fresh-
water standards which are similar but not
the same. (When used in cases where tidal
waters alone are discussed the S is generally
dropped.)
Class SA—Suitable to all clean water uses,
including swimming, shellfish harvesting,
boating, fishing, etc There must be no float-
ing or settleable solids, oil or sludge deposits
attributable to sewage or other wastes, no
dumping or refuse, no discharge of sewage
without primary treatment and disinfection,
and no discharge or dumping of wastes of any
kind m any quantity that would affect such
waters' marine life or quality.
SB-1—The same uses and requirements as
Class A but with a slightly higher allowable
pollution count in shellfish growing areas.
SB-2—Suitable for boating and fisheries but
not for swimming.
SC—Suitable for boating and fishing but not
for swimming.
SD—The lowest classification, "shall be
considered as primarily devoted to the dis-
posal of sewage and industrial wastes without
causing a public nuisance . . by the creation
of odor-producing sludge banks and deposits
or other nuisance condition "
[From the Portland Sunday Telegram, July
10,1966]
COASTAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND PROGRESS
IN MAINE. PART II—THE EFFLUENT SOCIETY
Sewage is decidedly a sore subject in polite
conversation It isn't even nice to think
about, let alone discuss, the biological
or industrial wastes of modern American
civilization
And the incredible water pollution prob-
lems which are today arousing the United
States are only a measure of the previous
lack of consideration given this very basic
fact of life.
Unless a house pipe or street sewer plugs
up, or until a septic tank starts decorating
the back yard, household wastes are neither
a subject nor a problem to ponder They are
just drained or flushed away.
But where is "away'">
In medieval towns, as schoolchildren read
with amazement and disgust, "away" was
generally the nearest street gutter by means
-------
1044
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of a well-aimed bucket. Rains did the flush-
ing, if one was lucky enough to live on high
ground.
Progress has been made The engineering
of modern gravity storm and sanitary sewer
systems has reached tremendous development
from its introduction just over a century ago.
Perhaps its most notable achievement has
been in the field of sewage treatment plants
some of which, utilizing huge colonies of
bacteria in normal but speeded up processes
of nature, can virtually reduce raw sewage
to drinking water.
Yet for the majority of Maine's cities and
towns, progress has proved a relative thing.
Their gutters are clean, but their rivers, har-
bors, or coastal shores are not. . . .
The City of Portland's "away" for a dry
weather (no storm water) average daily load
of 13 million gallons of raw municipal sew-
age, without benefit of treatment, is Portland
Harbor, the Upper Fore River and Back Cove,
the cove alone handling 30 per cent.
The City of South Portland's solution for its
daily four million gallons of raw municipal
sewage is Portland Harbor and its Main Ship
Channel shore.
The City of Westbrook, with only 65 per
cent of its population served by municipal
sewers (vs. 90 per cent or more in Portland
and South Portland) quietly dumps a daily
average 658,000 gallons of raw sewage into
the famous, or infamous, long-suffering Pre-
sumpscot River.
The Presumpscot's real claim to fame, how-
ever, is the 27 million gallons a day of indus-
trial wastewater it receives from the giant
S. D. Warren Co. paper plant in Westbrook,
the region's largest industry by far.
The company now puts six million gallons
a day of its wastewater through primary
treatment to settle suspended solids, but dis-
charges a further 21 million gallons untreated
And even in the treated six million gallons
there's still the problem of lingering
chemicals.
Cape Elizabeth, a pioneer of sorts, has built
a small secondary sewage treatment plant at
Pond Cove to handle schools, a housing area
and a shopping center there, preventing pol-
lution of the Spurwink River. But the town
discharges enough sewage on its Main Ship
Channel shores to bring advice from the
Water Improvement Commission that another
sewage treatment plant will be needed if the
Fort Williams area is developed.
Falmouth Foreside's beautiful but thickly
settled shore has been finding increasing
problems with its convenient sewage dis-
charge methods, a multitude of simple house
and street pipes. And the town's rapidly
growing shopping center area is taxing the
limits of its ground disposal facilities.
Cumberland has a short mainland shore
between Falmouth and Yarmouth, plus the
shoreline of giant Chebeague, Casco Bay's
largest island. Although the town's pollution
problems are mostly minor and in places non-
existent, its Wildwood Park area sewage has
been violating the SB-2 classification of that
ocean community's shore.
Yarmouth citizens voted last November to
float a $450,000 bond issue as the town's share
of the cost of a sewage treatment plant and
interceptors to stop its heavy pollution of the
tidal Royal River, a stream which has not
looked very royal at close hand for many
years.
On a bright, clear, windy day, the white-
capped waters of Casco Bay, and even the
murky waters of Portland Harbor, fairly
sparkle and shine They certainly don't seem
polluted. Surely the tides and the ocean's
nearness can take care of any pollution
threat1
But if they can, why does the Department
of Sea and Shore Fisheries forbid, and why
has it forbidden for years, any clam digging
between Yarmouth and Portland Head Light
because of polluted shores?
If Casco Bay and its fresh Atlantic waters
can "take care of" its daily dose of Greater
Portland's sewage and other wastes, why are
the shores of several Casco Bay islands unfit
for swimming by Maine Water Improvement
Commission standards?
Why is the west shore of Long Island, for
example, classified SB-2, unfit for swimming?
Why is the ocean shore of Gushing, another
sparsely settled island, classified SB-2?
Why is the sparsely settled eastern or ocean
shore of Peaks Island classified SB-2?
Why does the Department of Sea and Shore
Fisheries forbid clamming on all islands in-
side a line drawn from Waites Landing, Fal-
mouth, to the most northerly point of Great
Diamond, thence to the eastern shore of
Peaks, thence to White Head on Gushing Is-
land and from there to Portland Head Light,
[p. 15590]
a line that takes in Little Diamond, Mack-
worth and House Islands as well, despite their
proximity to deep ocean water?
Why are most of Falmouth's, Cumberland's
and Freeport's shores fronting on Casco Bay
classified B-2?
Actually, Casco Bay probably could dispose
of this pollution—if it had the time. But as
fast as the bay waters near Portland are dis-
sipating their sewage load in deep water, it
is being replaced.
Because the dissipation speed of Portland's
smaller harbor waters is slower, because iheir
volume is lower, their level of continuing pol-
lution is much higher.
HOW TO ESTIMATE POLLUTION
Pollution in the case of sewage is measured
by the Most Probable Number (MPN) of coli-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1045
form bacteria in a 100-millimeter water sam-
ple (equivalent to six cubic inches)
Coliform bacteria are native to the intes-
tines of humans and other warm blooded
animals, and the degree of their presence in
water is a reliable indicator of the presence
and amount of sewage
The conform bacteria are not particularly
troublesome themselves, but their presence
in water indicates the real possibility of the
presence of the disease bacteria which live in
the intestines of human "carriers " The
deadly typhoid bacillus and the Salmonella
group of bacteria which cause dysentery are
two examples.
In polluted waters, clams and oysters are
possible collectors of these disease organisms
because of the large quantities of water they
"siphon" through their bodies
Lobsters and other swimming fish are not
affected this way because they do not ingest
water as do clams and oysters
The Maine Water Improvement Commission
designates its Class A waters as those which
have or must be brought up to 70 conforms or
less per 100 ml sample
The B-l classification is for waters with an
MPN count of 240 or less, and B2—waters
with an MPN count of 1,000 01 less—is con-
sidered by the commission as unfit for
swimming.
There are no MPN minimums for the C and
D classifications, the latter being designated
for water into which sewage may be dis-
charged so long as it does not become a "nui-
sance." Portland Harbor and its adjacent
waters are classified C and D
The Water Improvement Commission found
some interesting, not to say disturbing, MPN
values when it surveyed Portland Harbor in
1957 and 1958, taking samples at 12 stations
at varying stages of tide.
The readings, in order, generally represent
high tide, half tide and low tide. The values
are noted here because nothing has been done
to reduce pollution conditions since they were
taken.
Station 1, Congress Street Fore River cross-
ing, 150 to 64,000 to 93,000 MPN coliform
counts; Station 2, Thompson's Point, 93, 39,-
000, 110,000; Station 3, Veteran's Memorial
Bridge, 230, 23,000, 15,000, Station 4, Portland
Bridge, 430, 23,000, 24,000, Station 5, mnei
harbor mouth near Portland side, 430, 43,000,
93,000; Station 6, Fish Point, off Fort Allen
Park, 150, 2,300, 46,000; Station 7, off Cushmg
Point South Portland, 43, 93, 46,000; Station 8,
Tukey's Bridge, 230, 43,000, 110,000; Station 9,
mouth of inner harbor near South Portland
shore, 390, 4,300, 110,000; Station 10, in cove
near South Portland City Hall, 230, 3,900,
1,100,000; Station 11, oft Turnei Island, South
Portland, 230, 2,300, 46,000. Station 12, Veter-
ans Memorial Bridge, South Portland side,
230, 4,300, 460,000.
It is the continual input of these bacteria
from a consistently large sewage flow that
produces large counts, even though the dis-
ease organisms they warn of die in a matter
of hours
Receiving waters have quite a battle con-
sidering municipal sewage at outfall averages
50 to 300 million MPN per half pint sample.
RATS BY THE THOUSAND
Besides direct contact dangers and the trav-
els of interested insects, Portland's gushing
waterfront outfalls produce another continu-
ing disease danger; Rats, thousands of them.
Battled but never quite conquered by ro-
dent control campaigns, they are so well fed
they just aren't too interested in the poisoned
bait proffered by the Health Department.
The rats are thriving on two principal food
sources, reports Health Department chief
sanitarian Neal D. McDowell. One of them
is as old as the waterfront and the other the
result of modern household kitchens.
The historic and still generous food source
is the droppings of fish and meat scraps from
the Commercial Street waterfront food proc-
essing concerns The new source is the gar-
bage disgorged by the "electric pig" disposal
units of kitchen sinks.
An August, 1965, survey of resident rodents
by the Health Department turned up sightings
and signs of large colonies at Portland Termi-
nal Co. Wharves 1 and 3, Snodgrass, Brown's,
Merchant's, Merrill's and Union Wharves, and
small nests at Custom House and Widgery
Wharves
The same survey also found rats nesting
near and patronizing several Back Cove out-
falls, presumably for garbage scraps from
many nearby homes. There was considerable
infestation of the Baxter Boulevard shore be-
tween Dartmouth Street and Vannah Avenue,
and smaller nests at other outfall areas.
Small rat colonies were also reported at
East Deering's Presumpscot Estuary back
shore and at points along the upper Fore
River.
The growing pollution of the anchorage
area near Portland's East End Bathing Beach,
caught between the ebb and flow of currents
from the City's inner harbor and Back Cove,
caused the Health Department to urge closing
of the beach to swimming two years ago. A
freshwater pool has been built at the popular
beach area as a substitute.
The controversial closing was voted by the
City Council after beach tests showed the
water bacteria count was not being reduced
by chlorination of a nearby outfall thought
to have caused the condition.
South Portland's small but pretty Willard
Beach, a city park which fronts on the main
harbor entrance just east of Fort Perble, is
the only Portland Harbor area beach still
open to public swimming
The beach, which was given a "C" rating by
-------
1046
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Water Improvement Commission in 1958
tests (two ratings below WIC safe swimming
standards) continues open because of a
staunch, consistent, and somewhat controver-
sial stand, with City Council backing, taken
by South Portland city health officer Dr
Philip P. Thompson Jr.
Dr Thompson does not deny the presence
of pollution conditions at the beach, though
he feels and tests seem to show that ocean
waters coming up the main harbor entrance
keep the beach waters fairly clean compared
to the inner harbor and anchorage.
The WIC station tests off the beach, for ex-
ample, ranged from an amazing low MPN
cohform bacteria count of 43 per sample up
to a high count of 46,000 per sample. But he
firmly rejects any parallel between the pollu-
tion danger to shellfish or to drinking water,
and the pollution danger to swimming.
Rarely, if ever, "and in no case that I've
been able to learn about," has an individual
or group outbreak of pollution-caused disease,
such as typhoid or dysentery, been traced to
a swimming cause. Instead they are almost
without fail traced to food handling "car-
riers," drinking water, or polluted clams or
oysters, he says.
For this reason, declares Dr. Thompson, "I
would be as strict as anyone where pollution
of drinking water or shellfish is concerned."
Dr. Thompson feels that even with high
coliform counts, a person would have to swal-
low large amounts of water to run the risk of
ingesting a possible disease germ, and people
swimming would not swallow anywhere near
enough water to make this a possibility
worth "worrying about.
WORSE EVERY YEAR
Getting back to Portland Harbor itself,
Capt. Llnwood F. McLain, who until recently
headed the board of harbor commissioners
as chairman, agrees the sewage pollution
problem is serious, "and it's getting worse
every year.
"Our two cities (Portland and South Port-
land) have been taking the easy way out with
their sewage for a long time, and the harbor
shows it."
The harbor commissioners, two Portland
and two South Portland men appointed by
the Governor to oversee and control such
activities as pier construction, dumping and
landfill, and to investigate certain types of
pollution such as oil spillage, are specifically
prevented from having any say about munici-
pal sewage disposal into the harbor, notes
McLain.
Indeed, the commissioners' authority to
fight other types of pollution is not specifi-
cally spelled out.
Because of steadily increasing pollution
complaints from waterfront interests, and
because of some recent cases of "lack of co-
operation" by some industrial polluters, the
harbor commissioners have sought and are
awaiting clarification by the state attorney
general of their power to compel cooperation.
But it's a pretty good bet that any indi-
vidual polluters the harbor commissioners
start clamping down on would ask in court
why they are being prosecuted while the
sewers of two cities, one the state's largest,
are exempt from forced cleanup.
[From the Portland Sunday Telegram]
COASTAL POLLUTION: PLANS ALL READY—IT'S
JUST MONEY THAT'S NEEDED
Portland, South Portland and Westbrook
have before them and are studying compre-
hensive civil engineering recommendations
and plans for construction of modern sewage
treatment plants and their interceptor sys-
tems. The big question is money, not need.
If built, they could reduce by approxi-
mately two-thirds these cities' daily sewage
strength now going into the harbor waters,
and even the remaining sewage effluent from
these plants could have virtually all its bac-
teria killed by chlorination.
Because the three cities, as in the case of
most cities, each have combined sewer sys-
tems which take care of storm drainage as
well as sanitary sewage, there would still be
the need to dump some raw sewage during
storm flows too big for the treatment plants
to handle.
This is a built-in handicap of combined
sewer systems when it comes to sewage treat-
ment, but the alternative of laying in a new
separate sanitary sewage system entailing the
ripping up of nearly every city street, would
be incredibly costly.
Raeburn W. MacDonald, chief engineer of
the Maine Water Improvement Commission,
emphasizes that dumping of some raw sew-
age during a storm period, "still represents a
big net gain over a situation where dumping
is constant, day in and day out, not just
occasionally "
It would be much more easily dissipated by
the receiving waters, but the WIC would
allow no more than a "C" rating for ihe
receiving waters though they might be much
cleaner than this between storm periods.
[p. 15591]
The following are summaries of plans and
costs for cleanup, including those by the S. D.
Warren Co. to further reduce its still tremen-
dous wastewater loads on the Presumpscot
River.
PORTLAND
When it comes to pollution abatement chal-
lenges among Maine cities, Portland bats in a
league of its own But the big town hasn't
stepped into the batter's box yet. It's waiting
to see if the federal government will pitch
more pollution control money across the
plate.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1047
A year ago last April, the Boston civil engi-
neering firm of Metcalf & Eddy laid before the
city the most exhaustive pollution abatement
study and plan Portland has ever had
To make a 215-page report short, the plan
recommends a $19,550,000 eight-year program
to construct a $4.3 million primary sewage
treatment plant of 165 million gallons per
day capacity at the city's East End
The balance would be $15.250,000 for con-
struction of pump stations, interceptors, force
mains and repairs to old mains for the first
and last roundup of Portland's 45 principal
sewer outfalls, bringing their daily 13 million
gallon discharge to the plant
Of the larger outfalls, 13 are in Back Cove,
27 in the harbor, and five at the Presumpscot
estuary.
The city has accepted the study as its long
range working plan but no major construc-
tion works have been authorized for it yet.
The program is expensive because of Port-
land's far-flung numerous sewer outfalls and
many complexities of elevation for sewer con-
struction of any kind, plus the large treat-
ment plant needed.
It is also costly because federal water pol-
lution control assistance to cities Portland's
size has been quite limited.
A number of small Maine towns have re-
ceived 60 to 80 per cent matching federal and
State funds for their sewage treatment plant
programs, but the basic federal grant has a
$1 2 million ceiling (formerly $600,000) for
any one project and only slightly more than
that, a total of $1,412,060, in any one year
allocated to Maine.
Recent federal legislation has come up with
50 per cent subsidies for certain types of
sewer work indirectly as well as directly
related to sewage treatment plant projects.
But Thomas F Gnffln Jr , Portland's public
works director, is far from impressed with
overall federal pollution control assistance to
date.
All the assistance Portland can depend on
at present would be about $6,714,000 in both
federal and state aid, or 35 per cent of Port-
land's program cost.
Griffin notes that since 1956 federal assist-
ance to communities for water pollution con-
trol has totaled about 14 per cent of the cost.
A contributing factor to this, he charges, has
been the "fragmentation" of federal pollution
control programs into many agencies and
categories, defying a really unified approach
to the problem.
"I feel federal assistance in this field, as it
is for highways, should be on a 90-10 per cent
basis with the state and communities splitting
the 10 per cent," declares Griffin "I also
think the ceiling on the total grant for a
project should be removed."
He would further like to see the restriction
Of federal funds from combined sewer con-
struction removed, arguing that separating
sanitary sewers still leaves large pollution
loads in storm drains.
"The total cost of such assistance would be
huge," he admits, "but it would be small in
comparison with our resources, and as a na-
tion we can afford it. And the water pollution
control programs we need in New England
cannot be met by adding them to an already
onerous property tax burden "
Griffin thinks that a bill from Sen MUSKIE
now under Senate study is "a step in the right
direction." It calls for 50 per cent federal
project subsidies if they are matched by 30
per cent state participation
"Until the federal government starts show-
ing pollution control programs the kind of
support it has seen fit to give highways, air-
ports and the like, my inclination and advice
for large communities is to do nothing till we
get some action."
Metcalf & Eddy recommend in their study
that Portland consider paying off the unsub-
sidized balance of its project by a combina-
tion of general obligation and revenue bonds
and that a sewage service charge be estab-
lished to pay system operating costs and liqui-
date the revenue bonds, thus keeping any iax
hike as low as possible.
SOUTH PORTLAND
South Portland this month will receive a
comprehensive sewage treatment study and
plan similar to Portland's from Boston civil
engineers Fay, Spofford & Thorndike.
As outlined by Kenneth Neipert, superin-
tendent of sewers for the city's Public Works
Department, the South Portland program calls,
for a modern four million gallon a day pri-
mary treatment plant on filled land adjacent
to Waterman Drive and across it from the
foot of E Street.
The city will be working on target date of
April, 1969, for completion of the plant and
its intercepior lines, pump stations and force
mains.
The cost of South Portland's pollution
abatement program will be close to $4 million,
including an estimated $1,125,000 for the treat-
ment plant and the rest for rounding up the
city's more than 20 principal outfalls, most of
them along its harbor entrance and inner
harbor shores below Portland Bridge.
Three major pump stations will be needed,
plus eight smaller pump stations to drive
sewage over high ground through a force
main. Three existing pumping stations on
Western Avenue will continue to handle that
area.
South Portland is fortunate m that it is
already well over 90 percent sewered, and in
the fact that all the sewers in the city's west-
ern section are now tied into the Turner
Island outfalls, making It fairly simple to run
an interceptor the short distance from there
along the shore to the treatment plant site.
-------
1048
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
If the cost of the overall project does come
to $4 million and if all its phases are eligible
for the basic 30 per cent federal and state
matching subsidies, South Portland should
get the full amount possible from these com-
bined subsidies—$2.4 million.
WESTBROOK
The former Westbrook Sewerage District
received a city plan for sewage treatment last
November from the Boston firm of Camp,
Dresser & McKee. A month later the Sewer-
age District was voted out of 10 years' exist-
ence in a city referendum and replaced by a
city-operated Westbrook Sewerage Commis-
sion. But the plan still holds, though none
of its projects have yet been scheduled for a
start. Indeed, the City Council in June
dropped plans for an initial $95,000 treatment
plant reverse account allocation by the city
The plan calls for a $1,130,000 primary
sewage treatment plant on the Presumpscot
River in the city's Halidon section about half
a mile below S. D Warren Co on property
the city purchased for this purpose several
years ago.
The big settling tanks of this plant are to
be supplied with city effluents by north and
south bank interceptor lines picking up the
city's 24 sewage outfalls in the Riverbank
Park area, and with the help of a pumping
station and force main at Cottage Place and
an interceptor downriver to the plant.
Total project cost is estimated at $2,549,000,
of which engineers estimate the city would
have to pay about $1 million.
Camp, Dresser & McKee also recommended
a Phase II project totaling $337,000 to connect
Prides Corner section to the treatment by
means of interceptors on East Bridge Street
and Hahdon Road and a pump station, but
the firm advised that this phase would not
become urgent until population of this sec-
tion grew a lot more.
S. D. WARREN CO.
How do you handle the insatiable seas of
waste-laden water that are the relentless by-
product of round the clock papermaking?
And if you can sift out much of the solid
waste, what do you do with it9
These are a couple of problems which S. D
Warren Co. of Westbrook, a major Maine
paper mill and the Portland area's biggest in-
dustry, was content to let the Presumpscot
River find answers for over a period of several
decades Then came the river's revolt.
In the sultry summer of 1959, the deep,
barren mud flats in the Presumpscot's tidal
section and estuary began giving off unprece-
dented quantities of hydrogen sulfide gas,
quantities strong enough to blister and dis-
color the paint on many houses near the
estuary.
Amidst the ensuing uproar, the Maine Water
Improvement Commission commissioned a
$25,000 survey of the Presumpscot's fragrant
foulness The resulting 1960 report from
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Boston civil engi-
neers, painted an awesome picture.
Below Westbrook, the report said, "the bed
of the river was covered with a layer of
slime and mud varying in depth from a few
inches to five feet. No signs of aquatic plant
growth or fish life were to be noted.
"Frequently the river is covered with a
layer of foam which results in a rather
unsightly appearance . . . Numerous gas bub-
bles are seen rising over the entire surface
of the river and occasionally bottom deposits
rise to float on the surface. . . .
"The nuisance conditions in the Presump-
scot River and esiuary are caused primarily
by the presence of organic matter in the
wastes and sewage discharged to the river
which is fed upon by bacteria in the water
and bottom muds. The bacterial feeding
process depletes the dissolved oxygen . . .
to such an extent that septic decomposition
sets in with a liberation of gaseous byproducts,
including sulphurous gases. . . ."
The river was tossing the tremendous
waste disposal problems ot a big industry
and small city back into their laps.
In the six years since this report, things
have started to improve for the lower Pre-
sumpscot, though perhaps not enough for
the casual eye or nose to notice.
As George Bennett, S. D. Warren's candid
engineer director of stream improvement
aptly puts iu "We've come a long way since
then, but we still have a long way to go."
S. D Warren found that a major source
of the organic matter in its mill wastes was
in tiny wood fibers. This led to installation
of filter screens which by 1964 were collect-
ing 17 tons of fiber daily, and up to 37 tons
of total fiber and clay particles.
Also since 1960 the company's papermak-
ing methods have changed from the soda to
the Kraft process, which with water reuse
techniques has dropped the company's daily
wastewater discharge from 42 million gallons
per day to between 27 and 30 million.
The firm's first true waste treatment
facility as such went into operation this
year. It is a primary treatment plan based
on a 280-foot diameter three million gallon
capacity cylindrical concrete tank.
With the five largest of the company's 13
giant paper machines piping their wastewater
into it, six million gallons a day, the huge
clanfier works as a giant settling pond.
[p. 15592]
At its present rate, the clarifier is handling
half the mill's process wastewater (from
actual papermaking) and it has a designed
capacity for 20 million gallons a day.
Whether secondary treatment of this water
to reclaim its dissolved and remaining un-
dissolved solids may be needed in the future
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1049
will probably be determined by tbe Water
Improvement Commission's recommenda-
tions to the next Legislature for the lower
Presumpscot's classification.
Yet the company's new primary treatment
plant is a mixed blessing when it comes to
operation.
First there is the trouble of picking up the
plant's numerous waste outfalls by a sys-
tem of interceptor pipes and pump stations
As this process proceeds, some wastes will
have to be handled and treated separately
from others if they are to be successfully
reclaimed.
The other headache, an awesome one where
such high volume, around-the-clock produc-
tion is involved, is what do you do with
reclaimed wastes for which no use is readily
apparent? You can't continually buy land
to dump or bury it on after the drying
process.
Then there's the problem of the cost of
such waste reclamation, $900,000 to date, an
expense that must be met out of profits, not
out of a surcharge on the product that would
immediately lose sales to the competition
The rebelling Presumpscot has tossed S. D.
Warren some real problems—and challenges.
[From the Portland Sunday Telegram, July
10,1S66J
PORTLAND STUDIES VARIED DISPOSAL COMPLEX
IDEA
(By David C. Langzettel)
Portland City Hall is working on a project
for solving Portland's garbage, trash and
sewage problems with a single disposal com-
plex that would be largely self-sufficient.
It might even pay its own way some day,
according to Public Works Director Thomas
F. Griffin Jr , who came up with the idea as
chairman of a waste disposal committee.
It's never been done before to Griffin's
knowledge. For that reason he's trying—so
far without success—to get federal aid io
build the $6 5 million complex and a demon-
stration grant to help start its operation
The complex would handle all wastes, pro-
duce power to run itself and also produce salt
and slag byproducts worth more than $1
million a year.
The process also would turn out more than
four million gallons of fresh water a day.
For a city near Sebago Lake, making water
is like shipping coals to Newcastle, Griffin
concedes But it has its use in the process
If all this sounds like a Rube Goldberg
perpetual motion scheme, a few minutes of
explanation from Griffin put a new light on
it.
Even if the complex as Griffin conceives it
never has been built, all its parts have. And
they all work.
"Putting this monster together—balancing
the parts—isn't going to be simple," Griffin
says "But I've asked the Planning Board to
start thinking about budgeting for it over
the next few years. Perhaps we can get
federal aid later on."
Basically, Griffin's "monster" has three
elements a sewage treatment plant and a
big incinerator—as close together as pos-
sible—and a huge garbage grinder ("an over-
sized pig, if you will") installed in a sewage
pumping station
Theoretically, federal aid for each of these
elements is available. And it seems obvious
to City Hall that putting them together and
gaining self-sufficiency will save money for
Portland and the government.
Yet simply because the elements are in-
tegrated, Griffin says, individual federal
departments apparently take a dim view of
the project and "so far they refuse to get
involved in each others' bailiwicks."
Briefly, elements of the process work
together this way.
Garbage would be trucked to the pump
station, ground and then injected into the
sewer system with other wastes.
Raw sewage, with the garbage in sus-
pension in it, would flow to the treatment
plant, where floating solids would be
skimmed off and settled wastes scraped to-
gether. This material would be conveyed by
pipe to the incinerator to be dried and burned
with trash and construction scrap.
Griffin would use walls containing circulat-
ing water to insulate the chamber. Heat
from burning trash would turn some of this
into steam to turn a turbine that would pro-
vide the small amount of power needed to
run the entire complex.
Excess heat would be applied to salt water
in stills, to produce the salt byproduct.
Residue from burned materials (about 25
per cent) would be reduced to slag that would
be useful in road construction.
The stills also would produce fresh water
after removal of salt from the ocean water,
which would go back to the treatment plant
to dilute the effluent, or treated sewage,
before pumping into Portland Harbor.
The only exhaust from the incinerator
would be cleaned hot air
Griffin estimates the plant would produce
50,000 to 100,000 tons of salt a year. The city
uses about 4,000 tons a year on roads. So the
remainder, at $14 a ton, could bring in
$1 million or more every year, he suggests.
Griffin gives this cost breakdown on the
complex, treatment plant, $35 million, in-
cinerator, $2 million, and garbage grinding
unit, $750,000.
Using a $6 million round figure and assum-
ing 50 per cent federal aid and 30 per
cent state, Griffin estimates Portland's share
for the complex at $1 3 million "Or you
could call it the cost of two Bramhall Fire
Stations."
-------
1050
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Of course, this isn't the complete cost of an
integrated pollution control system.
Portland has made a start on a treatment
system by installing sewer interceptors
along Marginal Way. And the city has built
pump stations at Franklin and Riverside
Streets. But another $16 million worth of
interceptor sewerage would be needed to tie
all city sewers into a plant.
Here the city is up against the federal
government's chicken-or-the-egg proposi-
tion: you can't get federal aid for the inter-
ceptors until you have a treatment plant
Hence, Griffin's plan is being advanced now.
"We'd simply have to start the treatment
end of the operation in a small way with
what interceptors we have, then apply for
federal aid for the rest," Griffin says.
Griffin has several ideas for cost cutting.
One is to charge an incinerator fee to other
area communities, which would find it
cheaper and more convenient than the
dumping system they're using now.
Private trash collectors also could use the
burner on a monthly fee basis. And even
individuals with a trash overflow between
collection days might use it for a small fee
Griffin also sees potential for similar oper-
ations in other cities, especially those lack-
ing a good fresh water supply. Even the
federal government might benefit directly,
he says.
"For example, take Guantanamo Bay (the
U.S. naval base in Cuba). They make their
own water. I don't know what they do with
their salt—perhaps they waste it—or whether
they have an incinerator. But I think waste
heat from burning trash could be used there "
Federal demonstration grants generally are
approved for a project because it is unusual
or unique and could serve as a model for
other communities
Griffin can't understand why Portland's
plan wouldn't benefit others and save the
federal government money to boot
The idea originated more than a year ago
when City Manager Graham W Watt named
Griffin to head the committee studying the
garbage disposal problem. It's now collected
and trucked to pig farms. The city has both
wet and burning dumps for trash and pumps
raw sewage into Portland Harbor.
A Metcalf & Eddy engineering study indi-
cated in 1959 that a treatment plant alone
would cost about $5 3 million And the com-
mittee knew an incinerator would run at
least $1 6 million.
Griffin knew ground garbage had been
handled by treatment plants But a treat-
ment plant for sewage alone was too expen-
sive, he felt.
His key cost-cutting idea was to combine
processes so that sewage solids could be
skimmed off and burned. This would reduce
the treatment cost substantially and add
only slightly to the incinerator bill.
The committee settled on a peninsula site
for the complex, "somewhere between Com-
mercial Street and Marginal Way, probably
at the old dump area or on the harbor side
near India Street."
To build at the former site of the East
End dump would involve only the cost of
digging out settled trash. But this would
be an unpopular move in some circles because
of recent recreation development on the
Promenade, Griffin feels. On the other hand,
the India Street site could be expensive to
buy and develop.
The garbage grinder could be at the Frank-
lin Street pumping station or at either of two
proposed pumping stations, near Commercial
and India Streets and near the dump.
With these matters decided, Griffin drew
up some sketches and a written proposal
which was forwarded last September to U.S.
Sen. EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
The committee also filled out a so-called
preliminary inquiry form for federal aid,
which in itself indicated the going might get
rough.
The form originates with the Bureau of
the Budget. But it also goes to each of the
following departments for perusal: Housing
and Urban Development, Agriculture, Farm-
ers Home Administration, Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, Commerce, Interior, and
Economic Development Administration.
The form was flled last December. So far
city officials have had no reply.
"I'm not even sure what sort of reply
we're supposed to get, one way or the other,"
Griffin says. "But I understand that Sen.
MUSKIE is interested and doing what he can
to stimulate some interest."
Even if the federal wheels do begin turn-
ing, the city isn't sure how much aid it could
expect to get in view of Maine's very small
allocation for anti-pollution measures.
The idea of issuing bonds to cover con-
struction costs is intriguing to city officials,
Griffin says, because the operation would be
partly self-sufficient to begin with and could
pay for itself after a time
I From the Portland Evening Express, June
27, 19661
CLEAN WATER
Senator EDMUND S MUSKIE speaks on few
subjects with more authority or conviction
than on the matter of .air and water pollution.
So the note of urgency in his message was
not unusual when, in a recent speech in
Maine, he expressed the hope that Maine
would take advantage of a measure now
making its way through the Senate. It is a
$6 billion federal aid program. If approved,
it would supply 50 per cent of the cost of a
community pollution control program if the
city would supply 20 per cent and the state
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1051
the remaining 30 per cent.
The Senator cited impressive statistics on
the water needs of the nation in the coming
[p. 15593]
years and pointed out that Maine has a good
supply of fresh water and that the state's
economy has benefited from it.
"We must guard this resource We must
realize our potential. We must preserve our
good water and clean up our soiled water,"
he said.
That has a good oratorical ring to it, to be
sure. But it also has meat. Maine is deeply
concerned about its economic development.
The effort to attract industry deals with the
complete need, quite properly, considering
recreational, cultural, social and educational
resources of a city or region From the
standpoint of employee contentment, that
good supply of fresh water may also become
increasingly important as well as for direct
industrial use.
It may well be that in another 10 or 15
years, a good supply of fresh water may be
more important than facilities for graduate
study, a symphony orchestra or even the
labor environment.
The long range view in economic develop-
ment suggests that Senator MUSKIE is not
overemphasizing if he sounds urgent in tell-
ing Maine to clean up its dirty streams and
protect those water supplies still reasonably
clean.
[From the Portland (Maine) Press Herald,
July 1, 1966]
SENATOR MUSKIE Is FORCING CONGRESS To
ENACT ANTIPOLLUTION MEASURES
There are times when it almost seems as
if Democratic Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE is
the only person who is pressing ahead power-
fully on the anti-pollution front.
This is, of course, not true—the sheer eco-
nomic loss sustained through the dirtying
of the nation's water supplies is now well
recognized, he is recruiting new allies daily,
and the American people increasingly will
see efforts made toward the Senator's goal of
clean waters.
But the magnitude of the task is appalling
—figures like $40 and $50 billions are being
tossed about—and there is so much to be
done that billions can be spent before water
pollution can even be checked And this
excludes, of course, the air pollution that
plagues all of America's larger cities.
Yet under Senator MUSKIE'S guidance, the
tools are being shaped at Washington for the
role the federal government must play in pol-
lution abatement Last year Congress ap-
proved the Clean Waters Act establishing
pollution abatement as a national policy
Recently the Senate Public Works Committee
voted out, with powerful support in the Sen-
ate at large, a bill for a six-year program,
and $6 billions in money, to help the states
and municipalities build sewage systems and
waste treatment facilities.
The bill combines some of the approach
sought by the Johnson Administration, but
chiefly this is the Senator's bill and is so
recognized at Washington There is a million
dollars for the study of estuary pollution,
bringing to mind the problem of Greater
Portland's Presumpscot river There is a
larger program for demonstration projects in
treating sewage There is authority letting
the government control oil discharges into
the ocean from shore facilities as well as
from ships. The former $1 2 million limit
pn federal grants for individual sewage-
treatment projects is abolished, with Wash-
ington still contributing 30'c of the total
cost
An important feature of the bill deals with
entire river basins, an objective of the ad-
ministration bill Under MUSKIE'S bill, plan-
ning agencies would be set up and given
three years to develop a plan, for both intra-
state and interstate rivers. When a full-
fledged plan is approved by the Interior
Department, the federal contribution will be
50r;, with the state's share 30*7 and affected
municipalities only 20rr This "sweetener"
should hasten entire river-basin anti-pollu-
tion projects, under standards for cleanliness
set forth in the bill.
If Congress acts favorably, as we hope it
will, we can get the anti-pollution show on
the road, and then a great burden will fall
upon the people of Maine, their city govern-
ments and the legislature. The current pre-
dicament of the town oj Falmouth, where
pollution is a pressing problem, typifies the
expensive measures that must be taken in
the foreseeable future. With federal and
state aid, and the good work being done by
the Water Improvement Commission, Maine
is in a position to show the way to the other
states.
[From the Waterville Morning Sentinel,
July 2, 1966]
THERE'LL BE No CLAMBAKE
Those shallow areas along the Maine coast
that are known as clam flats have been
plagued for some time by that residue of
civilization, pollution.
Latest to suffer are the productive flats in
the Searsport and Stockton Springs area
which were closed yesterday because of the
high bacteria count that has resulted from
the pollution of the coastal waters in the
vicinity.
An effort is now being made to see what
can be done to restore the flats by elimi-
nating the pollution or at least reducing it
to acceptable levels.
It now appears that the best hope of ac-
-------
1052
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
complishing something is under a law passed
by Congress at the behest of Senator EDMUND
S. MUSKIE. Senator MUSKIE has become the
leading advocate in Congress of anti-pollution
measures.
Those of us who reside inland are inclined
to think of pollution as primarily a river
problem.
It isn't. These polluted rivers empty into
the sea and where they empty they deposit
their filth in such quantity that even the
mighty ocean can't cope with it. And there
is an increasing amount of direct pollution
along our coast line.
Certainly, one hopes that something can
be done to correct the Searsport-Stockton
Springs problem as quickly as possible. In
the long range one hopes that something
will be done to prevent other situations
like it.
[From the Lewiston Daily Sun, July 4, 1966]
LANDMARK CASE IN THE MAKING
The closing of valuable clam flats in Bel-
fast, Searsport and Stockton Springs may
result in a landmark court case, under a
new federal law. This is the first time since
such areas have been closed due to pollution
that a law is on the books which may offer
redress to the clam diggers whose livelihood
is affected.
Action to close the flats was taken after
tests showed that the bacterial count was
higher than allowed by the U S. Public
Health Service. As Sea and Shore Fisheries
Commissioner Ronald W. Green explained
at a public hearing, the state has no choice
but to close areas where pollution surpasses
the standards set by the agency. At the
same public hearing, it was brought out that
the offending pollution comes in part from
communities along the Penobscot River and
in part from poultry processing plants in
Belfast.
At the request of the commissioner, Gov
John H. Reed has written Secretary of the
Interior Stewart L. Udall, whose department
is charged with enforcing the law relating
to pollution of tidal flats and waters, to see
how it can be applied in Maine.
The law, sponsored by Senator EDMUND S.
MUSKIE of Maine, by the way, may allow the
diggers to sue communities and corporations
polluting the waters. Last year, the 65 dig-
gers involved conducted a $200,000 business
on the clam flats which have been closed.
In addition to possible redress in court,
the federal law also may bring assistance in
the way of federal technical studies and
financing to restore the flats for commercial
use.
If the Muskie law proves as effective as in-
tended, pollution control will be given a
big push, while those who are victimized by
pollution will find needed assistance.
[From the Portland Evening Express,
July 6, 1966]
FOULING OUR OWN NEST
The Sunday Telegram is delivering a two
part Sunday punch in a pair of articles on
our pollution of our coast.
This past Sunday the Telegram stated;
"The neighboring cities of Portland, South
Portland and Westbrook daily dump all their
municipal sewage untreated into Casco Bay."
In odiferous addition to this filth disposal,
says the Telegram feature, the cities add the
industrial wastes of a major paper mill and
the refuse from numerous fish and meat proc-
essing plants along the waterfront.
The result is that Casco Bay enjoys the
worst possible water rating.
These waters are filthy.
So filthy that in the language of the Water
Improvement Commission the waters of
Casco Bay "shall be considered as primarily
devoted to the disposal of sewage and in-
dustrial wastes. . ."
Beautiful Casco Bay gets the classification
of D.
And "D" stands for Dirty.
"D" stands for Defilement.
"D" stands for Desecration.
"To dirty; to defile; to desecrate" . . . this
is how Webster's Dictionary defines "pollu-
tion."
Portland's polluted Back Bay is a giant
open tidal sewer in the middle of the city.
The measuring stick for water filth doesn't
go low enough to classify it. The Sunday
Telegiam states Back Bay can't even stagger
up high enough to reach a class D rating.
These are remarks made in passing about
Portland Harbor. The first of two Sunday
Telegram articles reported on the whole
coast.
But this coming Sunday, the Telegram
takes a close-up look at Portland, exclusively.
Its spotlight will glare on the way we are
fouling our own nest
Faced with these noisome facts, we hope
the public outcry will be loud enough to
trigger off a too long delayed cure.
Maine's Senator MUSKIE is the man leading
the fight in Washington to combat pollution.
What better springboard than Maine's biggest
city''
[From the Waterville Morning Sentinel,
July 7, 1966]
THE TIDE WON'T CLEAN IT UP
It is generally conceded, in the newspaper
business, that a good many news stories,
regardless of their significance, go unread
during a three-day Fourth of July holiday.
Most people are on the move, occupying
themselves with other matters.
But on Sunday our contemporary, the
Sunday Telegram in Portland, published the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1053
first of two articles on maritime pollution,
and we urge those who may have skipped
lightly over it, or ignored it, to exhume the
paper and read the article thoroughly.
The staff writers' research is thorough and
well-documented, the story they reveal of
the defilement of the Maine coast is shocking.
The impact is all the more devastating
when one remembers that Maine has a coast-
line of more than 2,500 miles, and that a
large proportion of the state's great throng
of summer visitors spend their time at resorts
[p. 15594]
and communities along the Atlantic shore-
line. It is beautiful, it is largely uncrowded,
but alas, much of it is badly polluted
All of us here in Maine know why Scores
of Maine rivers and streams, emptying into
the sea, have been used as sewers from time
immemorial. It used to be assumed ihat
since the ocean was so vast, and the twice
daily tides so powerful, that the salt water
absorbed this enormous mess of industrial
and human sewage.
But with more than a hundred valuable
clam flats closed to digging because of pol-
lution, we now know that the tides leave
a good deal to be desired as cleaning agents.
This is an economic loss—the recent closing
of clamming areas near Belfast recently
shut down a $200,000 a year business—but
the tourist industry will suffer far more if
severe pollution reaches numerous beach
resorts. Old Orchard Beach narrowly es-
caped disaster not long ago, and the lesson
learned there has been profitable to others
Yet there is much more to be done, with
reference to the coast alone, and the state
must be made ready to take advantage of
increased federal aid, if Sen. EDMUND S. Mus-
KIE can force his new "clean waters" bill 10
enactment. In relation to many other states,
Maine is fortunate, but there is apathy and
inertia to overcome, and the Telegram arti-
cle will help mold public opinion in the right
direction.
[From the Portland Press Herald,
July 8, 1966]
TELEGRAM'S REVIEW OF POLLUTION OUTLINES
PROBLEMS STATE FACES
The Sunday Telegram, in a manner of
speaking, is in the process of delivering a
one-two punch on the issue of coastal
pollution.
Last Sunday its staff writers assembled a
shocking exposure of pollution of the Maine
coastline, naming the towns and cities that
have recognized the problem, to do some-
thing about it For those who have acted, it
must be admitted, it was not so much a
matter of conscience as one of economic
necessity.
Next Sunday the Telegram will reveal "A
Portrait of Portland," and residents of the
area had better brace themselves for a dis-
concerting and disagreeable picture. This is
the most heavily populated and industrial-
ized part of the state, and every day its com-
munities are pouring a vast amount of
industrial and human sewage into Casco Bay.
The worst conditions are found in Back
Cove and Portland Harbor, and only last
week the Board of Harbor Commissioners
publicly assailed the filthy conditions al-
lowed to exist adjacent to this "beautiful city
by the sea."
Very little has been done because of the
cost of sewage lines, pumping stations and
treatment plants Yet if Sen EDMUND S
MUSXIE succeeds with his new bill aimed at
more generous federal financial aid in pollu-
tion abatement, Greater Portland must pre-
pare to take advantage of it. It is ironic to
see civic leaders boasting that more than $20
millions will be spent on a new expressway,
but ignore the befouling of Back Cove and
the harbor. Perhaps the forthcoming Tele-
gram article will change the present mood of
apathy.
[From the Portland Sunday Telegram,
July 10, 1966]
GOD'S SEPTIC TANK
If the fish in Jake Day's cartoon would
take off those gas masks and write this edi-
torial, we'd get a horrifying first-hand story
of what it feels like to be "polluted"—by
sewage dumped into Maine's coastal waters.
Today the feature section of the Telegram
focuses on the problems of pollution in the
Portland area. Last week the Telegram spot-
lighted the problem along our entire coast.
The wholesale dumping of uncountable
tons of human and industrial waste into the
ocean clearly implies that Man treats the
ocean as a septic tank provided by God.
Thanks in large degree Lo the arduous work
done m Washington by our own Senator
MUSKIE, Man is now belatedly trying to cor-
rect the situation
Wholesale dumping is an expensive mis-
take to correct Across the nation, in the
rivers as well as along the coasts, it may cost
billions of dollars to correct present pollution
and to prevent future increased pollution.
The first steps—faltering sometimes, over
strong opposition always—have been taken.
New homes bordering on the ocean can no
longer use the cheapest way of getting rid
of their waste—a rusty pipe to the sea. But
"grandfather clauses," with very long
whiskers, permit high priced homes to act
still in a pretty low-class way
Doctors tell us that swimming in sewage
polluted waters has not to their knowledge
caused death, or even desperate illness
We are inclined to attribute this good
news more to the fact that swimmers get
-------
1054
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
out of the way than to any kindly quality
in the sewage.
Without deaths and disease, the penalties
of pollution may lack the drama which trig-
gers public action.
We all oppose pollution violently—right
up to the point where its cure spells taxes
Right up to the point where preventing pollu-
tion before it starts leads to the threat of
a loss of immediate jobs.
And so through positive nonaction the
problems grow larger and the future cure
grows more costly.
Speaking of cost, it is a fact that pollu-
tion in our rivers and along our coastline is
costing and has been costing us millions of
dollars in Maine.
Pollution has closed clam flats and thrown
men out of work It is still doing this
Here we want to emphasize that every
Maine clam which goes to market today is
a fine, clean, pollution free clam. Sea and
Shore Fisheries day after day check scien-
tifically to ascertain there is no pollution in
the beds being dug. Equally, Sea and Shore
firmly closes beds where pollution threatens
them. You can eat Maine clams and be
wholly safe.
Senator MUSKIE'S new Water Pollution
Control Act and the Clean Rivers Restoration
Act provides up to 30 per cent Federal grants
for sewage treatment plants. It removes the
old dollar limitations which discriminated
against cities such as Portland His commit-
tee has approved a major expansion in re-
search and development funds to work on
problems of tidal estuaries, improved
methods of waste treatment. Up to 50 per
cent in Federal matching funds may soon be
available for cleanup projects in river basins,
where the state agrees to put up 30 per cent
of the project cost.
Thus, a community in Maine would be able
to upgrade its water quality and pay only
20 per cent of the cost A fine investment1
The Muskie bill warrants the full support
of Congress. Its cost—an estimated six bil-
lion dollars over the next six years—is small
compared with the benefits it will bring.
And among those benefits will be the oppor-
tunity for Maine to execute plans which
Maine communities should get in readiness
now.
Local cost can be further reduced by imag-
inative design of combined sewage and waste
disposal plants Already cities have installed
these which get rid of their garbage, waste
and pollution problems and then show the
city a profit, through the sale of byproducts
from such a plant.
A plant like this is envisaged by Thomas
F Griffin Jr., Portland's Director of Public
Works, and is reported in the news columns
of today's paper.
In summary, we hope that the facts re-
vealed in the current series of Telegram
articles will stimulate every Maine Lown
and city bordering the coast or bordering a
river to put pollution at the top of the list of
Town Business And keep it there until
positive action is taken For support, infor-
mation and advice, write to your Senator
MUSKIE of Maine, Washington, D.C.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I would
like to add a few thoughts to the analy-
sis and explanation of S. 2947 which has
just been presented by the able junior
Senator from Maine.
My work with him on the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution has
given me a deep appreciation of his dedi-
cation to the cause of pollution abate-
ment. The fact that this important bill
is before us today reflects his under-
standing of the nationwide urgency of
the water pollution problem.
In general this bill expands the Fed-
eral Government's effort to attack water
pollution. It would help clean up rivers
by providing for a basinwide approach.
It offers more funds for hard-pressed
large urban areas and a revolving loan
fund to help communities with sewage
projects. It adds to the water pollution
research programs.
Details of the bill have already been
well explained by the junior Senator
from Maine. I will not take time to re-
peat them.
What I would like to emphasize in
our overall consideration of the water
pollution problem is that effective action
involves far more than money.
It involves a greater public awareness
of the stake which individual citizens
have in water pollution abatement. And
it involves cooperation by these citizens,
private businesses, and all levels of
government.
To put it simply, water pollution is
everyone's problem. If greater atten-
tion is focused on steps to control it, if
civic organizations and other groups can
increase their efforts to explore ways to
meet local problems, I believe that great
progress can be made through voluntary
action based on understanding of the
situation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1055
An example of spectacular achieve-
ment in this area, to the benefit of all
concerned, is found in the successful
project to clean up the North Platte
River in Wyoming. It involved coordi-
nated efforts by Federal, State, and local
governments, plus private industry and
private citizens.
In 1948 the U.S. Public Health Service
reported that the 150-mile section from
Casper, Wyo., to the Wyoming-Nebraska
line was "so grossly polluted with human
and refinery wastes that it is doubtful
if recovery can ever be obtained."
Today this same stretch of water
swarms with perch, sunfish, pike, and
trout. Boy Scouts canoe on it and swim
in it. Tourists camp by its side and
water ski behind the big dams. Some
towns tap it in dry spells. In short, the
river has come back to life.
I want to point out to my colleagues
that here in the Senate is one of the
men responsible for the return to health
of the North Platte River. Early in 1955,
[p. 15595]
Senator MILWARD SIMPSON, then Gov-
ernor of Wyoming, hired a sanitary engi-
neer and told him he would back him to
the fullest in a program to clear up the
river.
As a result of this Governor's determi-
nation, and the cooperative support be-
hind his determination, the people of
Wyoming are now enjoying their river.
Bottomland has risen in value from $240
an acre 10 years ago to $1,500 an acre
now. Some of the companies which
spent a great deal of money on pollu-
tion control are discovering long-range
benefits, financial and otherwise, which
they had not expected.
My point in mentioning this project is
that it demonstrates what can be done
when there is leadership, public under-
standing, and broad cooperation by
everyone concerned.
It is the same combination which will
produce results elsewhere in the country.
The money we provide is important, but
it is not the whole answer by any means.
Since the Federal Government is ac-
tive in encouraging pollution control, I
think it is well to emphasize again that
in assuming leadership the Federal Gov-
ernment also assumes the responsibility
for making sure that its own house is
in order.
I am reminded of this responsibility
because of a situation in my own State
of Delaware at Dover Air Force Base.
Water pollution from the base has been
a problem for many years. Funds have
been provided to correct one source of
pollution from the base, but a serious
pollution problem remains. Under-
standably there is not enough money to
get everything done at once, but this
matter of pollution is of such vital im-
portance that we must be sure the
Federal Government lives up to its
responsibility.
Mr. President, I commend again the
efforts of the junior Senator from Maine
and the other Senators who have con-
tributed to improvements in S. 2947. It
is a significant piece of legislation deal-
ing with an urgent problem. I hope that
it will be quickly approved.
I thank my colleague for yielding me
the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Delaware for his
committee work and for his excellent
statement. The Senator has been a
strong right arm and has help make this
subcommittee and committee effort a
cooperative one. This cooperative effort
has produced some excellent legislation.
TRUTH IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr President, I
support in its entirely—I support
strongly—the bill S. 2947 now before the
Senate, which amends the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act, strengthening,
improving, and making it more effective.
The Senate has reason to be thankful
for the dedicated and intelligent leader-
ship which the junior Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has provided. The
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion has held full and comprehensive
-------
1056
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hearings. It has received evidence from
representatives of government, labor,
and industry, and from public-spirited
organizations. Twenty-seven Senators
from both parties also presented state-
-tients to the subcommittee on the bill.
In his opening statement, the junior
Senator from Maine outlined the provi-
sions of the bill, the programs authorized,
and the new authorities that would be
granted to the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to insure truly ef-
fective water pollution control policies.
I have a particular interest in the bill,
Mr. President. I have interest particu-
larly in section 212, on page 30, starting
at line 8. This section would authorize
the Secretary of HEW, whenever he
would have reason to believe that a per-
son's activities are resulting in "dis-
charges causing or contributing to water
pollution or whose activities may affect
the quality of the waters involved,'' to
require that person to file a report giv-
ing full information on the extent of the
pollution, its cause, and the steps needed
to reduce it.
This section would be important to the
Secretary in his struggle to reduce the
pollution of our Nation's rivers and
streams. All too often in the past it has
been difficult, if not impossible, for the
Secretary to obtain all the information
he requires from private sources, as well
as public. This section would give him
the authority of law with which to ac-
quire this information.
This section would be helpful to Con-
gress—for Congress has had as much
difficulty as many administrative agen-
cies have had in obtaining the full facts
on the pollution of our environment.
Congress has had difficulty in this re-
gard not only from private industry but
from Federal agencies as well. To show
the importance of this matter, I call the
attention of the Senate to one instance:
As I pointed out in a speech on June 23
of this year, several of the tributaries of
the Colorado River during the late 1950's
and the early 1960's received substantial
unwarranted amounts of radioactive
contaminants from uranium mill pilings,
the refuse of uranium mining processes.
The uranium mills had been in operation
since 1945. Reports of varying accuracy
and detail of this contamination have
been current for several years And yet
not until the report by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration was
released in March of 1986 did we have a
comprehensive survey of the extent of
the hazard, the efforts which have
been made to bring about its abatement,
and the further efforts which will be
necessary.
Even with this report, it was not until
this subcommittee began its hearings on
the bill that we received the full appall-
ing facts on the extent of the contami-
nation in years past.
Only in these hearings did we learn
that algae in the San Miguel River at
one time contained levels of radiation
800 times the natural level. Only then
did we find out that these rivers at one
time contained fish 98 times more radio-
active than they should have been. Only
then did we learn of water so radioactive
that persons drinking it would have re-
ceived levels of radiation exceeding those
considered acceptable by the Federal
Radiation Council.
For 20 years, uranium mines and mills
have been operating in the Colorado
River basin.
We have no reason to doubt that ura-
nium waste products have been contami-
nating the river all this time.
Geiger counters and the other radia-
tion monitoring devices have been avail-
able all these 20 years.
Presumably, the privately owned mills
have been equipped with these devices.
Presumably, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and its personnel have been like-
wise equipped.
Presumably, both have known of this
contamination. They have known of the
potential hazards they were causing.
They have known of the hazard even as
they were creating it.
And because of the complex and com-
plicated terminology which must be used
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1057
in discussing these matters, it has been
possible to hoodwink Congress and the
American people.
Because the Secretary of HEW and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration have lacked the authority to
require the presentation of full informa-
tion, it has been possible to deceive the
people by giving them only half the facts
and by presenting the facts in a manner
calculated to confuse.
I do not level a blanket accusation of
hoodwinkery and deception. I only say
that there have been such cases of this
in the past, and I am pleased to say that
the chances of such cases happening in
the future would be considerably re-
duced by passage of the proposed leg-
islation and by section 212 of the bill in
particular.
Mr. President, I congratulate the jun-
ior Senator from Maine and the other
members of his subcommittee for an ex-
cellent and important piece of legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish
to express my appreciation to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr.
BARTLETT], who is one of the sponsors of
the pending legislation, for his excellent
statement.
The Senator from Alaska has been a
longstanding supporter of legislation in
this field. It has been a pleasure and a
privilege to work with him, not only with
respect to water pollution, but other
conservation issues in which we have a
mutual interest.
I particularly appreciate that portion
of the Senator's statement dealing with
uranium mill tailings piles on the Colo-
rado River. I think it is important that
we focus attention on this problem,
which need not be a serious one, but one
which we contend has been rather care-
lessly neglected by the Atomic Energy
Commission.
I appreciate the statement of the Sen-
ator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT].
Mr. BARTLETT. I am grateful for
these words from the Senator from
Maine. I believe he is making a great
contribution to the welfare of this Na-
tion in bringing the bill to the floor of
the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
[p. 15596]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment to the committee
amendment, offered by the Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] is as follows:
In page 27, line 10, after the word "finance"
delete the word "its" and insert in lieu
thereof the words "the local "
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is
a technical amendment which is designed
to effectuate the intent of the commit-
tee. It pertains to section 209 of the
bill which provides the loan program to
assist those communities in depressed
areas when the States do not contribute
to the cost of municipal treatment works.
The language of the bill, as it appears
before us, creates some confusion, or at
least some ambiguity, as to whether such
funds will be available to States to cover
their portion of the cost of the project.
It was the intent of the committee that
the loan program be available only to
cover the local share of the cost of the
project. The proposed amendment
would accomplish that result.
-------
1058
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MTJSKIE].
The amendment to the committee
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 642
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 642 and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment to the committee amend-
ment will be stated for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 23, line 24, insert "(a)" immedi-
ately after "SEC. 204."
On page 24, between lines 6 and 7, insert
the following new subsection:
" (b) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act is amended
by striking out the period at the end thereof
and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and
the following- 'including the training of per-
sonnel of public agencies'."
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have
discussed this amendment with the dis-
tinguished Senator in charge of the bill,
but thought I might make a brief expla-
nation. It will be noted that my amend-
ment would make funds available to
States and interstate agencies for the
training of personnel of public agencies
in the prevention and control of water
pollution and would include employees
of municipalities. I believe it would be
helpful to read section 7 (a) of the
present act:
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, [and for each suc-
ceeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000] 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,
1972, $10,000,000 for grants to States and to
interstate agencies to assist them in meeting
the costs of establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention and con-
trol of water pollution.
Mr. President, if my amendment is
adopted, it would add these words, "in-
cluding the training of personnel of pub-
lic agencies."
I would like to point out that section
5 (a) of the act authorizes the Secretary
to provide training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, and
control of water pollution in the conduct
and coordination of research, investiga-
tions, experiments, and studies in this
field.
It is my belief that there is an addi-
tional need to train individuals employed
in water pollution control and abatement
programs at the State, county, and mu-
nicipal level. Thus, where funds are
now authorized for the training of per-
sonnel in technical matters the thrust
of my amendment is to authorize funds
to State, county, and municipal agencies
and interstate agencies so that these
agencies may train the additional per-
sonnel required to operate the water pol-
lution and control facilities to be financed
under this bill.
From my talks with officials and pub-
licly interested citizens in my own State
of Kentucky and individuals of other
States who have undertaken programs
to provide for controls and abatement of
water pollution, I know that there exists
a great need for trained personnel. Con-
gress will not achieve its purpose by au-
thorizing increasingly large sums to the
States, municipalities, and other agen-
cies in the form of grants for the con-
struction of treatment works where there
are not adequately trained personnel to
operate these facilities.
One of the projects of the Junior
Chamber of Commerce of the United
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1059
States has been to assist in this great
task of water pollution control, and the
junior chamber of commerce has found
that there is a need for the training of
personnel to man these facilities.
I am happy to note that in my own
State the Kentucky Junior Chamber of
Commerce has shown leadership in this
field by embarking on a statewide pro-
gram to bring to the attention of the
public the need for new and more effec-
tive facilities to control and abate pollu-
tion and the necessity of securing skilled
personnel to operate these facilities.
I would therefore appreciate it very
much if the distinguished Senator in
charge of the bill would comment on my
amendment, and I hope would agree to
its acceptance.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
discussed this amendment with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kentucky and
have given his amendment by unquali-
fied support. A number of witnesses, in
the course of the hearings, testified to
the need for the increased availability
of engineering, scientific, and technical
manpower to operate pollution control
facilities. The general indication was
that existing programs are suffering
from a shortage of manpower and that
an expanded program would be needed.
This expanded program will require a
greatly increased Federal commitment
to training.
It might be useful to have printed in
the RECORD some information received
from the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration which indicates
a wholly insufficient training grant
program especially when related to
personnel demands as indicated in the
testimony.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
information from the Water Pollution
Control Administration indicating the
amount of money now devoted to train-
ing grant programs printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Appropriations for the training grant pro-
gram for FY 1965, 1966 and 1967 are as fol-
lows 1965, $2,617,000, 1966, $3,210,000; 1967,
$3,543,000 test ).
There are three different training grant
programs The largest is the grants to institu-
tions, $2 million in 1965. There are 57 grants
for 42 institutions in 32 states ranging from
$20 thousand to $50 thousand, and aiding ap-
proximately 291 students.
The second training grant program is for
fellowships to individuals, scientific and
engineering students Total allocation of this
program in 1965 was $700 thousand to 51 in-
stitutions m 28 states resulting in 101 graduate
level fellowships.
The only other training grant program is
for the Water and Sewage Operators Training
School in Neosho, Missouri The FWPCA
provides partial support to the school which
in 1965 amounted to $40 thousand. This is the
only full time plant operator training school
in the United States
The course covers a period of 32 weeks and
in 1965 enrolled approximately 250 potential
new plant operators
Finally, the FWPCA provides courses in
water pollution control at the Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering School.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wholly
endorse the amendment of the Senator
from Kentucky. Indeed, it may be nec-
essary to do more in the years ahead in
this field in order to give these facilities
which would be built under the pending
legislation effective maintenance and
operation.
Mr. COOPER. I think so. I think
it will be necessary to make more funds
available in the future, but at least this
is a start. I thank the Senator from
[p.15597]
Maine for his endorsement of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment to the committee amendment of
the Senator from Kentucky.
The amendment to the committee
amendment was agreed to.
PROTECT OUR RESOURCES, COMBAT POLLUTION
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
as a cosponsor of S. 2947, I urge passage
of this bill to improve the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The bill
would provide for more needed research,
-------
1060
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
extended and improved planning, in-
creased construction, and more effective
enforcement in water pollution control.
The inspired efforts of the distin-
guished junior Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], have been outstanding
and his leadership on this legislation is
a step forward in the vital area of water
pollution control.
Water pollution is one of the gravest
threats to our national welfare. The
problem of water pollution is now and
will be in the future an important aspect
in this Nation's health, welfare, and
economic growth. We must take the
necessary steps today to insure our
country's rising needs for this precious
product of nature. There is much water
today but we must realize that the sup-
ply is not infinite and in order to serve
all of our purposes, water pollution con-
trol must be properly managed.
The problem of water pollution is awe-
some. Expenditures for the treatment
of industrial wastes are tremendous. To
give some idea of the size of this prob-
lem, the industrial organic waste in 1970
is estimated to be equivalent to the raw
sewage of a population of 210 million.
Another major problem in water pol-
lution control is that of sewer runoff sys-
tems, not only for sanitation purposes
but also for storm runoff control. This
problem confronts 1,900 communities
affecting nearly 40 million people with
an estimated cost of $8 billion.
These figures on pollution of our fresh
water supplies are appalling. Such in-
sidious elements as chemical wastes,
radioactive wastes, even recreational
facilities such as motorboats with their
fumes and oils contribute to the destruc-
tion of our fresh water areas.
Mr. President, I read an article re-
cently that penguins captured in the
Antarctic, which are nonmigratory and
never leave their area, were found to
have DDT in them. This DDT is washed
down from the fresh water rivers and
also through the ocean currents and con-
taminates the fish which are caught
there.
Mr. President, this is a nationwide
problem. I daresay that not a State or
a community is free from the menace of
water pollution. In my own State of
Texas we are faced with many difficult
cases.
The water in the Houston Ship Chan-
nel poses a danger to health and creates
a fire hazard at the same time. A Texas
newspaper notes:
To fall into this oily mess is to court death,
while its fumes endanger the health of those
who live and work along its banks, Fire pre-
vention authorities worry daily that careless-
ness may ignite some of the volatile
chemicals, setting off a chain of fires and ex-
plosions that could cause astronomical losses.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torial from the July 3, 1986, Dallas
Morning News, entitled "Fabulous, But
Filthy," be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Houston Ship Channel carries two true
descriptions. One is that of a "fabulous 50
miles " The other is "probably one of the
worst problems in water pollution anywhere
in the country." Still another, unfortunately,
might be added A fire hazard that could
cause a worse explosion than that at Texas
City.
This mixture illustrates the dangers man
can create as he builds. The great industries
along Houston's waterway represent an in-
vestment of more than 2 5 billion dollars.
Ships from all over the globe come and de-
part loaded with raw materials and finished
products.
Largely because of water traffic, Houston
has become one of the great cities of the
world, as well as Texas' largest.
But the Texas Water Pollution Board,
joined by the Harris County attorney's office,
is battling to stop the nauseous contamina-
tion that tarnishes the economically golden
hue of this channel.
Houstonians say that to fall into this oily
mess is to court death, while its fumes en-
danger the health of those who live and work
along its banks.
Fire prevention authorities worry daily
that carelessness may ignite some of the vol-
atile chemicals, setting off a chain of fires
and explosions that could cause astronomical
losses.
It is encouraging to see more action being
taken on the problem there. Farther and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1061
faster steps are needed Some system of inter-
governmental cooperation will be necessary,
probably, because too many units of govern-
ment are working independently, if at all, to
curtail these hazards.
Neither those along the Houston Ship
Channel nor Texans as a whole can afford not
to eliminate the dangers Furthermore,
North Texas and other areas where the prob-
lem is not yet so critical must learn from
South Texans' experience. An ounce of pre-
vention is worth a pound of cure, in pollu-
tion and fire hazards as in other things.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
in Texas also, there are almost 30,000
people living in communities that are
discharging untreated sewage. To cor-
rect this grave situation would incur an
approximate cost of over $1 million.
Over 174 communities affecting more
than 2 million people in Texas have
inadequately treated sewage. And many
other communities in Texas have no
sewers at all and are potential health
hazards.
Another major problem of pollution
in my home State is pollution from oil
wells. Through the work of such groups
as the railroad commission, pollution
control is being advanced. But much
more is needed to be done, and this
present legislation will assist in these
water pollution control efforts.
Water pollution is expensive, not only
for the individual and the businessman
but for the community and the Nation.
There is no escape from such an eco-
nomic loss of our most valuable natural
resource. The price of pollution is spread
throughout the society by reduced avail-
ability of water and restricted growth of
the economy.
Pollution control measures ease ad-
verse conditions and produce innumer-
able benefits through improved waters.
One cannot immediately measure these
benefits in dollar-and-cents figures, for
the gain from recreation, health, scenic
improvements, and the future utility of
water resources cannot possibly be
tallied.
Water pollution is a national problem;
therefore, action should be taken on all
levels—local, State, and national.
Water is a precious national resource.
Ever-increasing industrialization and
population growth will make great
demands for it in the future, pushing
our supply to its limit. We must not
remain blind to the problem until it is
too late to do anything about it.
We must take action now to provide
a plentiful supply of usable water for
future generations.
This legislation will aid in the further-
ance of water pollution control by im-
proving and increasing the effectiveness
of the programs of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. It would raise
the authorization for extended grant and
contract authority for research purposes,
and would also further support incen-
tive pollution control programs.
S. 2947 proposes an expansion of con-
struction grants, with a 5-year exten-
sion through 1972 along with increased
appropriations. This bill calls for a 1,000
percent increase in the construction pro-
gram set out by the Water Quality Act
of 1935 in the next 5 years, from $150
million for fiscal 1967 to $1,500 million
in 1972.
I hope that this valuable legislation
will be favorably acted upon by my col-'
leagues, for this bill contains the tools
for benefits essential to the whole Nation.
More than anyone else, tribute should
be paid to the Sanator from Maine, who
has worked so long to bring about this
legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for
his continued support in this field and
for his kind comments about me. We
could not have gone as far as we have
without the support of the Senator from
Texas, who, although he is not a member
of the committee, has given us the benefit
of his help.
MR. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, it gives me great pleasure to
speak today in support of S. 2947, which
I was pleased to cosponsor. This bill
represents the work of many able hands.
It unmistakably bears the imprint of
the eminent junior Senator from Maine,
Senator MUSKIE, who, as chairman of the
-------
1062
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Water Pollution Subcommittee, has ably
led the Senate in the fight to clean our
waters. It incorporates President John-
son's imaginative proposal for a clean
river restoration program. And it re-
flects, as well, the efforts of the almost
30 Members of the Senate from both
parties who have spoken out in this
session in support of a broadened Fed-
eral commitment to water pollution con-
trol and abatement.
Finally, Mr. President, I consider it
fitting to observe that this legislation
marks the culmination of the leadership
[p.15598]
efforts over a period of many years of
the former chairman of the Senate Pub-
lic Works Committee, the late Senator
Pat McNamara, of Michigan, who cre-
ated the Air and Water Pollution Sub-
committee over 3 years ago. It was
Senator McNamara who recognized that
this Nation can no longer afford the
widespread illusion that our water sup-
plies are drawn from a limitless source.
And it was Senator McNamara who res-
olutely defined as our responsibilities to
"take whatever steps are necessary to
develop, conserve, and protect our water
resources in order to meet the Nation's
soaring needs for this precious product."
The legislation we are considering to-
day marks a significant advance toward
the fulfillment of those responsibilities.
It is the most comprehensive piece of
water control legislation ever to come
before the Senate. It not only extends
and broadens existing law and author-
izes a commitment of Federal resources
on a level of unparalleled but necessary
magnitude, it also focuses on other as-
pects of pollution, such as those caused
by the discharge of oil and the neglect of
our estuaries, and it attempts to come to
grips with the need for greater efforts in
the area of research and experimenta-
tion, for greater knowledge about the
impact and costs of pollution, and for
more skilled personnel to carry out our
expanded programs of water pollution
control and abatement.
I would like to comment in detail
about several aspects of this legislation.
As a Senator from a State where the
problems of water pollution are immense
and urgent, I am heartened by the real-
istic, no-nonsense approach which the
committee has taken in authorizing
funds to meet the existing backlog for
the construction of waste treatment
facilities.
Since 1957, Federal assistance of almost
$700 million has been given to some
62,000 pollution control projects, but this
level of assistance provides only a frac-
tion of the resources which will be re-
quired to undo the damage which our
past neglect has caused.
Consider the magnitude of need just
in my own State of Massachusetts.
Twenty-eight Massachusetts towns are
involved in the pollution of the Merri-
mack. It is estimated that it will cost
$80 million for these towns to construct
the treatment plants necessary to clean
this river.
Twenty-six Massachusetts towns are
involved in the pollution of the Connect-
icut River. It is estimated that it will
cost $20 million for these towns to build
the necessary projects.
Thirteen Massachusetts towns are in-
volved in the pollution of the Blackstone
River. It is estimated unofficially that
it will cost $35 million for these towns to
construct pollution abatement facilities.
And the estimated total cost of clean-
ing all of Massachusetts waters is placed
at a minimum of $300 million. This
enormous investment is required not to
achieve some theoretical standard of
water purity but merely to establish
minimum standards for waters which are
presently suitable only for the transpor-
tation of sewage and industrial waste.
The problem of water pollution in
Massachusetts is perhaps more serious
than in some States, but the national
needs are of the same order of magni-
tude. One estimate places the costs of
secondary waste treatment facilities for
the Nation by 1975 at 20 billions of dol-
lars and the committee observes that the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1063
total cost of pollution control could wel
exceed $100 billion.
It is clear that the local communities
faced with these requirements lack the
resources to construct the facilities
solely by themselves. We must there-
fore greatly increase the scale of our
Federal support and we must provide
maximum incentives to the States and
local communities to join together in a
concerted effort to abate pollution.
That is why I am so delighted with
the provisions of this bill which would
authorize a total of $6 billion in appro-
priations through fiscal year 1972,
eliminate the existing dollar-ceiling lim-
itations on individual projects grants,
and provide a 30-percent grant for every
project regardless of cost. On the basis
of the allocation formulas established
under this legislation, Massachusetts
could be eligible over the next 6 years
for some $160 million in Federal assist-
ance. When you compare this figure
with the some $3 million in Federal
assistance that Massachusetts received
this past year, one can appreciate the
difference that this greatly expanded
program of Federal assistance can make
to the waging and winning of our war on
pollution.
At the same time, Mr. President, this
bill recognizes that simply making more
Federal money available and removing
dollar ceilings will not be enough. When
I testified before the Water Pollution
Subcommittee on my bill, S. 2857, I
pointed out that S. 2947 and my bill
arrived at many of the same conclusions.
I stressed, however, the need for mech-
anisms to insure maximum participation
by the States in support of municipal
pollution abatement projects. I also
pointed out the necessity for making an
effort to allocate Federal funds more on
the basis of need rather than solely on
the basis of traditional formula.
I am pleased that the committee bill
incorporates the President's clean rivers
restoration program in a form designed
to encourage greater participation by the
States under the bill, once a river basin |
planning agency is designated, water
quality standards are established, and
the State meets 30 percent of the proj-
ect costs, the Federal Government may
provide up to 50 percent of the project
cost. The additional 20 percent Federal
assistance is exactly the kind of incen-
tive that I have urged we offer the States
to encourage them to develop State
assistance programs.
Considering the difficulties that com-
munities such as Lowell and Haverhill
on the Merrimack River in my own
State of Massachusetts have in financing
construction of treatment plants, this
provision of the bill, which could cut the
local burden to 20 percent of the project
cost, could make a tremendous difference
to communities which are anxious to
combat pollution but lack the resources
to translate intentions into action.
I remain convinced that we must con-
tinue to work toward allocating our Fed-
eral assistance more on the basis of need
and I would like to ask the eminent
Senator from Maine about the future in
this regard. Under this legislation will
the States who have the greatest needs
and who are willing to do their share in
matching Federal grants for pollution
control receive adequate grants to meet
these needs?
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts
that, under the bill as it is now written,
the Federal share would be increased to
30 percent of the total project cost,
whether or not the States make a con-
tribution to that cost. If the States make
no effort—and 42 States do not now make
an effort—local communities would have
to bear 70 percent of the cost.
Under the clean rivers restoration title
of the bill, if the States meet certain
conditions and contribute 30 percent of
the project cost, then the Federal share
would go to 50 percent, leaving the local
hare at 20 percent. We think that would
be a realistic sharing of the burden.
I do not know why the States have not
responded to this challenge. The basic
act under which our programs are now
-------
1064
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
operating is based on the assumption
that the primary responsibility rests
with the States. The States have as-
serted their primary responsibility. And
yet only eight of them, up to this point,
make any financial contribution to the
cost of sewage treatment projects.
In order to encourage necessary State
participation in the grant program we
have tried to provide additional incen-
tives in this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is
the Senator from Maine satisfied that,
if the States are willing to meet their
responsibilities and the local communi-
ties theirs, the funds authorized in this
bill are sufficient to meet the demands
which would be placed upon them in
those areas in which there is the great-
est need?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is our estimate that
the funds provided through 1972 will be
adequate to provide primary and sec-
ondary treatment for 80 percent of the
population of the country.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts.
And the Senator is satisfied that if the
States and the local communities are re-
sponsive in working out programs to
meet their critical needs, sufficient funds
will be made available so that those com-
munities and those States which have
significant pollution control problems
and are really in desperate need can
meet their obligations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Now, there are
two areas of the problem that are not
touched by this bill. One is the separa-
tion of storm and sanitary sewers for
which Congress authorized a demonstra-
tion grant program last year. The sec-
ond is the problem of industrial waste,
for which Congress has not yet provided.
Sufficient assistance for industry is not
yet available.
With those two exceptions, my answer
to the Senator is in the affirmative.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Massachusetts, while the
[p.15599]
Senator from Maine is here, permit me
to ask him a question?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I
have a brief amendment and a brief
comment on it; then I shall be delighted
to yield the floor. So with the Senator's
indulgence, if we can proceed in that
way I would appreciate it.
Mr. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, there are several provisions of
this legislation which cover new ground
and are vital to a comprehensive pro-
gram of pollution abatement and con-
trol. The first of these amends the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924 to make it unlawful
to discharge oil from vessels, shore in-
stallations, or terminal facilities into
inland or coastal waters.
My own State of Massachusetts has
been constantly plagued by the problem
of oil pollution. For example, in the
spring of 1965 oil spilled off the Massa-
chusetts coast in the area of Fall River
covered the shoreline and the entire
shellfish area. Only in recent months
has the shellfish area started to clear.
During the same spring, oil spillage
occurred in the Charles River, a river
bordered by historic and cultural land-
marks. The picturesque shoreline was
coated with a layer of black sludge, all
the way from Watertown to the ocean.
Indeed there are waterways in our State
such as the waters of the Mystic River
and the wharf areas of Boston Harbor,
that are continually polluted with oil.
These are examples of what has become
a national problem. I am hopeful that
the stiff penalties for discharging oil
provided for in the bill will do much to
ameliorate this abuse of our Nation's
waters.
I am also happy to see that S. 2947
provides that the Secretary of the In-
terior make a study of the costs of car-
rying out the provisions of this act, and
a comprehensive survey of the costs and
problems of national water pollution
control. At the present moment, we
cannot foresee the specific results of the
passage of S. 2947. We know that the
bill is a great step forward in pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1065
control and abatement. But to keep up
with the advances that will be made as
a result of this legislation, to expand our
knowledge and our skill in coping with
pollution, it is essential that a study be
made of our progress in water pollution
control.
Finally, I note the provision for a com-
prehensive study of the effects of pollu-
tion, including sedimentation, in the
estuaries and estuarine zones of the
United States.
The estuarine zones of our Nation are
essential for the purposes of commercial
and sport fishing, for recreation, and for
camping and hunting. Yet until now,
they have been virtually neglected. It
was with this in mmd that I recently
proposed a bill to provide for a nation-
wide study by the Secretary of the In-
terior to identify the estuarine areas
which should be protected from further
deterioration caused by population pres-
sures and water pollution.
Consequently, I consider this provision
of S. 2947 a very important contribution
to this legislation.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr.
President, I shall offer an amendment to
S. 2947.
On April 11, 1966, I received a letter
from Dr. N. Bruce Hanes, director of
environmental engineers, Tufts Univer-
sity. Dr. Hanes drew my attention to
the severe shortage of trained personnel
trained in the essential skills of water
treatment and sewage control. He em-
phasized that fellowships are made to
students on the graduate level, but not
in sufficient number on the undergradu-
ate level, where such fellowships or
scholarships would offer incentives to
students to begin studying techniques of
water pollution and sewage control in
the first years of college rather than
later in graduate school.
He pointed out that unless action were
taken, full implementation of our grow-
ing water pollution programs might be
thwarted by a lack of skilled manpower.
I then wrote to the Secretaries of the
Interior, Labor, Health, Education, and
Welfare, and Housing and Urban Devel-
opment inquiring into this problem and
suggesting that consideration be given to
convening a national manpower confer-
ence to explore the question. Their
replies indicated that the problem of
shortages of skilled personnel was mani-
fest, but yet to be confronted.
I ask unanimous consent that copies
of that correspondence be printed in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TUFTS UNIVERSITY,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
Med-ford, Mass., April 11, 1966.
Ait. Miss Barbard Souliotis.
The Honorable EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
Senator of Massachusetts,
U S Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY I am writing this
letter to express my grave concern of the
success of the extensive Federal programs in
the field of water pollution which were en-
larged and initiated by Legislation in 1965,
and the new programs that are being con-
sidered this year.
I feel that many funds have been chan-
neled into this critical problem area without
consideration of where the trained personnel
will come from to carry these programs to a
successful completion. I anticipate that the
country will soon find itself in the position
of New York State where 1.7 billion dollars
have been made available through a bond is-
sue and Federal funds to clean up the pol-
lutional problems in the next seven years;
however, they now find that they do not have
the trained personnel to do the job nor can
they find them I am expressing this opinion
as a young engineer who has been concerned
with education in the field of water pollu-
tion for nine years and as the Director of
Tufts University Environmental Engineering
Program.
For example, last year the 89th Congress
passed several laws which will make available
millions of additional dollars to attack the
broad problem of water pollution on several
fronts The major bill was the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-238) which provided
an additional $50,000,000 a year of matching
funds for the construction of sewage treat-
ment plants. It also provided $20,000,000 per
year of matching funds for the purpose of
assisting in the development of new or im-
proved methods of controlling storm sewage.
In addition to the Water Quality Act of 1965,
the following bills were enacted which con-
tain provisions regarding water supply and
-------
1066
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pollution control:
P.L. 89-117: $200,000,000 per year of match-
ing funds for the financing of basic public
water facilities;
P.L. 89-136: $500,000,000 per year of match-
ing funds for the construction, expansion or
improvement of public works facilities in
redevelopment areas;
P.L. 89-4: $6,000,000 per year of funds for
the construction of sewage treatment works
in communities in the Appalachian region;
P.L. 89-240: $50,000,000 per year of match-
ing funds to finance, among other things, the
treatment or disposal of waste in rural areas.
In addition, The Water Resources Planning
Act of 1965 is designed to "meet the rapidly
expanding demands for water throughout the
nation * * " ". This Act establishes a water
resources council and river basin commissions
and makes provision for financial assistance to
the states to increase their participation in
water resources planning. The Federal Water
Project Recreation Act of 1985 provides for
the consideration, in the planning of federal
water projects, of the possibilities for outdoor
recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement.
Provisions relating to water are also contained
in the River and Harbor Act of 1965 and in
Public Law 89-42 which authorizes $944 mil-
lion for flood control and navigation improve-
ment projects in thirteen river basins over the
next two years.
According to the publication "Federal
Water Resources Research Program for fiscal
year 1966" the Federal Government budgeted
a total of $1.8 billion dollars for water re-
sources development for fiscal year 1966. Of
these funds, only $9.7 million dollars were di-
rectly earmarked for manpower education.
The Department of Interior administers $6.4
million dollars of these funds under P L. 88-
379 which authorizes the establishment of
specific research studies at designated univer-
sities. It is questionable whether these funds
should be strictly considered educational
funds rather than research funds since they
support faculty, research personnel, and grad-
uate students who participate in research
while pursuing course work at the same time.
The balance of the educational funds ($3.2
million) are administered by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
(FWPCA) and provide direct support for
graduate students. These funds provide
training grants to universities and individual
fellowships on the basis of merit which per-
mits students to pursue full time academic
programs. The educational effort by the
FWPCA was increased from $2 6 million in
^fiscal year 1965 to $3.2 million in fiscal year
1966. Even with this increase the educational
output of trained men has lost ground this
year in comparison to the number of jobs that
are now available. As a result, of the greatly
increased Federal funds that have been made
available as outlined to combat pollution,
hardly a day passes that requests for trained
students in this area are received at Tufts
from the Federal, State, and local level. We
now find it possible to fill only a small frac-
tion of these requests. This failure is a result
of inadequate funds for graduate training
combined with the necessity of many of our
graduates to serve the country in the armed
forces.
Next year this critical situation will become
worse. President Johnson sent to Congress
on February 23 a comprehensive message on
pollution entitled "Preserving Our Heritage".
In this message, he made eight badly needed
specific proposals as follows:
1. A Clean River Demonstration Program
which would "clean and preserve entire river
basins from their source to their mouths."
The four requirements included (a) adoption
of appropriate water quality standards for en-
tire basins, (b) development of long-range
comprehensive and practical plans to achieve
and preserve those standards by the states
and local communities, (c) where not already
[p.15600]
existing, the creation of permanent river
basin organizations, and (d) willingness and
ability of communities to obtain and contrib-
ute funds for construction of facilities.
2. Increase the federal contribution to the
program for construction, planning, and ad-
ministration. This includes the request to
appropriate for clean river demonstration
projects $50 million for fiscal 1967.
3 Reorganize and concentrate the water
programs in the Department of the Interior.
This includes the transfer of the newly cre-
ated Water Pollution Control Administration
from the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to Interior In the way this was
done, the transfer automatically will be ef-
fected in 60 days unless Congress vetoes the
proposal.
4. Increased financial support for state
agencies The specific request was to double
the federal contribution.
5. Strengthen the federal enforcement
powers This includes proposals (a) to elim-
inate the two mandatory six-month delays
now in the procedure, (b) to allow the fed-
eral government to bring suit to stop pollu-
tion when that pollution constitutes imminent
danger to public health or welfare, (c) to give
more weight in the courts to evidence pro-
duced in administrative enforcement hear-
ings, (d) to allow the federal government the
right to subpoena witnesses to appear at
administrative hearings, (e) to allow the fed-
eral government the right to initiate enforce-
ment proceedings when pollution occurs in
navigable waters, intrastate or interstate,
(f) to require registration of all existing or
potential sources of major pollution and U.S.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1067
representatives be allowed to Inspect such
sources, and (g) to allow private citizens to
bring suit in federal court to seek relief from
pollution.
6. Strengthened research for new and Im-
proved concepts of water pollution control.
The message states, "But if pollution control
is to cope with increasing volumes of waste
from our growing industry and population,
new knowledge and technology are required.
It is a challenge to research organizations,
both private and public, to develop these
technologies."
7. Expansion of training to meet the short-
age of personnel. This includes the proposal
to establish traineeships, fellowships, and an
internship program in federal water pollution
control activities.
8. Establishment of a National Water Com-
mission to review and advise on the entire
range of water resource problems—from
methods to conserve and augment existing
water supplies to the application of modern
technology, such as desalting, to provide more
usable water for cities, industries, and farms.
It is apparent from these proposals that a
large number of funds are immediately
needed in the field of education if the man-
power needs are to be met from last year's
legislation as well as the new bills that are
being considered this year as outlined in the
President's message.
A comparison of education funds available
for full time study in fiscal year 1966 and
proposed funds for full time study in fiscal
year 2967 under the FWPCA Program is made
below:
Fiscal year 1966:
Training grants $2,500,000
Fellowships 700,000
Total 3,200,000
Proposed fiscal year 1967:
Training grants 2,910,000
Fellowships 633,000
Total 3,543,000
The total proposed increase in this program
for next year (considerably less than last
year) is $343,000 and will not provide the
flood of additional trained engineers and
scientists to meet our needs. The most Im-
portant proposals in President Johnson's Feb-
ruary 23rd message for the success of the
overall water pollution program was item
seven, calling for expansion of training in
this area. The most effective way of accom-
plishing this is through a program that pro-
vides direct support for full time study similar
to the current program at the FWPCA. This
year's proposed budgetary increase of $343,000
is not adequate.
The following suggestions are made to at-
tack the present manpower shortage:
1. Expand the present FWPCA Education
Program.
This program is established and is currently
doing an excellent job. Increased expendi-
tures in this program will bring more rapid
results than establishing new programs.
2. Establish support for undergraduate stu-
dents in the field of Environmental Engineer-
ing and Environmental Sciences.
It is realized that this is an extreme step to
take in education, however, it would attract
good students rapidly to the field at the un-
dergraduate level. If we wait until students
realize the shortage of manpower in this area
which coupled with good wages are often the
moving forces for selecting a field of study we
will be short of qualified B.S. students for
jobs and graduate study. The direct federal
support of undergraduate students is on the
way. Why shouldn't the field of Water Pol-
lution lead and be first.
3. Declare water pollution a critical area of
national importance and make people work-
ing this field exempt from the draft.
This is a radical recommendation, however,
the situation is desperate and extreme meas-
ures need to be taken now. It Is conserva-
tively estimated that 50% of graduates at both
the graduate and undergraduate level have
been lost to the draft this year. This measure
would provide the most immediate results for
new manpower and encourage students par-
ticipation on all levels.
Action needs to be taken now, if men
and women are to be available to design,
build, and operate treatment plants; clean
our rivers, lakes, and streams; make new
water standards; and to enforce the new
legislation.
I would be willing to offer testimony on
this matter if it would be of any assistance.
Similar letters have been sent to the follow-
ing: Hon. BRADFORD MORSE, Representative of
Massachusetts; Secretary Stewart Udall, De-
partment of the Interior; Subcommittee on
Health, Education, and Welfare, House Ap-
propriations Committee; Subcommittee on
Department of the Interior, House Appropri-
ations Committee.
Sincerely yours,
N. BRUCE HANES, Ph.D.
Director, Environmental Engineering,
Tufts University.
Amu 25,1966.
The Honorable WILLARD WIRTZ,
Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY : I am enclosing a copy
of an excellent letter I have received from
Dr. N. Bruce Hanes, Director of Environmen-
tal Engineering, Tufts University. Dr. Hanes
points out that we may not be able to achieve
full implementation of our new and growing
water pollution programs because of a lack of
-------
1068
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
available manpower equipped with the neces-
sary skills needed in this area Since I share
his concern, I would very much appreciate if
you could determine what resources are
available under existing legislation to irain
men for careers relating to pollution control.
Could you also advise me if the Bureau of
Labor Statistics has formulated some projec-
tion of the manpower needs in this area over
the next decade?
I would also like your judgment as to
whether it would be desirable to convene a
national conference to determine the need for
skilled workers created by recent legislation
designed to improve our natural environment,
and whether our federal programs are ade-
quately oriented to meet the need.
I look forward to hearing from you on this
matter in the near future.
Sincerely,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, May 6,196S
Hon. EDWABD M. KENNEDY,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you for
bringing to my attention the very interesting
letter from your constituent, Dr. N. Bruce
Hanes, Director of Environmental Engineer-
ing, Tufts University. I, too, share your con-
cern and that of Dr. Hanes that we will find
our developing water pollution programs
weakened by a severe shortage of personnel
trained in the essential skills required.
Under the terms of the Manpower Develop-
ment and Training Act, this Department has
referred approximately 450 individuals from
all over the country to the Water and Sewer-
age Technical School in Neosho, Missouri.
Most of these men have been trained as water
and sewage plant operators, which is a skilled
occupation requiring from 36 to 52 weeks of
instruction. The placement rate of course
graduates has been quite good.
While this has been a successful program
as far as it goes, we are not able, within the
scope of this legislation, to provide training
in the technical and professional occupations
to which Dr. Hanes refers. He indicates in
his letter that training for these highly skilled
occupations should be conducted at the un-
dergraduate and graduate levels, while our
program emphasis is upon serving those with
extremely limited educational, economic, and
social backgrounds so as to make them
employable.
Because of this, I believe that the programs
conducted by the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare in the field of higher
education are more promising for meeting
professional needs of this type I would
suggest also that the question of a national
conference dealing with manpower require-
ments for natural resource programs is de-
pendent pimarily on the results of findings to
be made by the Department of Interior in its
administration of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Our Bureau of Labor Statistics
has been informed that the Department of
Interior is currently involved in a study of
manpower needs in this occupational field
which could conceivably serve as a basis for
a conference such as you mention. We, of
course, would be most willing to contribute
to any effective solution to this problem.
Thank you again for bringing this matter
to my attention.
Sincerely,
W. WlLLARD WlRTZ,
Secretary of Labor.
U S, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., April 29,1966.
Hon. EDWARD M KENNEDY,
U.S Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY' I am acknowledg-
ing your letter of April 25 with which you
enclose a copy of your letter to Secretary of
Labor Willard Wirtz as well as a copy of
a letter directed to you by Dr N. Bruce Hanes
regarding manpower requirements to solve
the problems of water pollution.
This matter is, of course, a very serious one
and we appreciate your bringing it to our
attention. As Secretary of the Interior and
as Chairman of the Water Resources Council,
[p. 15601]
I shall want to have our experts study the
matter carefully.
Sincerely yours,
STEWART UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
THE UNDER SECRETARY
OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., May 9,1966.
Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
U S. Senate,
Washington, D C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY • This is to acknowl-
edge receipt of your letter addressed to Secre-
tary Gardner dated April 26, 1966, enclosing
a copy of a letter to the Secretary of Labor
and a copy of a letter from Dr. N. Bruce
Hanes concerning manpower needs and
programs to deal with problems of water
pollution.
Dr Hanes' analysis of the manpower needs
and programs to deal with water pollution
control problems is a thoughtful and accurate
appraisal of the situation. The need for
engineers, scientists, and others trained in
water pollution control and water resources
management generally is a very significant
one which is not being met by existing efforts.
As you know, the recently established Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1069
is rapidly expanding. It is experiencing the
kind of needs that concern Dr. Hanes. As the
Federal agency involved with supporting
water pollution control training programs,
and providing research grants and fellowships
to individuals and institutions, it has consid-
erable interest in the points raised by Dr.
Hanes.
In your letter to the Secretary of Labor,
you raised the question of convening a na-
tional conference. The Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration has recognized
the need for much more information in the
manpower training field. Information needed
would include numbers of persons required
by profession or specialty, level of training
required by position, phasing of needs rela-
tive to the pollution problem, the geographic
area where needs are greatest, and ways in
which the field could be made more attractive
as an occupation. It is essential, too, that ad-
ministrative delays are not encountered by
qualified personnel after they have indicated
their availability for a position in water pol-
lution control.
We believe much more attention needs to
be given the water pollution manpower prob-
lem than has been given in the past. Your
interest in this situation is greatly appre-
ciated. If we may be of any assistance, or can
provide additional information, please let us
know.
Sincerely yours,
WILBUH J COHEN,
Under Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, D.C , May 11, 2966.
Hon. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D C
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY- Secretary Robert
C. Weaver has asked me to reply to your re-
cent query concerning the manpower needs
and programs to deal with the problems of
water pollution.
We are taking the liberty of referring this
letter to Mr James M Quigley, Commissioner,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare I am sure Mr Quigley will
reply to you in detail.
Sincerely yours,
PAUL K. WALKER,
Acting Commissioner.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The
Department of the Interior has more re-
cently informed me that although they
are gradually compiling information on
the shortage of trained personnel they
have not made a special study of this
shortage.
The committee in its report on this
legislation recognizes the importance of
the problem. It urges:
(1) That the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration report to the Congress on
the question of skilled manpower for opera-
tion of pollution control programs;
(2) That such national conference as
recommended by the Senator be called at
the earliest date consistent with orderly
procedure;
(3) That the Department of Labor and the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare reexamine existing manpower develop-
ment programs and other education programs
to determine the extent to which those pro-
grams may be used for the training of needed
skilled personnel.
It is impossible of course, to know
exactly what the effects would be of an
increased supply of trained personnel in
water pollution control. But the pros-
pects for greater efficiency and reduced
cost are very encouraging. Water pol-
lution experts from my own State of
Massachusetts have estimated that with
more skilled personnel they would be
able to increase efficiency by 10 percent
in 10 plants on the Merrimack River
through the employment of more skilled
personnel; they would save enough
money to construct a multimillion-dollar
treatment plant. The sad fact is that
although Massachusetts officials realize
the potential for increased savings, they
find it very difficult to locate sufficient
trained personnel to operate their plants.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that
without a clear knowledge of how many
men are needed to operate our water
pollution control and abatement pro-
grams and without a positive training
program oriented to meet those needs,
we may find ourselves unable to achieve
our pollution control objectives.
Consequently, to insure that this prob-
lem receives the consideration it de-
serves, I send to the desk a printed
amendment, No. 640, and ask that it be
read at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Massachusetts proposes amend-
-------
1070
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment No. 640, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 640
On page 32, line 5, after "SEC. 17." insert
"(a)".
On page 32, between lines 22 and 23, insert
the following:
"(b) The Secretary shall also make a com-
plete 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."
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr.
President, the purpose of the amendment
is to provide for a comprehensive study
of the need for skilled personnel trained
in the techniques of water pollution con-
trol and abatement, and to determine
how best we can utilize existing Federal
training programs to train such per-
sonnel.
The Secretary of the Interior would
report the results of such investigation
and study to the President and the Con-
gress no later than July 1, 1967.
Mr. President, passage of this legisla-
tion will give us many of the tools and
much of the financial assistance that
will be needed in the years ahead to
restore and preserve the quality of our
water resources. The distinguished jun-
ior Senator from Maine and his col-
leagues on the committee are to be
commended for bringing this legislation
before the Senate.
I urge its speedy passage.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts,
and am happy to support his amendment.
This subject was discussed earlier, Mr.
President, in response to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
The committee was impressed by the
presentation, during its hearings, made
by the distinguished Senator from Mas-
sachusetts, and devoted, indeed, several
paragraphs in the report to the subject
which he has raised. I ask unanimous
consent that that portion of the commit-
tee report be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the excerpt
from the report (No. 1337) was ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Senator EDWARD KENNEDY of Massachusetts
provided the committee with an extensive
analysis of the personnel problem prepared
by Dr. N. Bruce Hanes, Director of Environ-
mental Engineering at Tufts University. Dr.
Hanes pointed out that full implementation
of new and growing water pollution programs
may be impeded due to a lack of available
manpower equipped with the necessary skills.
Senator KENNEDY also provided the commit-
tee with correspondence between himself and
the Secretary of Labor, W. Willard Wirtz, in
which the Senator, among other things, sug-
gested the desirability of convening "a na-
tional conference to determine the needs of
skilled workers created by "recent legislation
designed to improve our natural environment,
and whether our Federal programs are ade-
quately oriented to meet the needs."
The committee believes Senator KENNEDY'S
suggestion to be of the highest order of im-
portance and urges that—
(1) The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration report to the Congress on the
question of skilled manpower for operation
of pollution control programs;
(2) That such national conferences as rec-
ommended by the Senator be called at the
earliest date consistent with orderly proce-
dure; and
(3) That the Department of Labor and the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare reexamine existing manpower develop-
ment programs and other education programs
to determine the extent to which those pro-
grams may be used for the training of needed
skilled personnel.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am
happy to support the amendment of the
distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment to the committee
amendment was agreed to.
[p.15602]
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think
it is a splendid bill. The Senator from
Maine has taken care of many of the
problems concerning which so many of
us have been deeply concerned. I know
what a monumental labor it has been. I
congratulate the Senator on his work.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1071
I know that many of our colleagues are
deeply interested in the economy and in
the Federal expenditures. This is a $6
billion bill, but it is a $6 billion bill
because the Senator from Maine has had
the graciousness and the generosity to
accept other people's ideas. Too many
of us do not do that here very often.
It is a very good precedent.
The pending bill has taken much of
the steam out of the argument concern-
ing the $6 billion bill. The Ssnator has
pointed out very properly and nobly that
it is a great deal of money but that the
money does not have to be appropriated
right away. The States will be encour-
aged by the passage of this bill to go
ahead and spend the money on the the-
ory that they will get it back ultimately.
In a State like New York, in which
there is a $1.7 billion project, the idea
of being able to get reimbursed for
money being spent currently—which we
can raise by credit and other means—
makes us able to proceed. We will take
our chances and the risk that ultimately
the Federal Government will reimburse
us. However, I point out the experience
that we have had and why this is such
a brilliant provision in the bill.
The New York Thruway—the first of
the great trunk roads through the States
—was followed by others in the country,
and it has literally revolutionized our
land.
There was no Federal road program at
the time of its construction. We are
still trying after all these years to get
some Federal reimbursement for what
is in effect an interstate highway—the
New York Thruway.
New York would not have gone ahead
with the great sewer construction pro-
gram which our voters have authorized,
by referendum incidentally, unless we
had reassurance that we would be reim-
bursed for our expenditures.
I think the provisions incorporated in
the bill by the Senator from Maine are
very sound. The other provisions are
splendid.
I am especially enthusiastic over what
amounts to the advance approval of a
river compact with respect to a river
basin.
This is a fine example of Federal-State
cooperation in a most elementary effort
in our country toward the preservation
of the water and its purity. I think
that the Senator from Maine has every
right to derive enormous satisfaction
from his role in leading us into the
enactment of this measure which I hope
will soon be enacted.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want
to express my appreciation to the Sen-
ator from New York not only for his
remarks this afternoon, but for the
strong support and leadership he has
provided in introducing legislation, some
of the ideas of which are incorporated
in the pending bill. I also thank him for
prodding those of us on the committee
to continue our efforts on this problem.
I do appreciate the comments of the
Senator this afternoon.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Presidsnt, I thank
my colleague. I point out that taking
the ceiling off all these individual and
collective projects is tremendously help-
ful to a big industrial State and is an-
other major contribution in the bill. I
thank the Senator.
[p. 15603]
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill [S. 2947] to amend Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in order to
improve and make more effective cer-
tain programs pursuant to such act.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the pending
bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise
to support S. 2947, the Clean Rivers
Restoration Act. This bill is the result
of extensive research and hearings by
the Air and Water Pollution Subcom-
mittee of the Public Works Committee,
under the chairmanship of the distin-
guished Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE]. Senator MUSKIE and the other
members of the subcommittee are to be
-------
1072
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
commended for once again bringing to
the floor of the Senate comprehensive
and forward-looking legislation through
which our energies and resources can be
mobilized for the battle against water
pollution.
The Clean Rivers Restoration Act
extends and expands the Federal water
pollution control program in several
important respects. It is a significant
and logical addition to the series of pol-
[p.15605]
lution control laws beginning with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and
the important amendments to that law,
such as the Water Quality Act passed by
the Congress last year.
One of the most important features of
this bill is a provision which would
organize water pollution control plan-
ning according to river basin. Water
pollution does not, of course, respect
State, municipal or agency boundary
lines. The pollution of our major rivers
does not mean that they are polluted
only in the vicinity of major cities, but
that they are polluted along their entire
courses, from their sources to their
mouths. In these circumstances, pollu-
tion control programs designed for
particular cities or vicinities without
regard to the situation throughout the
drainage basin cannot be expected to do
an effective job of cleaning up our rivers.
Under the clean rivers restoration pro-
gram proposed by this bill, comprehen-
sive plans for the control and abatement
of pollution throughout river basins
would be prepared, and economic incen-
tives would be provided to insure that
waste treatment was adequate to meet
water quality standards established by
the plan. Only through the adoption of
such a comprehensive plan in every river
basin will we be able to eventually meet
our national water pollution problem.
Another important feature of this bill
is the provision for expanded research
and development. Our methods of col-
lecting and treating domestic wastes
have not changed for half a century.
Many industrial wastes are not ame-
nable to conventional treatment, and
new methods must be developed. We
need extensive work on the problem of
combined storm-sanitary sewers, on
joint municipal-industrial systems, and
on advanced waste handling and waste
treatment methods. I feel that the ex-
panded research programs and fund au-
thorizations provided by this bill will go
a long way toward bringing about the
technological breakthroughs upon which
much of the future progress in water
pollution abatement and prevention will
depend.
Although I will not discuss them in
detail, there are many other outstand-
ing features of this bill. The provisions
for an estuary research program, the
mandatory pollution report requirement,
the regulation of oil pollution from ves-
sels and terminals, to mention but a few
of these provisions, will fill important
needs in our overall national pollution
control program.
Mr. President, I feel that the gravest
immediate problem confronting us in
the pollution battle is the vast require-
ments of our cities—large and small—
for waste collection and treatment
facilities. The Federal program for as-
sisting municipalities to construct waste
treatment works has resulted in a tre-
mendous acceleration of construction
work. S. 2947 makes a significant con-
tribution to expanding this program.
Under the clean rivers restoration pro-
gram, the Federal Government may
make grants up to 50 percent of the cost
of treatment works provided that the
State pays at least 30 percent of the cost.
The Federal contribution under this
program may be further increased by
grants under the Appalachian Regional
Development Act and the Public Works
and Economic Development Act.
Amendments to the existing Federal
cost-sharing program remove the dollar
ceilings on grants and substantially in-
crease the Federal proportion of con-
struction costs if a treatment works is
part of a comprehensive plan. Other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1073
amendments provide for retroactive re-
imbursement of money expended for
qualified treatment works construction
projects, and establish a loan program to
help municipalities meet the costs of
treatment works construction. These
changes in and additions to the Federal
program to encourage the construction
of municipal treatment works are badly
needed and will greatly strengthen that
program.
Under this bill, it would be possible for
a municipality to get a Federal grant of
up to 40 percent of the cost of treatment
plant construction under the amend-
ments to the existing Federal grant pro-
gram, and up to 50 percent under the
clean rivers restoration program. The
bill would authorize a total of $6 billion
for the next 6 fiscal years to finance
grants under both these provisions. I
feel very strongly that both the proposed
Federal grant levels and the authoriza-
tion for funds to finance these grants
are inadequate for the needs to be met.
I believe that meeting these rapidly
mounting needs of our cities for ade-
quate waste collection and treatment
systems should be a national responsi-
bility with a No. 1 priority. The pollu-
tion crisis around our cities is deepening
so rapidly that the Federal Government
cannot any longer sit back and insist
that othsr units of government solve the
problem The fact is that the job is not
being done and never will be done un-
less we make it an urgent responsibility
of the Federal Government. If the
building of interstate highways is a task
so urgent as to require 90-percent
Federal fiiancing, certainly the saving
of our lakes and rivers is equally urgent
and equally national in its significance.
Mr. President, I send to the desk an
amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment offered by the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] is as
follows:
On page 13, line 18. strike out "not exceed"
and insert in lieu thereof "be"
On page 13, line 20. before the semicolon
insert a comma and "except that such per
centum shall be increased by the per centum
(not in excess of 20) which is equal to the
per centum of such costs which the State in
which the project is located agrees to
"provide"
On page 14, line 21, after the semicolon,
insert "and"
On page 14, beginning with line 22, strike
out all through line 25.
On page 15, line 1, strike out "(6)" and
insert in lieu thereof "(5)".
On page 24, line 16, beginning with "no
grant" strike out all through "exceeding 30"
in line 17, and insert in lieu thereof "the
grant for any project shall amount to 50"
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclu-
sion of my brief statement there be
printed m the RECORD materials taken
from the report "Disposal of Municipal
Sewage—Water Pollution Control and
Abatement," 12th report by the House
Committee on Government Operations,
prepared by the Natural Resources and
Power Subcommittee, March 24, 1965.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1 )
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have
had the privilege of serving on the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution
of the Committee on Public Works, un-
der the chairmanship of the distin-
guished Senator from Maine [Mr.
MUSKIE], for a period of 2 years. That
committee, under the leadership of the
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has
been conducting hearings on air and
water pollution for almost 4 years.
The pending bill is one of the fruitful
results of these extensive and probing
hearings into the question of water pol-
lution in this country.
I believe that the Senator is to be
commended for having brought to the
floor of the Senate the most comprehen-
-------
1074
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sive, most forward-looking, and finest
water pollution control bill that has
ever been brought to the floor of the
Senate to my knowledge, for active con-
sideration by the Congress.
The bill would make an authorization
of $6 billion, which is a substantial step
in the right direction. The amendment
I sent to the desk aims to change the
formula in the bill. In the bill, there is
a grant of up to 30 percent to the local
municipalities, and up to 50 percent if
the States are willing to match with 30
percent. The amendment I sent to the
desk would make the grant 50 percent to
local municipalities, and would match
the State up to 20 percent, making a
total amount of 90 percent. In other
words, the Federal Government would
make a grant of 50 percent to the local
municipalities and another 20 percent if
the State will match the 20 percent,
making the Federal grant a total of 70
percent. The total grant to the munici-
palities, under those circumstances,
would be 90 percent.
I think that ultimately—although this
is the best grant feature that has been
contained in any bill ever taken up in
Congress for consideration—we will
have to go into the position of "upping"
the matching funds of the Federal Gov-
ernment to local municipalities far be-
yond what we have done in the past, and
far beyond what it is contemplated to do
in the pending legislation.
[p. 15606]
If we were to sit down, consider the
most serious domestic problems con-
fronting this country today, I believe
that the problem of the status of the
quality of our environment would rank
as the most urgent one.
To one degree or another, we have
polluted every river basin in America.
We have polluted the shorelines of
nearly every major city in America. We
have almost destroyed the water in Lake
Erie, we are well underway in the pollu-
tion of Lake Michigan, and are begin-
ning the pollution of Lake Superior. We
are well on our way to polluting that
magnificent lake, high in the mountains,
Lake Tahoe, and are beginning the pol-
lution of the ocean. In fact, we now find
that in the Antarctic, DDT has been
found in the fatty tissues of the Adelie
penguins and yet no DDT has been used
within 1,000 miles of the Antarctic.
We are well on our way to a serious
pollution of the air over this country.
The whole issue of the quality and the
status of our environment is, I think, the
most significant and important domestic
issue confronting this country today.
When, finally, we get around to tackling
the full force of the whole question of
water pollution in this country, I think
we will be facing a problem with a price
tag on it so newhere in the neighborhood
of $75 billion to $100 billion. Everyone
says that is a lot of money, and of course
it is a lot of money to spend in the next
15 or 20 years to clean up the water in
America. However, it is only about the
equivalent of l'/3 years' defense budget.
I think the question of maintaining and
raising the quality of the environment in
which we live in the next 15 to 20 years
is worthy of the investment of money
equivalent to a defense budget expendi-
ture of a year and one-third.
EXHIBIT 1
OUR COUNTRY'S STREAMS CAN No LONGER
ASSIMILATE THE EVER-INCREASING WASTES
DISCHARGED INTO THEM
(Materials taken from the report "Disposal of
Municipal Sewage (Water Pollution Control
and Abatement)." 12th report by the House
Committee on Government Operations,
prepared by the National Resources and
Power Subcommittee, Mar. 24, 1965)
Satisfactory development of urban society
depends on adequate disposal of the complex
wastes resulting from community living.
Water pollution, therefore, is both a symbol
and affliction of the growth of modern civi-
lization It adversely affects the continued
growth, health, and development of the
United States
The water-carriage system for the disposal
of household and industrial wastes from cur
cities and towns developed because of its
simplicity and apparent economy The city
sewer offered a relatively inexpensive means
for removing offensive and potentially
dangerous wastes from our immediate sur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1075
roundlngs and discharging them to a water-
course for disposal beyond sight, smell, and
conscience. This practice was tolerated by
the America of a half-century ago, because
the streams were often able to assimilate the
discharge. As a result, stream pollution was
minor and local in nature
Today, however, our cities are no longer
isolated from one another by long reaches
of streams In the increasingly urban Amer-
ica of today, our communities are growing
closer and closer together Water supply
intakes and waste outlets are intermingled
along our watercourses, and the assimilative
capacities of our streams are no longer able
to cope with the ever-increasing loads of
pollutional materials discharged into them.
SINCE 1900, MUNICIPAL SEWAGE DISCHARGES
HAVE QUINTUPLED, AND THEIR POLLUIIONAL
EFFECT HAS TRIPLED
At the turn of the century, approximately
950 communities in the United States had
sewers, serving about 24 5 million persons. A
scant 60 communities provided partial treat-
ment for the sewage of 1 million persons
and the remainder discharged their wastes
untreated. In 1900, the municipal wastes
reaching streams had a pollutional effect
equivalent to the raw, untreated sewage from
a population of about 24 million
The number of communities now served by
sewers totals more than 11,400; and the num-
ber of persons served by those sewers totals
over 118 million. Of these, about 9,300 mu-
nicipalities now have either primary or sec-
ondary sewage treatment facilities, which
serve about 102 million people
Despite this progress, the total amount of
municipal pollution has not decreased On
the contrary, municipal pollution has sub-
stantially increased as a result of growing
population, obsolescence of older treatment
plants, failure to construct needed sewage
treatment plants, increased interception of
industrial wastes by municipal sewers, and
the ever-increasing number of water-using
devices in the home (multiple baths, garbage
grinders, automatic laundries, etc.) By
1960. the municipal sewage discharged into
our streams, treated and untreated, was al-
most 5 times the amount discharged in 1900,
and its pollutional effect was equal to the
untreated sewage from more than 75
million people, or triple the amount in 1900.
The following table I shows the growth
in the sewered population, the increase in
municipal sewage pollution, and a projection,
based on expected urban growth, estimating
conditions which will exist in 1970 and 1980
under alternate assumptions—(a) if all com-
munities provide secondary treatment by
1980, and (b) if construction of sewage treat-
ment facilities continues at the present rate
These projections for 1970 and 1980 also as-
sume that municipalities will continue to
intercept acceptable industrial wastes
The projections in table I show that even
if the municipalities of this Nation provide
secondary treatment with conventional
methods by 1980 for all the sewered popula-
tion, the amount of pollution reaching
watercourses in 1970 and 1980 will be sub-
stantially the same as today. More im-
portantly, these projections show that unless
the construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment plants is substantially accelerated,
water pollution will continue to increase and
will be intolerable in numerous places long
before 1980
TABLE I.—POPULATION SERVED BY SEWERS AND SEWAGE TREATMENT, 1900-80 '
[In millions]
Year
1900
1920
1935
1950
1960
1970 .
1980
Sewered
population
.... 24.5
47 5
69.5
80.0
105.0
152.0
200 0
Served by
treatment
10
95
28.4
540
800
2 137.0
3 1240
4 200.0
5 170.0
Discharging
raw sewage
235
380
41 0
26.0
25.0
2 15 0
'280
« None
S30 0
Population
equivalent
discharged
24
40
51
60
75
2 78
J85
"70
5 114
' Data taken or extrapolated from "Modern Sewage Disposal " Federation of Sewage Works Association,
1938; "1957 Inventory of Municipal and Industrial Waste Facilities," USPHS, and unpublished date from
U.S. Public Health Service
2 Assumes that progress toward secondary treatment for all municipal wastes by 1980 will be made;
a per capita population equivalent (PE) of 1 6; and 80 percent removal of PE by secondary treatment
: Same as 2, except assumes present rate of sewage treatment construction will continue
4 Assumes that all sewered population will be served by secondary sewage treatment by 1980, a per
capita population equivalent (PE) of 1 75; and 80 percent removal of PE by secondary treatment.
5 Same as 4, except assumes present rate of sewage treatment construct,on will continue.
-------
1076
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The metropolitan area of Chicago provides
a classic example of profound difficulties
resulting from trie growing problems of
municipal sewage disposal. Although Chicago
has very efficient sewage treatment facilities,
the city's waste discharges are equivalent to
the untreated sewage of over 1 million per-
sons and contain solid wastes suspended and
in solution, amounting to 3,400 tons per day.
ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS HAS OCCURRED
IN CONTROLLING POLLUTION FROM MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE, THE TOTAL POLLUTION LOAD ON
AMrRICA'S WATERS IS STILL INCREASING
The construction of needed municipal and
industrial waste treatment facilities is one of
the most important elements of effective
water quality management, and requires ex-
penditure of substantial money The inven-
tory data now collected at 5-year intervals
by the States and consolidated by the U S
Public Health Service demonstrate both the
steady improvement and the vast unfinished
work still to be done in the control of pollu-
tion from municipal wastes. Table II sum-
marizes these data for 1945, 1957, and 1962
(the most recent inventory of municipal
waste facilities).
Table II shows (a) that in the 17-year pe-
riod 1945-62, sewered communities increased
from 8917 to 11,420; (b) that the population
served by sewers increased from 74,740,887 to
118,371,919, while those discharging raw sew-
age decreased from 27,867,783 to 14,686,941,
and (c) that secondary treatment plants in-
creased from 2,799 to 6,584, serving a popula-
tion which increased from 21,659,504 to
61.191,352.
These figures are indeed important indica-
tors of progress in controlling pollution from
municipal wastes. Particularly significant is
the great and rapid rate of progress made
since 1957 when the Federal construction
grants program began to operate.
However, table II also shows that in 1962
(a) there were 2,249 sewered communities,
serving 14,686,941 people, still discharging
raw sewage; (b) of those communities hav-
ing sewage treatment plants, 2,794 plants
serving 42,493,626 people provided less than
secondary treatment; and (c) 1,923 of the
sewered communities had combined sewers
and storm drains through which raw sewage
could overflow into watercourses at times of
heavy rain
[p. 15607]
TABLE II.—SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL FOR THE UNITED STATES
Number of communities —
With sewer systems
Discharging raw sewage only
Discharging treated sewage only
Discharging both raw and treated sewage
Type of sewers (number of communities).
Separate
Multiple systems of both combined and separate
Not stated
Census population of sewered communities . . .
Estimated population:
Connected to sewers
Discharging raw
Treatment
Treatment plants total . ...
Minor 2
Primary ...
Intermediate 3
Secondary ... ...
Estimated population served by —
Primary treatment
Intermediate treatment 3
1945
(number)
8,917
6,844
1,470
373
82,012,692
1 74,740,887
27,867,783
46,865,114
5,786
69
2,829
98
2,799
4 269 960
17,172,560
3 763 090
21 659 504
1957
(number)
11,131
3,065
7,966
100
8,632
1 451
428
620
102,047,712.
98,361,396.
21,917,665
76,443,731
7 518
41
2,730
100
4,647
1 860 330
25,666,745
5 590 952
43,325 704
1
Number
11,420
2,139
9,171
110
9,083
1,305
618
414
9,378
37.
2,672
85
6,584
962
Population
11,060,516
94,139,370
13,172,033
57,309,049
25,964,055
33,836,027
1,262,788
123,406,458
118,371,919
14,686,941
103,684,978
2 350,845
32,733,831
7,408,950
61,191,352
1 Includes population of 7,990 connected to semipublic, industrial, and institutional lacilities not
included in the "Discharging raw" or "Discharging treated" items.
2 Less than sedimentation.
3 More than sedimentation (primary treatment) but less than secondary treatment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1077
These ominous figures, demonstrating the
large backlog of municipal wastes still re-
quiring treatment, show only part of the job
still remaining to be accomplished The
rapidly increasing population and urbaniza-
tion of the United States, plus the enormous
increase in complex chemicals and other
products of our expanding industry, are con-
stantly creating greater and greater quan-
tities of municipal waste and resulting
increases in pollution problems An espe-
cially perceptive analysis of the present status
of the struggle to control pollution from
municipal waste discharges was made by
Assistant Secretary of HEW James Quigley
when he testified at the hearings as follows.
"Mr McCLORY Actually, Mr Secretary,
under existing law, and under existing pro-
grams of, primarily. States and municipalities.
and private industries, we are making steady
and substantial progress in solving pollution
problems, are we not?
"Mr. QUIGLEY. We are making progress,
relatively speaking.
"Maybe I am expressing it wrong. What
I am saying is that we are doing something
about the problems we are faced with But
whether we are just treading water, just
breaking even, or perhaps even still losing
ground, this is what bothers me. In other
words, I think we can be rightfully proud
and take credit for the efforts that are being
made at the State levels in many States, by
activities of interstate agencies in a number
of instances, and by the impact of the Fed-
eral program But I think the worst mis-
take we could make is to assume that because
in the last 5 years we have done this much,
the problem is well on its way to solution
It is not, and I think if you have an oppor-
tunity to review that technical paper that
I submitted, it will be clearly demonstrated
that things are going to get worse before
they get better.
"Mr. McCLORY In other words, we are
losing the battle of solving the pollution
problem. We are not gaining on it.
"Mr. QUIGLEY Let me put it this way. I
think we have established a beachhead, but
the battle is far from won We can still be
driven back into the sea. But I don't think
we will. I think that the impetus and the
support that the Congress has given to this
program, the way it beefed up and expanded
it and enlarged it in 1961, is pretty clear
now; and it is becoming clearer every day
in the minds of a lot of people at the State
level, that the Federal Government is seri-
ous about this business of water pollution
control. And I think just this fact alone
makes the job of the water pollution control
official at the State level a lot easier "
E. THE FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE HATE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
BUT HAS NOT ENDED THE PROBLEM OF MUNICIPAL
C^WAGE DISPOSAL
The Federal construction grants program
was initiated by the 1956 Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act of July 9, 1956 (70 Stat.
498; 33 U S.C 466a et seq ) (Public Law 660,
81th Cong.). This program was initiated be-
cause Congress had found that the construc-
tion of sewage treatment plants has fallen
belcw the level necessary to provide for the
Nation's expanding population and to replace
obsolescent and aging facilities, to say noth-
ing of the backlog of needs which developed
during the 1930's and became intensified dur-
ing World War II Unlike almost any other
community facility, a waste treatment plant
benefits largely those who live outside the
community—the downstream water users.
The people of a municipality will approve an
increase in the public debt to build streets
to drive on, water systems for essential water
supply, and sewer systems to rid the premises
of waste, with more enthusiasm than they
will for effective waste treatment facilities
at the point of disposal.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1956 stimulated local efforts to control
pollution from municipal wastes by author-
izing annual appropriations of $50 million
for grants of up to 30 percent of the cost of
sewage treatment works or $250,000 for each
project, whichever was larger Under this
grant program, the construction of needed
sewage treatment facilities markedly in-
creased—but not enough Because of the
$250,000 limitation on a grant for any one
project, the program offered little incentive
to larger communities and did not encourage
neighboring communities to join together to
construct the more effective and less expen-
sive muHimumcipal waste treatment proj-
ects Moreover, the statutory formula for
allotting appropriated funds among the
States did not consider the variation in water
pollution probiems of the States, and there
was inadequate mechanisms for balancing
funds with needs
In 1961, Congress amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act by enacting the
act of July 20, 1961 (75 Stat. 204; 33 U.S C
466a et seq ) (Public Law 87-88). The 1961
act changed the Federal construction grants
program to—
(1) Authorize increased annual appropria-
tions of $80 million in fiscal year 1962, $90
million in fiscal year 1963, and $100 million
for the fiscal years 1964 through 1967.
(2) Increase the 30-percent grant limita-
tion from $250,000 to $600,000
(3) Encourage communities to construct
joint sewage treatment projects by applying
the individual grant limitation to each com-
munity's share of the cost of such projects,
-------
1078
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
up to a maximum grant of $2 4 million.
(4) Specified that State allotments which
are not used in a fiscal year (a) may be used
for additional grants to uncompleted projects
where the need is due, in part, to any Federal
institution or Federal construction activity,
and (b) shall be reallocated to States having
projects for which grant funds would other-
wise be lacking
Congress approved annual appropriations
totaling $584 million for construction grants
for the period 1957 through June 30, 1965,
including the full authorized amounts of
$80 million for fiscal year 1962 and $90 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1963. Grants of an addi-
tional $109 million under the accelerated
public works program resulted in construc-
tion of additional treatment facilities in
1963 and early 1964. Although appropria-
tions for construction grants for fiscal year
1964 and for fiscal year 1965 were only $90
million each, the Congress specifically pro-
vided that allotments for such grants dur-
ing the fiscal year "shall be made on the
basis of $100 million." Under this provision,
unallocated funds not used by several States
were reallocated to provide full allocation of
funds to projects in other States in fiscal
years 1964 and 1964.
From the beginning of the program to Feb-
ruary 28, 1965, there were 6,028 projects
approved for grants of $640 6 million. This
includes 783 projects aided in whole or in part
by the $109 million made available under the
accelerated public works program authorized
under the act of September 14, 1962 (76 Stat.
541; Public Law 87-658). Local communi-
ties have supplied an additional $2,424 mil-
lion to meet the total project cost of $3,064
million. This is a ratio of 4 local dollars to
each Federal dollar in grants-m-aid. Ap-
proved projects will serve a population of 48
million and will improve the quality of water
in about 52,000 miles of streams However,
[p. 15608]
the backlog of applications on February 28,
1965, totaled 1,470 seeking $181.3 million in
grants to support projects costing $904.1
million.
The dramatic growth in the level of con-
struction of municipal waste treatment
plants resulting from the Federal construc-
tion grants program is shown in figure 3.
In addition, the higher increased grant ceil-
ing authorized under the 1961 act has resulted
in construction of larger projects and a higher
level of expenditure of local funds The
average project cost rose from $470,000 under
the 1956 act to $600,000 in 1961, and the local
share of project costs rose from $4 70 to $5 40
for each Federal dollar in grants Moreover,
with larger projects, the proportion of Fed-
eral grant aid going to cities of over 50,000
population increased from 13 percent under
the 1956 act to 23 percent under the 1961
amendments. In 1963, the rate of construc-
tion and the grant percentages were further
increased with the $170 million of construc-
tion aided by the supplemental grants under
the accelerated public works program. The
expiration of this supplemental aid resulted
in the decrease of construction in 1964
The initial Federal grants of $50 million per
year increased construction sufficiently to
balance population growth and obsolescence,
but had little effect on the backlog of needed
waste treatment facilities Since 1961, there
had been a steady reduction of that backlog
with respect to sewered communities, but
this progress has been largely offset by the
growing increase in needs for waste treat-
ment facilities to serve communities which
still are without sewers
The committee hearings clearly showed
that the rale of decrease in the backlog is
still too small to assure adequate control of
the municipal sewage problem in the near
future Every effort must be made to ex-
pedite the full implementation of the Federal
construction grants program at its maximum
authorized level The committee believes
that it is imperative to maintain continuous
scrutiny, review, and appraisal of the mu-
nicipal sewage problems and to raise the
level of the program sufficiently in advance
to meet the developing needs and expedite
reduction of the backlog of needed waste
treatment facilities.
r AN ENORMOUS BACKLOG OF NEEDED TREATMENT
FACILITIES STILL EXISTS
The 1964 annual survey of municipal waste
treatment needs, conducted by the Confer-
ence of State Sanitary Engineers in coopera-
tion with the Public Health Service, reported
that 1,533 communities presently discharging
raw sewage urgently require new plants for
the treatment of wastes generated from a
population of 12 million An additional 1,462
cities and towns with existing treatment
plants require new or enlarged facilities
because of obsolescence, insufficient treat-
ment, or inadequate capacity. These com-
munities presently discharge inadequately
treated wastes from a population of 19 mil-
lion The Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers also reported that 2,677 unsewered
communities require sewer systems and
sewage treatment plants to serve a population
of 5 2 million. These unsewered towns fre-
quently experience serious ground-water pol-
lution and other public health problems
because of individual disposal of sewage. The
estimated cost, at current prices, of the
present backlog of these 5,672 needed projects,
to serve these 35 8 million people, is at least
$1 billion for treatment plants and $0 9 billion
for interceptor and outfall sewers and other
ancillary works, i e , a total cost of at least
$1 9 billion.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1079
(1) Additional needs caused by population
growth.—The population served by sewer
systems in the United States increased from
98 4 million in 1957 to 118 3 million in 1962—
a 20-percent increase in 5 years. The urban
population increased from 96 5 million in
1950 to 125 3 million in 1960—an increase of
30 percent for 10 years or 15 percent for a 5-
year period According to estimates by the
Public Health Service the future population
which must be served by sewer systems is
as follows: 1965, 132 million; 1970, 152 mil-
lion; 1975, 174 million; and 1980, 200 million.
(2) Additional needs caused by obsoles-
cence of present treatment facilities —The
municipal waste treatment works currently
in operation will eventually have to be re-
placed because of obsolescence, since the
average effective life of treatment plants is
25 years and that of interceptor and outfall
sewers is 50 years. The Public Health Serv-
ice estimates that it will cost at least $3.3
billion to replace the existing treatment
plants and at least $2 6 billion to replace
their related ancillary works.
The above-mentioned costs of construction
required to eliminate the backlog of needed
municipal waste treatment works and to pro-
vide for continuing obsolescence and popu-
lation growth within specified periods of time
were estimated in terms of today's construc-
tion cost. The actual costs, however, will be
higher because of the steady upward trend of
construction costs. A projection based upon
past experience indicates that an annual con-
struction rate of approximately $698 million
(in terms of 1963 construction costs) must be
maintained through 1973 to substantially
reduce the backlog and keep abreast of new
needs arising from obsolescence and popula-
tion growth. Actual costs will be about $100
million per year higher, assuming that con-
struction costs increase an average of 35
percent per year.
POLLUTION FROM COMBINED SEWERS AND STORM
DRAINS IS A SIGNIFICANT AND INADEQUATELY
CONTROLLED ASPECT OF MUNICIPAL WASTE
DISPOSAL
The discharge of mixed raw sewage and
storm water into our streams by overflows
from combined sewer and storm drain systems
is one of the most difficult water pollution
problems confronting us today.
The sewer systems in many of our older
cities were developed in the 19th century be-
fore there was concern over pollution of the
receiving streams and treatment of wastes
To the engineer of that day it seemed logical
to collect both storm water and sanitary
sewage in a single combined sewer system
A single sewer system was much less expen-
sive than two separated systems; and the
point of discharge was the same—the nearest
stream. The future pollution effect of the
combined system of sewers and storm drains
was simply not recognized Indeed, it would
have taken exceptional vision to have fore-
seen the problems that now face our cities
in the collection and treatment of wastes and
the management of our water resources.
The problems result from the way in which
the combined system operates. During
periods of rainfall, the combined sewer system
must carry mixed sewage and storm water
which is many times its "dry weather flow "
Because it was not considered economically
feasible to build treatment plants to handle
the entire flow of mixed rainwater and
sewage, the sanitary engineer designed the
sewer system with weirs (low dams) so that
at some predetermined level—usually two to
three times dry weather flow—the mixed flow
of sewage and storm water would discharge
directly into the watercourse without going
through the treatment plant. As the munici-
palities grew and increased in population, the
increasing flow of sewage left little or 0.0
reserve capacity in the combined system to
handle storm water. Under these circum-
stances, sewage will overflow even during
light rainfall During heavy rainfall, a
mixture of sewage and storm water virtually
equal to the runoff will bypass the treatment
plant and be spewed directly into the water-
course, along with large amounts of sewage
sludge which have been deposited in the
sewers. These overflows thus carry large
amounts of pollution into the watercourses.
The intermittent nature of the sewage
overflows is especially detrimental to the
waters Normal waste flows can be controlled
to assure relatively constant levels of water
quality for desirable uses. Storm overflows,
however, introduce slugs of pollution which
can upset an otherwise stable regime Even
with complete treatment of dry weather
sewage, the pollution discharge intermit-
tently from storm water overflows can
seriously impair the usefulness of a stream
As shown in table II above, in 1962 there
were 1,305 communities whose sewer systems
were entirely combined and 618 communities
whose sewer systems were partially com-
bined, making a total of 1,923 communities
facing the problems which come from
combined sanitary sewers and storm drains
Up to now, few studies have been made to
deleimino the composition of combined
sewage and storm water overflows and to
evaluate their influence on stream pollution.
Even where detailed studies have been made,
the information is often not applicable to
other cities because their precipitation pat-
terns, character of the runoff area, capacities
and designs of their sewer systems, and the
conditions in the receiving waters, are -lot
comparable.
It is clear that the sewage overflow from
combined sewer systems is an important
-------
1080
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
source of water pollution. For example,
according to a recent investigation by the
Public Health Service, the total pollution
load entering the streams from combined
sewer overflows in Chicago in 1962 was
equivalent to the untreated wastes from a
population of 280,000. Chicago's problem is
compounded by the multiplicity of its over-
flows (approximately 300 on the main
channels and an undetermined number on
tributary streams).
Some years ago the city of Buffalo, N Y.,
made comprehensive studies of its combined
sewer systems. Those studies showed that
about one-third of the city's annual pro-
duction of sewage solids overflowed without
treatment, even though only 2 to 3 percent
of the liquid sewage volume actually over-
flowed. This large overflow of sewage solids
resulted from the settling of solids in the
sewer systems during periods of dry weather
flow and their subsequent flushing out and
overflow with the first surge of storm water.
There is no reason to suppose that this
situation is not applicable, in greater or lesser
degree, to all combined sewer systems. This
important finding has not, however, received
sufficient attention from the engineering
profession, regulatory agencies, or public
officials.
To correct the problem of pollution from
combined sewer overflow by relocation and
reconstruction of the sewer systems would
require tremendous expenditures. According
to the Public Health Service, the minimum
cost for the separation of all combined sys-
tems in the United States "would be between
$25 to $30 billion.
Alternative and less costly solutions in
many cases might be to provide storage
basins, or treatment, for the overflows In
such systems, the excess flows would be taken
off at the overflow structures and retained
in storage basins for treatment at the mu-
nicipal plant or at special treatment units
designed for this purpose However, in large
and congested cities, the overflow outlets are
generally located in areas which are too
restricted or unavailable for storage or treat-
ment installations, and it would be very
costly to construct conduits to carry the
overflow to available sites for storage or
treatment. The feasibility of overflow treat-
ment is, therefore, largely dependent on the
cost and availability of sites for treatment
facilities.
The director of the Bureau of Environ-
mental Health, Pennsylvania Department of
[p. 15609]
Health (Mr. Karl M. Mason), testified as
follows concerning this problem:
Mr. INDRITZ. Do you have any suggestions
for solving the combined sewer and storm
drain problem, other than by separation?
"Mr. MASON Yes; we feel, in some of the
major cities, and the one that I mentioned
in Pennsylvania, namely Philadelphia, Pa.,
that upon the basis of study it might come
out that the actual treatment at various
points in the systems of the combined wastes
might be cheaper and better, more effective
in the long run, than going into the central
cities and tearing them up to separate the
two
"We don't know this. All that we feel is
that there should be given flexibility, we
believe, in that portion of the act for someone
to look into the matter to see if that might
not be the better way. This is a major
problem.
"As you know, Washington has it right
here. How are you going to take these 8-,
10-, 14-foot-diameter sewers and separate
them? It might in some way be cheaper
to take that combined waste at various points
along the collection system and treat it.
"Mr. INDRITZ. Has your board conducted
any specific research on the subject?
"Mr. MASON. No; we haven't."
The precise extent and solution of the
problem of overflow from combined sewer
systems are not accurately delineated at this
time There is, however, sufficient evidence
to conclude that combined sewer and storm
drain systems are a major source of pollution.
They should be promptly and fully studied
and remedial steps should be taken as early
as possible.
The magnitude of the problem makes it
unlikely that it can be solved solely by the
cities themselves Although the damage to
water quality resulting from combined sewer
systems is, like most water pollution, local in
origin, its total impact has national effects.
The committee therefore believes that the
Federal Government should participate in
seeking remedies for the problem, and recom-
mends that Federal grants be provided to
municipalities which establish demonstra-
tion projects approved by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare to test the
feasibility of new or improved methods of
controlling the discharge of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage from combined
sewer systems. The committee recommends
that in making such grants the Department
give preference to those demonstration proj-
ects whose results would be applicable to
more than one community. To assure more
comprehensive and wide spread research and
development in these demonstration pro-
grams, the committee believes that the grant
program should be at a level of at least $20
million per year for the next 5 years, and
that, except in unusual instances, the grant
for any single project should not exceed 5 per-
cent of the total grant funds appropriated
for the fiscal year.
THE PROBLEM OF FINANCING MUNICIPAL
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1081
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
IS DIFFICULT
One of the greatest problems which a local
community faces in building sewage treat-
ment facilities is that of obtaining the neces-
sary money at fair and equitable rates, with
the requisite consent of property owners and
citizens. Sewage treatment facilities are
costly to build and operate, and usually have
an inverse relationship to a municipality's
ability to pay. For example, the Public
Health Service estimates that the average
cost of providing primary sewage treatment
considering amortization of capital cost,
interest, and operation and maintenance
costs) is $21.41 per million gallons in a treat-
ment plant with a capacity of 100 million
gallons per day as compared to $77 59 per
million gallons in a plant with a capacity of
1 million gallons per day.
State laws provide the framework which
controls local government financing. In
many instances, bond sales are limited by
both statutory and constitutional provisions.
Many of these legal provisions were devel-
oped in periods of economic depression, and
their stringency was intended to assure local
fiscal responsibility. They have become un-
duly restrictive in recent years and have im-
peded the construction of public works which,
because of postponed construction during the
depression and war periods, are now urgently
needed by many local communities.
These restrictions, in varying degree, take
one or several of the following forms:
(1) Debt limitations which restrict the
outstanding debt to a percentage of the
assessed valuation of local real estate;
(2) Tax limitations which restrict the rate
that can be levied to provide debt service
payments,
(3) Interest rate limitations which restrict
the percentage that can be paid for borrowed
money; and
(4) Provisions permitting only real prop-
erty owners to vote on a bond referendum,
as well as provisions requiring more than
the majority vote for approval.
The two methods generally used by munic-
ipalities to borrow money for construction
of waste treatment plants are (1) general
obligation bonds and (2) revenue bonds.
General obligation bonds generally have
the advantage of a lower interest rate be-
cause the full financial resources of the com-
munity are pledged to their repayment
However, revenue bonds have become in-
creasingly popular in recent years, since they
often are exempt from constitutional debt
restrictions.
Several States have used a variety of grants
and other assistance to ease these burdens.
However, few changes have been made in
the restrictions on municipal bond financing,
and these restrictions still continue to retard
ready access to the money market and thus
unnecessarily increase the local government's
cost of financing waste treatment plants.
These problems of municipal financing
have been markedly alleviated by the grants
made under the Federal construction grants
program previously described in this report
and by the loans available to municipalities
under the public facility loan program ad-
ministered by the Housing and Home Finance
Agency under the Housing Amendments of
August 11, 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1491
et seq ). This program provides credit assist-
ance to municipalities and other local public
bodies for constructing essential public works
where such credit financing is not otherwise
available on reasonable terms and condi-
tions. The program, when first initiated,
has relatively limited funds available and Its
primary aim was to help small communities
to secure needed public services. In recent
years, the program has been greatly expanded
to a point where loans are now made at a
rate of $100 million a year.
However, the law has had a provision pro-
hibiting public facility loans under this
program to any municipality or political sub-
division with a population of 50,000 or more.1
This 50,000 population limitation hampers
governmental responsibilities for water sup-
ply and sewage disposal in metropolitan
areas.
First, it directly discriminates against com-
munities of 50,000 population or more by not
permitting them to receive public facility
loans
Second, it encouraged fragmentation du-
plication, and inadequate long-term facilities
by prohibiting joint bond action by a num-
ber of communities within a metropolitan
area to meet water and sewer needs. For
example, several communities each having a
population of less than 50,000 have been dis-
couraged from joining together to provide a
needed public utility such as a water or sew-
age disposal system, or connecting facility.
Individually, each of the communities would
be eligible for loan assistance under the pub-
lic facility loans program. But when acting
jointly (through the establishment of an in-
strumentality serving the entire area) they
would be ineligible for Federal loan assist-
1 Title 42, United States Code, sec 1492 (b)
(4). However, this section permitted loans
to a community of up to 150,000 population
if it is in a redevelopment area designated
under sec 5 (a) of the Area Redevelopment
Act (42 U.SC 2405 (a) because of having
substantial and persistent unemployment for
the periods of time prescribed in that act or
if it is near a research or development instal-
lation of the National Aeronautic and Space
Administration.
-------
1082
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ance if their aggregate population exceeded
50,000
This population limitation operates directly
counter to many existing program objectives
(or meeting metropolitan problems. For
example, the Housing Act of 1961 stresses
the desirability of cooperative action among
municipalities and other political subdivisions
in preparing comprehensive planning on a
unified metropolitan basis (40 U S C 458 (c) )
Also, the 1961 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act encourages communities to construct joint
sewage treatment works by joining each com-
munity's individual grant limitation (30
percent or $600,000) to a maximum grant of
$2.4 million for a joint project.
Two partial steps to relieve the stringency
of the 50,000 population limitation were
taken in the Housing Act of September 2,
1964 (Public Law 88-560) Although the
latter act did not repeal the 50,000 population
restriction with respect to individual
municipalities, section 601 (b) of the act
amended the law as follows: (1) It increased
the limitation o! 150,000 for any community
in a redevelopment area designated under
section 5 of the Area Redevelopment Act
(42 U.S C. 2405) (i.e., irrespective of whether
the area was so designated because it has
substantial and persistent unemployment for
the periods of time prescribed under section
5(a), or because it has many low-income
families and substantial or persistent unem-
ployment or underemployment as prescribed
under section 5(b) of the Area Redevelop-
ment Act);2 and (2) it authorized making
loans to a public agency or instrumentality
serving several municipalities, political sub-
divisions, or unincorporated areas if each of
them to be served by the public facility for
which the loan is obtained meets the 50,000
population restriction. The committee be-
lieves these are steps in the right direction,
and recommends to the appropriate com-
mittees that consideration be given to remov-
ing the 50,000 population limitation itself.
The committee further believes that there
should be greater recognition of the needs
of communities which will experience sub-
stantial population growth and where the
sewage facility needed to meet such growth
will contribute to economy, efficiency, and
the comprehensively planned development of
the area The Executive Director of the Ad-
visory Commission on Intergovernmental Re-
lations (William G. Colman) pointed out in
his testimony at the committee hearings that
since construction of waste treatment facili-
ties to provide for future needs is not easily
accomplished under revenue bond financing,
- This amendment would immediately qual-
ify some 17 counties and 1 Indian tribe for
public facility loans (S. Rept. 1265, 38th
Cong., pp. 31-32).
other financial aid is desirable. He said:
"You can construct normally with reve-
nue bonds only the trunklines of the sizes
[p. 15610]
and so on that are needed to fill the needs
of the population today, the ones who are
going to be paying the water bills, as soon
as the construction is finished, whereas with
the population continually growing in the
metropolitan areas, particularly in the sub-
urbs, economy in the long run would dictate
a larger outlay in terms of physical facilities
in order to meet the needs of tomorrow's
population as well as today's. And that is a
difficulty that you encounter en the revenue
bond approach
Now, the recommendation that the Com-
mission made in that regard is that where
Federal aid is involved in loans for these
types of operations, provision be made for a
deferral of interest for x number of years,
where a clear case can be made that through
deferral of interest and the use of larger
facilities to meet the needs of the future
population, the whole thing will pay out
eventually. Then it is a saving from the
standpoint of the water users to have the
larger facilities."
We believe this suggestion would be a use-
ful means of encouraging construction of
waste treatment plants sufficiently large to
provide for future population within a
growing community.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Wisconsin has
a longstanding and distinguished record
of concern and leadership in this field.
I valued his membership on the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution
and regretted his decision to move to
another committee assignment. He and
I have had many discussions about this
problem, its urgency, and the need for
a massive increase in the Federal con-
tribution toward its solution. I think
we share equally that sense of urgency.
Indeed, the pending legislation repre-
sents just that. In the sixth year of the
program which the Senate is now con-
sidering, the Federal contribution will
be 10 times its present level. More im-
portant is the fact that the pending bill
would lift a number of limitations which
inhibit the impact of Federal resources
in those areas where the problem is the
greatest.
I am speaking now of the heavily
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1083
populated industrial areas of the coun-
try. The pending bill will increase the
Federal contribution—if all conditions
set out in the bill are met—to 50 percent
of the total cost of municipal waste
treatment projects under the clean rivers
program. There is built into the bill an
incentive for the States to make their
contribution. As I said earlier, the basic
assumption of current Federal law is, the
primary responsibility of pollution con-
trol rests with the States and communi-
ties. Yet, the States have failed, with
exception of eight States which provide
some matching funds to make any fi-
nancial contribution whatsoever.
The solution to the problem is the in-
centive built into the bill to try to stimu-
late State action, through allocation of
State resources, to help the communities
of this country deal with the problem.
If the provisions of the pending bill are
fully implemented in any given State,
the division of financial responsibility
would be 50 percent Federal contribu-
tion, 30 percent State contribution, and
20 percent local contribution.
In the judgment of the committee,
after extensive hearings and discussion,
this represents an appropriate division
of the responsibilities that should rest on
all three levels of the Federal system.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Maine yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator men-
tioned that eight States have made a
contribution. What is the maximum
percentage contribution that any one of
those eight States has made?
Mr. MUSKIE. The maximum provi-
sion is reflected in the bill. Maine and
New York have contributed 30 percent
of the cost. They make the largest con-
tribution of any States to the cost of
municipal sewage treatment projects.
Six other States make contributions,
some of which have a dollar limitation,
and some of which have a smaller per-
centage limitation.
Mr. NELSON. But Maine and New
York made a 30-percent contribution to-
ward the total cost of sewage treatment
plant installations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. What kind of dollar
figure has that been representing in
those two States?
Mr. MUSKIE. The New York pro-
gram would be financed by a bond issue
which was approved last year, in a ref-
erendum, totaling $1 billion. The total
cost for New York State is estimated at
$1.7 billion. The Maine program has
been financed out of current appropria-
tions and a bond issue of $25 million last
year.
Until last year, it was possible to fi-
nance the Maine program entirely out
of current revenues. I do not know
what the cumulative total of that con-
tribution has been.
Mr. NELSON. Does the Senator from
Maine know whether there will be any
problem for some States respecting a
constitutional prohibition against this
kind of grant from general Treasury
funds, or bonding to a local municipal
treatment plant?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think there are some
constitutional limitations on bonding.
This bill does not require bonding.
Mr. NELSON. I refer to the authority
of the State itself to take State general
fund moneys and give it as a grant
matching fund for local sewage treat-
ment plants.
Mr. MUSKIE. I could not answer that
question. There may be such. Does the
Senator mean a constitutional limita-
tion other than the bonding problem?
Mr. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. If there is, I do not
know of any. We have no testimony to
that effect. However, we do have infor-
mation that some States have bonding
limitations, which may be an inhibi-
tion if they need to raise money by that
method.
Mr. NELSON. I certainly did not in-
tend, by remarks, in any way to indicate
that I did not think this was a massive
increase in Federal participation, be-
cause it is a massive increase. I hope
-------
1084
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the bill will pass both Houses.
I think it is to the great credit of the
chairman that we have been able to
bring to the floor a bill providing for a
$6 billion participation by the Federal
Government. I am sure the Senator
agrees with me that in future years Fed-
eral participation will have to be in-
creased if we are to meet the problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do. I agree to such
an extent that it would be easy to ra-
tionalize support of greater Federal par-
ticipation in dealing with this problem
than the pending bill envisages, or even
than the Senator's amendment envisages,
but we must deal with the art of the
possible. We have in the bill, if Con-
gress passes it, a means for helping meet
the needs of the problem we are talking
about.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, this bill
deals with what is undoubtedly one of
the foremost problems confronting our
Nation. I think it deals with it in a very
rational and practical manner. In my
judgment, the distinguished Senator
from Maine merits the thanks of the en-
tire country for the untiring energy,
thought, and effort he gave in the prep-
aration of the bill and in the presenta-
tion of it to the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my distin-
guished friend from North Carolina, who
helped immensely in his testimony be-
fore the subcommittee.
I think it is worth noting that Sen-
ators on both sides of the aisle, from all
areas of the country, and of all philoso-
phies, recognize the urgency of the prob-
lem, and are willing to support efforts
to deal with it.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I wish
to commend the members of the Public
Works Committee, the distinguished
chairman, JENNINGS RANDOLPH, and the
distinguished Senator from Maine, Sen-
ator MUSKIE, for giving us S. 2947—a
comprehensive approach for pollution
abatement and water reclamation—in
order to provide our Nation with usable
clean water for the future.
S. 2947, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments and Clean
Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, provides
practical answers to industry, munici-
palities, and small towns in the complex
and distressing campaign to protect the
vital natural resource—water.
Civic leaders throughout the country
have known for some time that their
communities with nonexistence or in-
adequate facilities for waste treatment
and disposal are contributing to a future
catastrophe. However, they did not, in
most instances, have the financial re-
sources for the expensive sewage treat-
ment plants. I know how hard it is; I
was a mayor, and fully realize the diffi-
culty of convincing the public of the
necessity of $4 or $5 million for these
facilities when so many other commu-
nity projects are needed, especially in
the field of education and transportation.
Unfortunately, a sewer system or a
treatment plant is not a facility to which
a mayor or city councilman can point
with pride. No one really cares as long
as it is working.
Frankly, the effect of putting such fa-
cilities in is soon forgotten. It is similar
to a person who has a toothache, has it
taken care of by the dentist, and then
the ache is soon forgotten. Once the
toothache is taken care of, the toothache
and the dentist are soon forgotten. Once
a sewer pipe is placed in the ground and
[p. 15611]
dirt covers it, one forgets about it until
he gets a bill and sees that his taxes
have been increased.
If the Congress approves S. 2947, we,
the Congress, can say to these civic lead-
ers the Federal Government will pro-
vide more help, and we can encourage
the States to do their share, because
this is a big and an important job.
The $6 billion authorized by the bill
is a great deal of money. It is small,
however, when we compare this sum
with the estimated cost of reclaiming the
Great Lakes—$20 billion.
S. 2947 provides needed reforms in ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1085
isting law by lifting the dollar ceilmg on
the 30-percent basic Federal grant proj-
ects; and by providing a 10-percent
bonus, in addition to the basic 30-per-
cent grant, for projects which conform
with area wide planning. Provision of
the 10-percent bonus encourages plan-
ning, but we do not require it for Fed-
eral assistance. The problem is too great
and the need too present to require the
detailed planning in. which some Federal
agencies are currently embroiled—
confusing the local people instead of
helping.
The bill provides more assistance for
the local people in the form of a revolv-
ing fund to help authorities meet the
local share of pollution abatement proj-
ects. Important, too, is the $25 million
annual grants to promote research, de-
velopment, and demonstration of new
methods of pollution control and water
reclamation to give us new ideas in
this area of vital concern.
In my testimony before the committee
I asked for a higher percentage of Fed-
eral participation. However, the clean
rivers restoration program, which was
added, fills a vital need with its river
basin approach. Each river basin plan-
ning agency could qualify for 50-percent
Federal grant, depending upon its own
water quality standards, and a State
program of 30-percent participation.
My own State of Indiana has plans to
provide for State funds in pollution con-
trol projects. The river basin program
means that we could make concentrated
efforts of pollution control on the
Wabash, the Ohio, the St. Joseph and the
White Rivers.
The Public Works Committee has done
an excellent job in providing the Interior
Department, now the central authority
for Federal pollution control, with an
expanded program,. I hope that the De-
partment, in administering the program,
will move to coordinate Federal funds
available for sewer systems and treat-
ment plants under the jurisdiction of the
Housing and Urban Development De-
partment, the Economic Development
Administration, the Farmers Home Ad-
ministration, and the Interior Depart-
ment's own central authority.
As another step in the campaign to in-
sure an adequate safe water supply, I
hope that we can work out a program to
ease the desperate shortage of sanitary
engineers. This can be done by shifting
existing educational programs and
through the research grant funds pro-
vided by S. 2947 to educational and other
institutions for new pollution abatement
methods.
I am pleased that the Senator from
Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has accepted
amendments proposed by the Senator
from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], which will help to tram personnel
in this important field.
Again, now that the Senator from
West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is present
in the chamber, I wish to compliment
him for the fine work he always does, not
only in this field, but in every endeavor
he undertakes.
I note that he is wearing a beautifully
colored jacket, which is indicative of his
youth and his interest in youth. He has
an interest in young people and in seeing
to it that we will have enough of our
natural resources left so that the
younger people will be able to enjoy in
their lifetime the resources that we in
our lifetime were able to enjoy.
I urge Senate approval of S. 2947, sig-
nificant legislation, of which we, the
Members of the 89th Congress can be
proud. By approving this bill we will
meet the requirements for the future
and avert a national crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. NELSON].
[Putting the question.]
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
committee amendment is open to further
amendment. If there be no further
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on agreeing to the committee amend-
-------
1086
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended.
The committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute, as amended, was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, and was read the
third time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I know
that the Senate is anxious to vote shortly
on this bill, and I shall not detain the
Senate long. I should like to say, as a
member of the Committee on Public
Works, that the subcommittee headed
by the distinguished Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], with the able assistance
of the ranking Republican member on
the committee, the Senator from Dela-
ware [Mr. BOGGS], and the entire com-
mittee, has done notable work in
developing the bill before us.
This bill follows the Water Quality
Act, and is a significant and purposeful
proposal to try to meet the problem of
water pollution.
It is now becoming more and more a
matter of public consciousness that if
our water resources are not developed—
and more important—conserved our
country will by 1980-85 enter a critical
period of water supply, a period when
clean water will not be sufficient for the
needs of our people and expanding in-
dustry.
It will be necessary to store water in
reservoirs in our river basins to prevent
water pollution and to clean water so
that it may be reused. This bill moves
forward toward these goals.
I have raised a question, which does
not question the need and purpose of
the bill, but one which I think should be
understood by the Senate and by the
people. The bill provides a very large
authorization, of some $6 billion over a
period of 6 years. The bill does not ap-
propriate any part of the $6 billion, but
enacting the measure, Congress will give
to the Appropriations Committee au-
thority to recommend appropriations;
and of course to Congress to approve
appropriations.
The amount is awesomely large. But
if one reads the report that studies in-
dicate that to fully meet the problem of
water pollution control, an expenditure
of $100 billion may be required upon the
part of local community, State, the Fed-
eral Government, and private industry.
This bill, while authorizing $6 billion,
only authorizes grants for municipal
sewage treatment. It leaves for future
action the separation of storm sewers
and ordinary sewers, which may total
$40 billion, and also the treatment, pre-
vention, and abatement of industrial
wastes.
We are faced today with the cost of
the war in Vietnam, and the attendant
problems of inflation, shortages, evi-
dences of control, and wartime and un-
happy factors. Because of these, I have
voted to hold down authorizations, to
eliminate and defer unneeded expendi-
ture, and I shall continue to do so. With
respect to this bill, I think it necessary
that the Committee on Appropriations,
after these authorizations have been
provided, take into consideration the
cost of the war in Vietnam and will not
appropriate large sums, until the bur-
dens of the war in Vietnam are lifted.
But in all fairness, it must be said that
at some point, today or next week, or
next year, this bill must be passed if the
vital supply of water is to be preserved
for the future life of our Nation.
I do not wish to burden the RECORD un-
duly, but I recall that yesterday, the
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBI-
COFF], the distinguished chairman of our
committee, the Senator from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the Senator from
New York [Mr. JAVITS], and others,
spoke of the necessity of moving in an-
other direction to control water pollution
—that is, with respect to industrial
wastes. This bill deals with the pro-
vision of Federal assistance to munici-
palities, States, and interstate complexes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1087
Something must be done to give incen-
tives to industry to install the facilities
to diminish or eliminate the waste which
is a principal cause of water pollution.
Many industries are assuming the re-
sponsibility. Their expenditures for
pollution control facilities do not in-
crease their profits, but are a type of
social expenditure.
We should encourage them by some
kind of tax incentive. The Senator from
West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and I
have introduced a bill which would pro-
vide investment credit to industries in-
stalling pollution control facilities. The
distinguished Senator from Connecticut
[Mr. RIBICOFF] has pressed for such leg-
[p. 15612]
islation for several years, and has a bill
which would provide faster tax write-
offs.
Because we are now discussing this
tremendous problem of water pollution
control, to conserve a basic resource, and
because the pending bill represents a
strong step in that direction as respects
municipal sewage, I think it is proper,
in this debate, to call attention again to
the necessity of moving also in a parallel
direction toward the control of indus-
trial sewage. I hope very much that the
House Committee on Ways and Means
and the Senate Finance Committee will
this year take action in that direction,
by the recommendation of bills to pro-
vide tax incentives to industry.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield to the Senator
from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am
delighted that the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky makes reference again
to the subject of incentives for indus-
tries. I think it highly appropriate, be-
cause of his knowledge, and because of
the leadership of the Senator from Ken-
tucky and others, that the portion of the
committee report dealing with incentives
be printed in the RECORD at this point,
and I ask unanimous consent that that
be done.
There being no objection, the excerpt
from the report (No. 1367) was ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, 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
facilities 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 committees give
consideration to tax proposals for industrial
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 ihe
industrial sector for the benefit of the en-
tire 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
aiding industry in meeting its pollution con-
trol obligations
Investment tax credits as proposed by Sen-
ator 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 subcommittee. Senator ED-
MUND S MUSKIE of Maine, provides for accel-
erated amortization of the cost of pollution
control facilities. This may also provide a
means of offsetting industry's cost of pollu-
tion control. However, both of these methods
do not consider the problem confronting those
industries with plants having 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 of
meeting the needs of both the marginal in-
dustries as well as the profitable industries.
Such a Federal grant approach would not be
inconsistent with public policy because the
grant would, in effect, be made to a unit of
government This approach differs from that
-------
1088
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
proposed by Senators COOPER and RJBICOFF
and is a matter which can and will be con-
sidered by this committee. However, realiz-
ing that there is no final answer to the
problem of financing industrial pollution con-
trol, the committee reiterates its strong rec-
ommendation that the appropriate committees
consider tax relief legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I hope that this kind
of documentation, which is appealing to
the committee, will also make its im-
pression upon the Committee on Fi-
nance.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss],
whose steady support of effective water
pollution control legislation has been of
immense help to me and to the other
members of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, recently made a
thought provoking speech, "Must We
Pay the Piper," at the Summer Institute
in Water Resources, Utah State Uni-
versity. I think that it is appropriate
that this eloquent statement be presented
to my colleagues on the day we enact the
major bill designed to improve the qual-
ity of our water resources. I ask unani-
mous consent that Senator Moss' speech
be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MUST WE PAY THE PIPER?
(Speech of Senator FRANK E. Moss, Demo-
crat, of Utah, at the Summer Institute
in Water Resources, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah, June 29, 1966)
If ever there was a classic example of
carrying coals to Newcastle it is making a
water speech at Utah State University. It
is like spreading butter on the bacon—gild-
ing the lily—painting vermillion into our
Western skies at sunset.
There is no place in the country where
there is more expertise on water than in this
beautiful green bowl in the Wasatch Moun-
tains. We have collected here in our water
research laboratories some of the best brains
and equipment in the country. We have
added to them at this Summer Water In-
stitute a number of visiting specialists in
engineering and earth science.
I don't mind telling you that I feel I am
in vast company. Although I have made
water my major cause in the United States
Senate, and I sit week after week in hear-
ings on water legislation, I approach this as-
signment tonight with considerable humility.
The water story I am going to tell you in
this June of 1966 is much more interesting
than the tale I would have told had you in-
vited me here in June of 1960—or even June
of 1965. Today's story has a much broader
sweep, much deeper implications, is more
hopeful, and certainly more dramatic In
fact, the water story today is a cliff hanger.
Will America find ways to meet its grow-
ing water shortage?
Will we stop using and misusing and gen-
erally wasting our water resources as if there
were no tomorrow?
Will we stop polluting our rivers and our
lakes, creating health hazards for our people,
killing off our fish, and desecrating our rec-
reation areas9
Will we glut the beautiful Ohio with gar-
bage, and smother the mighty Colorado in
radio-chemical wastes?
Will we let the Great Lakes die?
Will we awaken some morning to find that
we have run out of clean water in some sec-
tions of our country, and out of water of any
kind in others?
Tune in, my friends, in 1980 and find out.
Find out whether the people in the most
civilized and sensitive Nation in the world
were sufficiently awakened in the sixties to
do the things which must be done in the
seventies to prevent the country from going
through its water ceiling in the eighties.
Find out whether we made enough prog-
ress in discovering and employing revolu-
tionary techniques in water resource
development and conservation to forestall
our faucets from running dry. our crops from
turning brown, and the wheels of our indus-
try from slowing down and stopping.
Learn whether we kept our water sources
clean, our water wastage down, our water
re-use cycle high—whether we found out
how to control "water hogs," how to bridle
unreasonable water use, how to impose dis-
ciplinary measures to control waste—
whether we discovered how to desalt water
cheaply and how to make rain fall where we
want it—and, finally, whether we learned
how to put to beneficial use every drop of
water anywhere through interbasin and in-
ternational water transfer, through recharg-
ing of aquifiers, and through multiple-use
projects to increase supplies and municipal
and irrigation water, to improve navigation,
to control floods, to provide more power, to
create new recreational areas and to protect
our wildlife.
I predict that America will win this water
fight I say we will win it because of re-
search centers such as Utah State University
and summer institutes such as this one which
fully diagnose and prescribe for all phases
of our ailing resource, and from which
knowledge flows out in many directions to be
absorbed and used.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1089
I say we will win because both the private
sector and Government, from the county
level up, are beginning to realize the immen-
sity of our water problems and are moving
to conquer them
And, finally, I say we will win because the
people themselves are awakening to the
perils of our water pollution and the vulner-
ability of our water supply and they are be-
ginning to insist that more be done, and M
support financially the doing of it.
The breakthrough to the man on the street
is the crucial one. For years, as this audience
well knows, water has been discussed back
and forth in the jargon of water experts, re-
source engineers and highly educated tech-
nicians, but today the pollution of our
waters and the ebbing of our supplies is a
growing subject for discussion in editorial
columns, in magazine articles, in television
specials, in civic clubs and over backyard
barbecue pits.
Many forces have converged at this date
and time in history to make water of such
commanding interest I like to think that
the first impetus came from the report made
in January, 1961. by the Senate Select Com-
mittee on Natural Water Resources, on which
I served. This committee inventoried our
water resources and projected our require-
ments though 1980; it supplied us with the
hard facts on our water demand as balanced
against our water supply.
But it took a whim of nature to really
dramatize our water crisis—to make water
breakfast-table conversation, a shift in wind
patterns, causing rain to fall over the ocean
rather than upon the coastal areas, greatly
cut, for several years in a row, the normal
amount of precipitation in a wide swath of
country stretching from New Hampshire to
West Virginia. This is an area of our densest
[p. 15613]
population and our heaviest concentration
of industry
Now, we in the West know all too well what
it is to have our cities and towns thirsty, and
our fields dusty and dry. There has never
been enough water here in Utah since Jie
day Brigham Young led the pioneers down
emigration canyon into the Salt Lake Valley
We have had to develop every source of water
we couid find, and to put every drop to bene-
ficial use after we found it.
But the people of the large cities and towns
of the East and Northeast seemingly have
always had a bountiful supply of water—and
they serenely assumed that they always
would Then they discovered that they, too,
could be short of water—that it could happen
to them
In August 1965, the chief engineer of the
city of New York warned the Delaware River
Basin Commission that the largest city in
the Nation could "run out of water by the
middle of February." The President de-
clared the Delaware Basin and New York a
disaster area, and a drastic water saving
program went into effect.
Well, as you all know, the East and North-
east did not run out of water It did skimp
through. But the interest of the people and
their officials, and their newspapers, and
their civic clubs was aroused as it never
could have been aroused by a Senate na-
tional water resources committee report A
whole new and important area of the country
became receptive to the water story
As much as I regret the inconvenience and
hardship the great drought of 1965 :aused
the people who suffered through it, it did
serve to turn the national spotlight on water
—and our water problems. Thus, it was a
long-range plus for America.
Now, what is the water outlook in the
years ahead in concrete terms? The statis-
tics and facts compiled by the Senate Water
Committee are still our bible on this.
If we in America are to sustain our ex-
panding population and rising standard of
living, we will have to double our useable
water by 1980 and triple it by the year 2000
While we are using an average of 280 mil-
lion gallons of water each day now for irriga-
tion, industry and homes, we will be using
daily about 600 million gallons in 1980 and a
billion gallons a day in the year 2000.
We found out further that the GOO million
gallons of water a day is getting close 10
the ceiling of the total supply of good qual-
ity water which our engineers have told us
could be made available, as a practical mat-
ter, with present engineering knowledge and
techniques.
We learned that in five of the Nation's
twenty-two resource regions we stand on
the edge of water disaster—we could well be
out of "water in any of them by 1980 Two
of these water-short basins are the Colorado
River Basin and the Great Basin Utah
stands astride of these two.
In most of the other water basins, where
rainfall is generally adequate, the "water has
been so misused that pollution is rampant
In fact, almost every American river of any
consequence is infested with water pollu-
tion from one source or another. Ten times
as much municipal waste is being poured
into our waters today as in 1900 Indus-
trial waste has increased threefold irom
chemical plants, paper mills, tanneries, aye
works, and municipal sewage.
The historic Merrimac, is filled with nox-
ious wastes Refuse from steel mills pour
red rust into the Cuyahoga Petro-chemical
wastes from a huge oil company complex
pollute the Ottawa; mine salts and chlorides
contaminate the Grand River The Arkansas
is contaminated by mine, metal, processing,
packing, and agricultural runoff wastes. The
-------
1090
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Columbia's pollution from paper mills poses
more threat to the salmon than the river's
dams. Canning wastes pollute the San
Joaquin and the Sacramento in California.
Oil refinery wastes taint the lower reaches
of Yellowstone. Only last month we began
in the Senate Public Works Committee to
check into radio active wastes in the Colo-
rado—and I do not need to mention to this
audience the pollution problems of the Bear.
It will take $75 billion, spent over two or
three decades, to clean up America's rivers.
Nor have our lakes been spared from pollu-
tion. The Great Lakes are a tragic example.
Industry and communities around the lakes
have used their waters for years as a dump-
ing ground for municipal and industrial
wastes. Pollution has been aggravated re-
cently by the water shortage. Several of the
Great Lakes are dying bodies of water. Erie,
the northern border for much of industrial
America, is the sickest. About one-fourth of
Lake Erie is all but dead today. The huge
expanse contains almost no oxygen, no nsh
swim about, and the surface and beaches are
infested with scum.
We learned also from the water committee
studies that we are proceeding far too slowly
in harnessing and developing our rivers
through multiple-purpose projects—that we
must make the seventies the decade of ad-
vanced dam construction, just as we have
made the sixties the decade of advanced
highway construction.
We found that we have only begun to use
our knowledge about depletion of water
supplies through control of strip mining,
timber removal, overgrazing and fire, and
that we have a great deal more to learn about
the mining of ground water and the recharg-
ing of aquifers.
We learned that we must step up activities
in the field of water variability, which in-
cludes both floods and low water flow.
And finally, we discovered that we have
only started to work on the great problem
of water waste—on the ways in which water
is being used inefficiently, on "water stealing"
vegetation, on evaporation, and on allowing
water to run off to the sea unharnessed and
unused.
We found consistently that we had lagged
on research In all of these fields—that a con-
stant expansion of knowledge and technical
capability in the water field is absolutely
indispensable.
The Senate Water Committee estimated
that the nation should invest a total of :J228
billion in the period between 1958 (when
the figures were gathered) and 1980 for all
types of water resource facilities if we are
to assure enough water to sustain our gal-
loping population and our zooming stand-
ard of living. Since we have spent about
$180 billion so far in our nation's history on
water resource facilities—this means that we
need to spend more in a twenty-year period
than we have spent in almost two hundred
years.
This alarming report unbuttoned a Gurge
of both discussion and action in the water
field. I think it is safe to say that ihe
Congress has passed more constructive wa-
ter legislation in the past five years than at
any other time in history.
Congress established a water pollution
control administration which will conduct
and oversee a broad public and industrial
pollution control program, and we greatly in-
creased the federal funds available i.o commu-
nities for the construction of waste treatment
and other pollution control facilities.
Congress launched a water research pro-
gram which will invest nearly $100 million
a year for ten years on basic water research.
This is over and above the massive research
program to bring desalting of water into eco-
nomic balance both in North America and
elsewhere in the world.
Congress enacted the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act, a landmark bill which places water
resources planning on a river basin basis, and
gives money to the states for planning.
This bill recognized the fundamental fact
that water does not stop at state or county
or municipal boundaries, and that any plan-
ning which does not take this into consider-
ation will be piecemeal planning—with
piecemeal effect.
Congress passed a measure which estab-
lished guidelines on what percentage of
funds going into multiple-purpose water
projects may be charged to recreation
programs This will equalize these costs
between army engineer and reclamation
projects.
We accelerated our efforts to authorize
multiple purpose projects which would serve
not primarily an agricultural society, but an
industrialized society with mounting payrolls
and increased leisure time.
All of this—and more—in five short years!
We have before us in this session of Con-
gress legislation which will coordinate at-
tacks on water pollution within each river
basin To make this program more effective
we recently transferred the water pollution
control administration from the department
of Health, Education and Welfare to the
Department of Interior, where other river
basin planning is centered.
We have just passed in the Senate a bill
which would establish a national water com-
mission—an independent body of nongov-
ernmental experts—to make an independent
evaluation of policy questions in the water
field. We will call on these distinguished
citizens, outside the government, to consider
all aspects of our incredibly complex and
interrelated water problems, and to suggest
remedies and solutions.
More imaginative solutions and better,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1091
bolder, planning is a mandate for America
if we are to have enough water in the future
Water itself is an almost indestructible com
modity, as you all know. To all practica
purposes, the seas, rivers, ground, lakes
swamps and atmosphere of the earth hold as
much water as they did when they were
created We are in trouble today simply be
cause our civilization calls for the use o
more water than any other civilization ir
history, and we are not only using this water
but flagrantly misusing it.
It is my opinion, however, that even if the
United States does replace our hodge-podge
of poorly coordinated water programs with
a modern management system we may no
be able to assure to our children and our
grandchildren enough water to meet the
needs of their way of living Particularly
will this be true if our children and grand-
children continue our present movement co
the sun-drenched southwest quadrant of
the United States where drought is almost
perpetual.
We will have to find some way of redis
tributing water from river basins where
water is surplus, to river basins wheie xhere
is not enough to go around
I feel that the best answer, not only lor
us who live in water short areas but for
central and eastern America, is the North
American Water and Power Alliance which
proposes a continent-wide system to redis-
tribute water from Alaska and uhe Canadian
Northwest It would transport huge sup-
plies of water which now run unused into
the Arctic Ocean to sections of Canada, ihe
United States and Mexico which do not now
have enough water within their own water
basins. The Rocky Mountain area, and Utah,
with its rich-but-dry-soil, would be among
the areas to profit most greatly from this
plan
The NAWAPA concept—and I call it a con-
cept because it is only that now—has been
proposed by the Ralph M. Parsons Company,
an architect-engineering firm of Los Angeles
It received little attention however, until
a special subcommittee of the Senate Public
Works Committee, of which I was named
chairman, undertook to analyze it and xo
compare it with an inventory of all water
resource development projects anticipated
[p. 15614]
for the next twenty years by principal Federal
agencies
It was the subcommittee's conclusion on
the basis of a very general study that ihe
Parson's concept, which is estimated to cost
up to $100 billion and to take 30 years 10
build, would produce nearly twice as -nuch
water as the total of cur other proposals for
water projects for about one-fourth additional
cost.
NAWAPA is a bold project which staggers
the imagination. It is also most controversial.
Some of our Canadian neighbors have strong
reservations about exporting any of their
water, others say, let's look at our need first
to see if we have surplus, then see what We
can get in return The concept is only in the
talking stage now but I predict you will be
hearing a great deal more about NAWAPA
in the future
NAWAPA is one progressive step we must
take There are otheis of equal sophis-
tication One of these is reorganization
of our Federal water resource management.
It is now far too diffused to enable us to
stretch cur water supply as creatively and
ingeniously as possible
For example, we have five Federal Depart-
ments—Interior, Agriculture, Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, Defense, and Housing
and Urban Development—and two powerful
independent agencies—the Federal Power
Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority—and twenty-five subordinate agen-
cies all with statutory responsibilities on
water resouices It is very difficult to coor-
dinate a program which is spread-eagled like
this.
It is also most frustrating for an outside
agency trying to work with the Federal Gov-
ernment with such a patchwork of authority
The Delaware River Commission, for ex-
ample, must harmonize the work of nineteen
Federal agencies, fourteen inter-state agen-
cies and 43 State agencies. How the Commis-
sion move ahead with its work at all is a
modern miracle.
Duplication is not the only caprice of our
water management Different agencies have
conflicting programs The Department of
the Interior entreats North Dakota farmers
to pieserve wildlife while Agriculture pays
them to dram the pot holes which sustain
migratory birds.
The Park Service is trying to save the
everglades in Florida while the Corps of
Engineers drains them The Federal Power
Commission authorizes a fun-of-the-river
dam on a stretch of lushing water where the
Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Recla-
mation have under consideration multiple-
purpose development
There is little sound argument that co-
ordination of our water resource programs is
not desirable; many people simply feel that
it is not possible. I do not agee. With
water front and center in our national life,
'. believe that it is possible to do now what
we have not been able to do in fifty years
To this end I have introduced legislation 10
convert the Department of the Interior into
a full-fledged department of natural re-
ources, bringing under it the diverse water
activities of the Federal Government, and
ransferring out of it functions which can be
ione better by other departments
Sparks have been flying ever since the bill
-------
1092
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
went into the hopper. Bureaucrats don't
want to be transferred, private interest
groups don't want the agency which handles
their pet projects changed in any way.
powerful lobbies see loss of prestige and loss
of control in any shift in authority.
If this is possible, my bill to establish a
Department of Natural Resources is even
more controversial than Nawapa. In fact,
there are times when I read my morning mail
that I believe I am sponsoring the two most
controversial bills before the Congress.
But I feel that both of my proposals must
eventually be adopted, and I intend to per-
severe on them.
My friends, man's inability to control water
supplies caused ancient civilizations to crum-
ble We need not suffer the same fate. We
are not less dependent upon water than we
were a thousand years ago, but we know
far more about our environment. We will
learn more in the years ahead through cre-
ative research and the resolute application of
the results.
We need not run out of water. We need
not pay the piper.
If we can maintain our present momentum,
I believe America can skimp through. We
are far behind now in what must be done.
But the public consciousness has been
awakened—the people know that the days of
writing blank checks on our water are gone.
It will not be easy to keep interest in our
water problems high. The water picture can
shift with the shift of a breeze For example,
the drought in the Northeast appears to be
easing Rainfall, so far this year, has been
nearer normal, although it is too early to
predict that the abnormally dry weather
which has plagued this region since 1961 is
over. But if it is—well, memories are short
when the tap runs fast again, and the Gwim-
ming pool is full, and the lawns are green.
Again some of the impetus that comes with
sights and smells which cannot be borne dies
down as polluted water becomes safe for
drinking, as picnic beaches are opened, as
rivers can be fished, and as wildlife has a >iew
lease on life If, and as, these days of wine
and roses return we may lose some of our
concern about water. America is a big coun-
try. It is hard to catch and hold attention
on a problem which does not immediately—
this morning—affect a person, or a commu-
nity, or an area.
This apathy is something those of us who
have made water a major occupation must
be "suited up" to meet. For you and I know
there is no choice on water. We know that
we now have millions more people than we
had whon America was settled, and that we
are compounding humanity at an unbeliev-
able rate. Yet we have only the same
amount of water on which we can count.
We know we have only begun the work
which we must conclude by the 1980's—we
have only glimpsed the far shores we must
reach by the year 2,000.
Whether we make those shores—whether
we get off that cliff on which we are now
hanging so precariously as the water serial
continues in reel after reel through the rest
of the sixties and on through the seventies
and into the eighties—depends on how well
we plan now, and how courageously and
surely we carry through those plans.
I predict that we will win the water battle.
What do you experts say?
Mr. MUSKIE. One other point I
should like to make, in response to the
Senator's concern with the problem of
incentives to industry, is that the bill is
not entirely devoid of reference and ap-
plication to the industrial waste prob-
lem. There is a provision in the bill for
grants to demonstrate the feasibility of
combined municipal-industrial waste
treatment works. Municipal treatment
works which treat industrial effluent, of
course, would be eligible for assistance
under the grants provisions of the pend-
ing bill. Smaller industries are inter-
ested in this. Combined facilities are
being used to some extent, and when
they are, they are of assistance to the
industries involved.
The pending bill would undertake to
stimulate expansion of this approach to
include the industrial waste problem.
Mr. COOPER. I am aware of these
provisions. I see the distinguished Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] on
the floor; I do not know whether he
wishes to address himself to this matter
but I hope that he will. I should just
like to say, in closing, that I believe that
this bill focuses the attention of the
country upon the necessity of conserv-
ing the basic resources of water. It may
eventually cost $100 billion, between the
States, the municipalities, the Federal
Government, end private industry, but
we must make a start.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield to the Senator
from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am glad that the
Senator has again brought up the ques-
tion of pollution by industrial wastes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1093
We had a colloquy yesterday on the
same subject.
I was interested to read this morning,
in the New York Times, that Secretary
of the Interior Udall, in testifying before
a committee of the House of Represent-
atives, mentioned that he felt the time
had come when there should be some
tax incentive program to help solve the
problem of pollution. He recognized
that he was not speaking completely for
the administration, but personally, be-
cause of the conflict and the opposition
of the Treasury.
Since our colloquy yesterday, I have
done some additional research to deter-
mine whether there are other areas in
related fields where economic incentives
are given.
I was interested in finding the follow-
ing sections of the Internal Revenue
Code:
Section 174 permits research and ex-
perimental expenditures to be deducted
currently. However, these expenditures
do not include amounts paid for the
acquisition or improvement of land or
depreciable property.
Section 175 permits soil and water
conservation expenditures and expendi-
tures for the prevention of erosion of
land used in farming to be deducted
currently. However, the total deduc-
tion cannot exceed 25 percent of the
gross income derived from farming
These expenditures are not deductible
if they are incurred to purchase, con-
struct, or improve structures or facilities
which are depreciable.
Section 180 permits capital expendi-
tures paid by farmers to be deducted
currently where they are incurred to
purchase or acquire fertilizer, lime,
gound limestone, marl or other materials
to enrich, fertilize, or condition land
used in farming.
Section 182 permits capital expendi-
tures for the clearing of farmland to be
deducted currently. However, the
amount deductible for any one year
cannot exceed the lesser of, first, $5,000
or second, 25 percent of taxable income
derived from farming, and such expend-
itures do not include those for the pur-
chase, construction, or improvement of
structures or facilities which are depre-
ciable.
Section 615 permits exploration ex-
penditures paid for ascertaining the
[p. 15615]
existence of any deposit of ore or other
mineral to be deducted currently to the
extent that they do not exceed $100,000
in any taxable year with an overall limit
of $400,000. However, expenditures for
the acquisition of depreciable property
do not qualify.
Section 616 permits development ex-
penditures incurred for the development
of a mine or other natural deposit—
other thsn an oil or gas well—to be
deducted currently but the section does
not apply to the acquisition of depreci-
able property.
So, we see that there is precedent in
the Internal Revenue Code for a faster
than ordinary depreciation allowance
which would be normally over a period
of 20 years.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
COOPER], the Senator from West Vir-
ginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. PEARSON], and I have dis-
cussed the matter many times. We must
recognize the fact that if we are ever
to solve the problem of pollution, we
must look for complete cooperation from
American industry.
Yesterday we authorized many mil-
lions of dollars for Government expend-
iture in cir pollution control. Today we
are considering a $6 billion bill for water
pollution control. We all vote for the
measure enthusiastically because we
recognize the need for it. However, I
think we are far from realistic when we
are fearful of expending some additional
$50 million to $150 million a year in fast
tax writeoff incentives to encourage
American industry to play a major role.
We must recognize that, unless we
have the cooperation of American in-
dustry, we will not clean the streams
-------
1094
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or waterways of America. We will not
be able to cleanse the air of America of
pollutants.
It is only commonsense for us to rec-
ognize that the Government needs co-
operation from American industry. The
way in which we can achieve this co-
operation with American industry is to
grant fast tax writeoff incentives.
When we first introduced the bill that
the Senate passed 2 years ago, the bill
provided for a deduction of a tax credit
or a fast tax writeoff in the first year.
There was a demurrer on the part of the
Treasury Department that this would
cost too much money. The Treasury
Department estimated that in the first
year it would cost anywhere from $200
million to $500 million.
I recognized the fact that we were in
stringent circumstances financially. I
redrew the bill, to allow the depreciation
deduction spread over 3 years. This
would cost, instead of $200 million to
$500 million, from $50 million to $150
million.
The formula can be changed depend-
ing on how far Congress wants to go in
taking account of budgetary considera-
tions. Once we determine what we
want to deduct from our total revenue
income, we can then work out the for-
mula in any bill that is proposed. How-
ever, since we, as a Congress, are taking
these huge steps toward water and air
pollution control and authorizing such
large sums of money, we ought to do the
job by authorizing the deduction of a
relatively small amount of money to
clean up the streams and the air of
America.
This can be done. I am not hopeful
that the administration will come around
to our way of thinking. I am convinced
that the overwhelming sentiment in the
Senate is that we give industry these tax
incentives.
I believe that the Senate would vote
overwhelmingly for such a program.
Consequently, it is my feeling that we
should not wait for the administration
to take the lead. It is my feeling that we
should take the lead and do the job, ir-
respective of the wishes of the adminis-
tration. Therefore, before the session
closes, and whenever an appropriate bill
is reported by the Committee on Fi-
nance, it is my intention to offer from
the floor of the Senate an amendment to
achieve what the Senator from Ken-
tucky [Mr. COOPER] and the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH]
have been talking about, and what I
have been discussing and what the Sen-
ator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] has
been discussing.
I feel certain that we who are inter-
ested in this approach and have intro-
duced various bills will be able to get
together and agree upon what we be-
lieve should be a fair amount, taking
into account the financial circumstances
of the Nation at this time. At that time,
I am sure, we can all agree upon, and all
of us can join in cosponsoring, a measure
that can be offered as an amendment to
a bill reported by the Committee on
Finance. I hope that at that time I
might have the enthusiastic support of
the distinguished Senator from Ken-
tucky, the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia, and the distinguished
Senator from Kansas. We might have
to fight the administration; we might
have to fight the joint leadership; but
I think there are times when that must
be done in order to achieve desired
results.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Connecticut yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am pleased to yield
to the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. COTTON. I should like to asso-
ciate myself with the Senator's remarks
on this subject and on this point. It oc-
curs to me, that to start to maintain a
water pollution control program without
providing some incentive to industry is
exactly like building a bridge three-
fourths of the way across a river, and
then not adding the last span to reach
the other shore.
The attitude of the senior Senator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1095
from New Hampshire is not colored in
any way by the fact that the administra-
tion does not favor this step at the pres-
ent time. During the administration o
President Eisenhower, the Senator from
New Hampshire was prepared, and on
the floor of the Senate stated that he was
prepared, to vote to override the Presi-
dent's veto of a water pollution control
bill at that time. However, the House
sustained the veto first, and the Senate
never had an opportunity to vote. But
most certainly the Senator from New
Hampshire joins the distinguished Sen-
ator from Connecticut in supporting his
tax incentive plan in some reasonable
form.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I believe that to-
gether we can determine the reason-
ableness, because it is easy to calculate
the relative costs of a tax deduction pro-
gram or incentive program, depending
on what the program will be.
Since the bill was introduced, I have
found a lively, active interest on the part
of various industries in America, indus-
tries that are the basic cause of pol-
lution. There is a recognition by
industry today, unlike their attitude a
decade ago, that they do have a responsi-
bility. They now have an active desire
to eliminate pollution. Certain States
have done it, and have done it well.
The distinguished junior Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], who is stand-
ing in the aisle, as Governor of his State
led the fight for tax incentives and tax
credits, and for State taxing programs
for the placing of pollution devices in
Wisconsin.
Other States have followed the lead of
Wisconsin. My own State of Connecti-
cut recently followed this lead.
But State taxes are relatively small.
The basic expenditures and the basic tax
bite are by the Federal Government. So
I firmly believe that once a tax incentive
program were placed in effect, we would
find an amazing acceleration on the part
of all American industry—the coal in-
dustry, the oil industry, the steel indus-
try, the mining industry—all of whom
recognize their obligations, but find
themselves in a fantastic bind with re-
spect to expensive expenditures, and
having to write them off over a period of
20 years.
It is economically unsound. But in
this way they would be given the fast
tax writeoffs. While the Treasury might
suffer the loss in the first year or the
first 3 years, it would pick it up later on.
The deductions take 20 years, anyway,
and the Federal Government would be
able to recoup its immediate loss of tax
revenues, because the continued deduc-
tion would not take place in the next 17
years.
It is a question of being practical; and
since we are passing this landmark bill
today for $6 billion, I believe it is very
shortsighted not to implement it with a
program that might cost anywhere from
$50 million to $150 million.
Mr. COOPER. I am pleased with the
statement that the distinguished Sena-
tor from Connecticut has made.
For 3 years now, the Senator from
Connecticut has been leading in the fight
for legislation to secure these incentives
to obtain the full cooperation of industry
in this great task. I agree with the Sen-
ator from Connecticut that the Senate
will pass such legislation. I hope that he
will use his influence with the adminis-
tration to support such legislation.
Mr. President, on April 6 I spoke on
the Senate floor concerning the public
hearings scheduled by the Subcommit-
tee on Air and Water Pollution on the
bill before us today and pointed out that
I hoped that industry representatives in
discussing various methods for con-
trolling and abating pollution would also
include a discussion of their views on
[p. 15616]
the use of tax incentives as a method of
accomplishing this purpose. I am happy
to note that their testimony has been
lelpful to the committee in its strong
recommendation for congressional con-
ideration of proposals offering industry
ome form of tax relief.
-------
1096
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that my statement of April 6 be
included in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
FEDERAL TAX PROPOSALS FOR CONTROL OF AIR
AND WATER POLLUTION
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I cannot predict
which method the Congress may prefer in
providing Industry with some assistance in
establishing pollution controls' that is, in-
vestment credit, accelerated depreciation, a
combination of these two methods, or some
other method. But I do believe that some
form of incentive should be provided private
industry and I urge the Finance Committee
to give this matter their close consideration
and I am hopeful that hearings may be
held on these proposals in the near future.
I would also like to bring to the attention
of the Senate that the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of the Committee on
Public Works has announced a 10-day hear-
ing schedule on water pollution commencing
April 19 and continuing through to May 5.
I note that among the industry representa-
tives scheduled to appear are the following:
National Association of Manufacturers, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturing
Chemists, the soap, and detergent industry,
the iron, and steel industry, and the paper
industry I would hope that these in-
dustry representatives in discussing various
methods for controlling and abating pollution
would also include a discussion of their views
on the use of tax incentives as a method of
accomplishing this purpose.
In this connection, Mr. C. H. Gebhardt.
manager of the tax department of the Mead
Corp., has prepared a useful chart analyzing
current tax proposals relative to water and
air pollution controls so as to determine ihe
measure of financial assistance that would
actually be given to business if a particular
proposal should be adopted For each 3100
outlay for pollution control facilities, Mr.
Gebhardt concludes that the bill I introduced
with Senator RANDOLPH would provide an in-
centive equal to 6.7 percent of the cost of pol-
lution control facilities Other methods
provide for incentives of 1 1 percent, 6 1 per-
cent, 7.8 percent, and 14.5 percent of the cost
of these facilities I ask unanimous consent
that this table be included in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows
-------
1097
to b c
£ .£ -o
5
*O 4-1
?
I 1 s 1
" =
i s
£d
££
§§:
O O I
o o o o
o o oo --1
t/i m od <£>
- ~ S
M £ £ ±=
c •*- m H_
Is I °
s?
I- >
•s - * j
s^l •s™s°"*Ji
- S S I ^ ^ £ - E
>:« 5|!lt?i
wiia ^aJSo.E
Ol-C—-
*" ~
.e-^a)- ^(/SaJ^oJuw
053E S. M 6 .E t i: .=
il ;s
si
o
£ ™
o o
= E°
£ I
S
I! ?!!
- s
E ,
•a:
-------
1098
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. COOPEH. Mr. President, in the January
issue of the monthly letter published by the
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., of New York,
there is an interesting article on this subject
entitled "Progress and Pollution—Can ihe
Link Be Broken." In the body of that article
the question of private industry purchasing
equipment to control air and water pollution
receives the following comment:
"If businesses and communities are to be
expected to install control equipment on a
massive scale to abate air and water pollu-
tion, more thought will have to be given to
methods of inducing them to make the
necessary investment. It needs to be frankly
recognized that there is little motive in
most cases for the individual business unit
to assume unusual costs in order to reduce
or prevent pollution, particularly if competi-
tors aren't doing so. Control equipment is
nonproductive so far as yielding any market-
able product is concerned. In a competitive
industry, it may represent the marginal item
of cost that prices a company out of oome
market. Recognizing this, a community
eager to attract new plants may be vempted
to relax in enforcing pollution regulations."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
have this article printed in the RECORD at the
conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the article was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
"[From the Morgan Guaranty Survey,
January 1966]
"PROGRESS AND POLLUTION—CAN THE LINK BE
BROKEN?
"The problem of pollution is currently
being elevated to prominent national atten-
tion in much the same way as was the prob-
lem of poverty 2 years ago. Almost everyone,
or so it seems, is suddenly talking about it.
and scarcely a week goes by without an of-
ficial at some level of government announc-
ing a new initiative to curtail the flow of
wastes into the country's atmosphere and
waterways.
"Pollution, of course, is not a new thing
in the United States, any more than is pov-
erty; nor indeed are efforts at control
American municipalities have made heavy
expenditures over the decades to eradicate
or prevent water pollution, and some also
have invested considerable sums in recent
years to cleanse their skies. Similarly, many
business firms have made significant outlays
to abate the waste flow that is the inevitable
accompaniment of industrial activity.
"Realization has emerged, however, that
sizable though these efforts have been in
total, they simply have not been adequate to
keep up with the ever larger waste loads
that growing cities, suburbs, and industries
are discharging. Sight and smell alone have
been sufficient to drive home this fact. Hun-
dreds of bodies of water in the country are
patently unfit for drinking, wildlife, or use in
manufacturing processes, and the air in many
communities often is laden with floating
grime and offensive smells.
"Aroused by such conditions, the public
appears primed to support vastly enlarged
abatement endeavors. Concrete evidence of
this came in New York State in last Novem-
ber's election, when voters gave approval to
a $1 billion bond proposal for financing a
clean-up of polluted waterways. The dra-
matic 4-to-l vote far exceeded expectations
and was rendered especially significant be-
cause the borrowing was the largest ever
approved in the State's history.
"Since the public mood seems similar else-
where, what happened in New York may well
herald the beginning of a major new turn all
across the country in the allocation and use
of public funds. The ultimate cost of
stepped-up pollution control programs de-
fies meaningful estimate, but it is certain
that many billions of dollars will be involved
Economic costs rivaling those for space ex-
ploration, for instance, are easy to visualize.
[p. 15617]
Underscoring this possibility is the fact that
Federal participation in abatement endeavors
is rapidly accelerating. Congress last year
passed legislation that will require many
States to quicken and enlarge antipollution
efforts relating to interstate waters. It also
provided for national standards limiting
emission of automobile exhausts Acting in
accord with this law, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare has just set ma-
chinery in motion which will make such
standards applicable to 1968 model automo-
biles and which will add an estimated $400
million to consumer spending on new auto-
mobiles that year assuming sales of 9 million
cars.
"Basic to rational regulation of pollution is
the question: How clean should water and
air be9 The answer isn't necessarily the one
that most people presumably would give in-
stinctively; namely, that both water and air
should be as clean as possible. With regard
to water, certainly, an attempt to achieve
pristine purity in all instances regardless of
intended end use would entail unnecessarily
burdensome social costs Water which is
to be used for soil irrigation, for instance,
obviously does not have to be purified to
drinkable standards. This applies as well
to much of the water that is used indus-
trially. Significantly, agricultural and in-
dustrial uses account for roughly 90 percent
of the country's total watei consumption,
and feeder systems for these uses often are
separate from those running to the country's
homes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1099
"Even if a particular stream serves as a
source of drinking water, it doesn't neces-
sarily follow that all pollutants must be pre-
vented from entering it Water taken Irom
a stream, no matter how clean it may seem
to be, often must undergo some purification
treatment immediately before being routed
to household taps. While flowing in the
stream, moreover, water has a natural ca-
pacity to decompose and dilute many con-
taminants, thereby cleansing itself Where
there is assurance that this process will be
adequate, it would be economic folly to
undertake the expense of intercepting and
filtering out all waste matter.
"But while water doesn't have to be main-
tained in all instances at a standard of abso-
lute purity, it is clear that the country's
expanding water needs demand that water
quality in many rivers, streams, and lakes
be raised above the levels that presently pre-
vail. With the advance of technology and
the wide application of fertilizers and pesti-
cides, waters have been receiving heavy loads
of inorganic and synthetic organic chemicals
that do not respond to the normal process of
decomposition and cleansing by bacteria and
oxygen. In numerous other cases water
bodies that could assimilate substantial quan-
tities of organic wastes have been so over-
loaded with pollutants as to arrest the normal
breaking-down process. This has occurred
principally because the volume of organic
wastes has been expanding rapidly with eco-
nomic and population growth, while the
quantity of rainfall and its subsequent flow
through waterways remain relatively un-
changed from year to year.
"The constancy of nature's precipitation
bounty is the chief hurdle confronting offi-
cials who must plan for the country's future
water needs Projections of water demand
point to the very real possibility that the
supply that can be captured from rainfall
runoff could prove seriously deficient within
the next decade and a half. It is inescapable,
therefore, that some way must eventually be
found either to supplement or short-circuit
nature's evaporation and precipitation cycle
The desalting of sea water is one possibility,
although as a practical matter this as of low
seems to have serious limitations both eco-
nomically and geographically A more prom-
ising possibility is that ways will be perfected
to use fresh water more than once during the
flow from watershed to estuary, as is already
being done to some extent.
"UPGRADING WATER QUALITY
"To permit reuse, of course, water must be
of suitable quality and this is why acceler-
ated pollution control efforts are so im-
portant The setting of quality standards
thus becomes the first task in any coherent
abatement program.
"More than half the States have taken at
least some action along these lines New
York State, for example, has classified all of
its 70,000 miles of streams and 3','2 million
acres of lakes as to proposed use The clas-
sifications, which reflect to some degree ihe
concept of stream specialization, are: A for
drinking, B for bathing, C for fishing, D for
drainage. Besides this classification pro-
gram, sanitary engineers in the State have
evaluated the sewage facilities that would be
required in every community in order to raise
water quality to the prescribed classification
levels.
"While the State has only limited authority
to force municipalities to construct such fa-
cilities, it has devised a program of finan-
cial aid that seems sufficiently generous 10
assure a good response Whereas local gov-
ernments have previously had to carry pretty
much the full burden of construction costs
for sewers and sewage treatment plants, their
share would be only 40 percent under the
new approach. New York State will finance
the other 60 percent, using the proceeds of
the $1-billion bond issue approved last
November.
"Eventually Albany hopes to get Washing-
ton to go halves on the 60 percent, but that
will have to await congressional action.
The Federal Government now gives some
assistance to municipalities, but a formula
limiting the size of individual grants works
to the disadvantage of communities under-
taking large-scale projects. The most that
can be granted under present Federal law
for a single project is $1 2 million, a rela-
tively small sum in comparison with the
typical undertaking in major cities
"Governor Rockefeller has campaigned ac-
tively for liberalization of Washington's
financial aid to permit Federal payment of
a full 30 percent of the cost of municipal
sewage facilities. He also has proposed that
the Federal Government should follow New
York State's lead in providing industry with
treatment incentives in the form of 1-year
write-off against income taxes on invest-
ment in pollution control equipment.
"Hopefully the bold initiatives taken in
New York will be emulated in other States
If they are not, the alternative is virtually
certain to be a national cleanup directed
from Washington The Water Quality Act
of 1965 specifically empowered the Secretary
of Health. Education, and Welfare Lo snun-
ciate standards of quality on interstate
waters unless the States themselves do so
to Washington's satisfaction by June 30,
1967 Should the Secretary do this, the re-
sults could be unfortunate 'And attempt
to "standardize" water quality on a lation-
wide basis,' as Governor Bellmon of Okla-
homa recently cautioned, 'would likely
disregard regional differences in water quan-
tity, flow, location, natural characteristics,
and usage '
-------
1100
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"EXHAUSTIVE CONTROLS
"A disregard of regional differences is al-
ready evident in Federal action dealing with
air pollution. The action just taken by
Washington to require automotive exhaust
controls on 1968 model cars applies unvary-
ingly to every State and every community in
the Nation, making no allowance for differ-
ences in population concentration or in
meteorological conditions This inevitably
means that some people are going to be
making outlays of up to $50 on control de-
vices that will bring no meaningful benefit
either to themselves or their neighbors.
This could be so, for example, for many
residents of Maine—an irony since it is Sen-
ator MUSKIE of that State whose name is
most closely associated with the enabling
legislation.
"There are vast expanses of the continental
United States where relatively sparse popu-
lation or brisk air circulation, or a combina-
tion of the two, forestalls the formation of
automotive smog Either the wind blows
the pollutants away, or temperature changes
cause cold air to fall and force warm air,
with its load of pollutants, into the higher
atmosphere.
"The self-cleansing action of air is likely to
be less effective, of course, in areas where
population is heavily concentrated or where
the topography is such as to produce fre-
quent temperature inversion As the Lerm
implies, this is the opposite of normal
weather patterns A layer of warm air moves
in on top of cooler air, forming a blanket
that prevents polluted air from rising and
diluting itself in the higher atmosphere
"In Los Angeles temperature inversions
often combine with exhaust gases to oroduce
the acrid haze that the city has been trying
to banish for 18 years. It has been estimated
that some 500,000 gallons of gasoline escape
unburned from cars every day, mainly as a
result of incomplete combustion, and get
trapped by warm air in the "kettle" that is
formed by the city's encircling mountains.
The hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides con-
tained in auto exhaust gases then "cook" in
sunlight, reacting photochemically io form
smog The seriousness of this problem
finally led to action by California's Legisla-
ture requiring that most new U.S -made cars
sold and registered in the State be equipped
with exhaust-control devices beginning with
the current model year. The standards
recently promulgated by Washington relating
to 1968 model automobiles essentially follow
the California pattern. They apply as well,
however, to imported cars.
"Although expert opinion is divided as io
whether California-type exhaust-control de-
vices actually are needed elsewhere, most car
buyers in metropolitan areas probably will
pay the extra charge uncomplainingly. Most
large cities have so many air pollution prob-
lems that the layman tends to think ihat
anything which may cut down the dirt in his
air is to the good
"The large industrial city can actually be
viewed as a vast combustion chamber daily
converting thousands of tons of fuel into the
energy and heat that underpin modern life.
Amenities and progress result, but so too do
problems and pollution Soot and fly ash are
the housewife's constant bane, adding to her
cleaning chores, blackening her wallpaper,
and inflating her laundry bills Gaseous
emissions corrode metals, irritate eyes, of-
fend noses, and reduce visibility So far,
fortunately, the soot and fumes have been
more a nuisance than a proven health haz-
ard, but in a few isolated episodes in ihis
country and in Europe acute air pollution,
associated with temperature inversions last-
ing for several days, has been accompanied
by increases in the death rate Unless the
tempo of antipollution attack is quickened
such episodes could become more common in
the future, assuming a continuing trend in
the direction of an ever more urbanized and
industrialized society
"WHAT TO Do9
"But while it is clear that something more
must be done, it is far from clear precisely
what that 'something' should be A report
issued last November by the President's Sci-
ence Advisory Committee frankly acknowl-
edged that 'there are many areas in which
ignorance constrains our ability to deal
effectively with pollution problems '
"An orderly approach to air pollution con-
trol logically would involve the setting of
standards by each community for the quality
[p. 15618]
of its air, followed by efforts to curtail the
most damaging emissions. There are real
difficulties in the way of this procedure, how-
ever, because it entails not only an assess-
ment of the technological feasibility of
curtailment for specific emissions but also a
weighing of the costs of control in relation
to the costs of damage that occur in the ab-
sence of control. In the present state of the
art, measurements cf costs and benefits are
in most instances too imprecise to yield a
reliable guide to action.
"Given this situation, the excitement that
characterizes much public discussion of
what should be done is all too likely to lead
to hasty or arbitrary proposals for curbing
those sources of pollution that for one rea-
son or another have aroused the most alarm.
Highly questionable, for instance, is the re-
cent recommendation of a committee of the
New York City Council that exhaust-control
devices be required by 1969 on all cars, old
as well as new. Automotive engineers simply
haven't been able to perfect a control device
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1101
for installation on old cars that is economi-
cally feasible, and it is because of this that
California, after considerable study, decided
to limit its requirements to new vehicles
"A variety of arbitrary proposals also have
been made for curtailing sulfur dioxide emis-
sions in New York City, including recom-
mendations that the burning of coal be
banned and that stringent limitations be
placed on the sulfur content of fuel oil. Some
proponents of these steps acknowledge that
very difficult problems would be involved,
ranging from costly furnace conversions to
the limited market availability of low-sulfur
oil that in part is the result of national policy
limiting petroleum imports. Other advocates
are either less candid or less informed They
would have it appear that the recommended
shift in fuel-consumption patterns could be
accomplished easily and quickly if fuel users
were only more public spirited.
"PAYING THE BILL
"If businesses and communities are to be
expected to install control equipment on a
massive scale to abate air and water pollu-
tion, more thought will have to be given to
methods of inducing them to make the
necessary investment. It needs to be frankly
recognized that there is little motive in most
cases for the individual business unit to as-
sume unusual costs in order to reduce or
prevent pollution, particularly if competitors
aren't doing so. Control equipment is non-
productive so far as yielding any marketable
product is concerned In a competitive in-
dustry, it may represent the marginal item
of cost that prices a company out of some
market. Recognizing this, a community
eager to attract new plants may be tempted
to relax in enforcing pollution regulations.
"The incentive for spending public funds on
pollution abatement is also limited. Cities
all over the country are pressed to provide
services of all kinds to growing populations.
Investment in modernized sewage treatment
plants or incinerator stations can have less
voter appeal than spending for police protec-
tion or schools.
"Still another deterrent to abatement is the
fact that the unpleasant effects of pollution
are often so widely diffused that they may
not be troublesome to those immediately in-
volved in creating them Conversely, the
benefits of control are usually enjoyed by
people other than those who pay the bill
The community that treats its sewage before
discharging it into the river, or the plant that
catches fly ash in its smokestack, may not
itself enjoy cleaner water or air The bene-
ficiary may be a neighborhood some distance
downstream or downwind.
"The problem of pollution thus doesn't re-
spond easily to commonsense maxims about
'getting what you pay for ' If the problem
is to be corrected a way will have to be found
to channel the general desire for a cleaner
society into an acceptable method of getting
up the money to pay for it.
"One promising suggestion, aimed at foster-
ing greater activity in the antipollution field
by industry, would have local, State, and Fed-
eral governments give tax inventive to busi-
ness Mr W G Laffer, president of Clevite
Corp , recently proposed a combination of
investment credit, accelerated depreciation,
and exemption from property taxes on pollu-
tion-control equipment Certain States al-
ready provide some tax relief. New York,
for instance, permits a 1-year writeoff on
water-pollution controls, and Ohio exempts
such equipment from property taxes.
"An alternative to incentives that is some-
times suggested would be a system of charges
levied in proportion to the amount of harm-
ful waste put into the water or the air.
Effluent charges are used in the Ruhr region
in West Germany, where they have helped
to prevent deterioration of water quality in
a heavily populated and industrialized area.
This approach has been tentatively endorsed
by the President's Science Advisory Commit-
tee Such a system, however, would have
the disadvantage of necessitating the cre-
ation of a large inspection and measurement
apparatus It could prove more costly in Lhe
long run, therefore, than tax incentives
"To speed municipal efforts. State and local
officials have been urging larger Federal
grants to communities for abatement pur-
poses, especially for investment in sewage
treatment plants With local funds widely
inadequate to the task, construction of sew-
age facilities has not kept up with the
growth of waste loads Federal grants for
construction of municipal sewage works have
lightened local burdens somewhat, but the
ceilings Congress has placed on the amount
that can be granted for each project dis-
criminate against the most populous States—
whose pollution problems are the most severe.
These ceilings should be liberalized, as Gov-
ernor Rockefeller has recommended, and Con-
gress should give high priority to raising
grants to local authorities for sewage plants
above the present total of $150 million a
year
"Actually, the problem which local commu-
nities face in providing adequate sewage
facilities is merely one small part of what
has been aptly termed 'the crisis of i.he
cities'—of burgeoning urban needs in the
context of limited financial resources Urban
problems in general probably aren't going to
be solvable until tax revenues are more
equitably shared between Federal and local
governments Some variant of the so-called
Heller plan, which would substantially in-
crease the amount of Federal tax collections
channeled back to States and localities, may
be the answer.
-------
1102
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"Collaboration between Washington and
State and local officials also is necessary to
help define industry's role in pollution abate-
ment and to calm down some of the shrillness
that presently prevails. In too many in-
stances, slogans—such as 'Let the polluters
pay'—have substituted for analysis The pro-
duction of pollutants, it needs to be under-
stood, is not the consequence of perverse
business behavior but the 'inevitable con-
comitant,' as the President's Science Ad-
visory Committee has noted, of technological
activity.
"Businessmen, while they direct much of
their activity, can neither be credited with all
its benefits nor held uniquely accountable
for all its unwanted byproducts The
dividends and debits alike are society's to
share.
"If substantial pollution-control costs are
to be built into the business process, it is
society at large that is ultimately going 1,0
pay the price of those costs just as it now
pays for other social objectives—such as
factory safety, abolition of child labor, and
minimum wages—that have become accepted
costs of doing business. Clean water and clear
air simply aren't free goods Recognition
of this is the vital prerequisite to the develop-
ment of sensible abatement programs."
The bill (S. 2857) to increase the in-
vestment credit allowable with respect 10
facilities to control water and air pollution,
introduced by Mr. COOPER (for himself and
Mr. RANDOLPH), was received, read twice by
its title, referred to the Committee on
Finance, and ordered to be printed in ihe
RECORD, as follows:
"S. 2857
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
section 46(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 (relating to definition of qualified in-
vestment for purposes of determining the
credit for investment in certain depreciable
property) is amended by adding after
paragraph (4) thereof the following new
paragraph:
"'(5) FACILITIES To CONTROL WATER AND
AIR POLLUTION.—
"'(A) In the case of section 38 property
which consists of facilities or equipment to
control water or air pollution, the amount of
the qualified investment shall be twice the
amount determined under paragraph (1).
"'(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the term "facilities or equipment to control
water pollution" means a facility or equip-
ment used to control water pollution by re-
moving, altering, or disposing of wastes irom
any type of manufacturing or mining process,
including the necessary intercepting sewers,
outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other
equipment, and their appurtenances.
"'(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the term "facilities or equipment to control
air pollution" means a facility or equipment
used to control atmospheric pollution or
contamination by removing, altering, or dis-
posing of atmospheric pollutants and con-
taminants from any type of manufacturing
or mining process '
"(b) The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall apply to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1965.' "
Mr. RIBICOFF. My response is this:
If the Senate persists in a good cause
that has basic public support, the ad-
ministration will not be far behind.
Even if we fail this year, I am certain
that very shortly we shall be able to turn
a temporary defeat into a permanent
victory.
I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. I concur in the re-
marks of the Senator from Connecticut
and others.
I have introduced a bill which tackles
the question of tax writeoffs and the
question of giving consideration to
matching funds to industry for the in-
stallation of treatment facilities.
I believe that the tax writeoff should
be at the option of the industry, that the
industry should be able to write off in 1
year, 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years the cost
of the pollution devices that are required
to be installed—whatever is in the best
economic interest of the company. It
will be difficult to give enough induce-
ment to achieve the job that needs to be
done.
Also, I believe Congress should give
consideration to whether a formula can
be developed to give some matching
grant funds to industry to do this job.
The cost to the public is exactly the
same.
Historically, the policy in this country
has been to punish the polluter, but
pollution laws have been passed and not
[p. 15619]
enforced. If any State in the United
States effectively enforced tough anti-
pollution laws, it would have a serious
tax effect, both upon the communities
and the industries against which they
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1103
are enforced. This matter is important
enough to some industries so that they
would actually move.
I am informed that if treatment
facilities meeting the highest status of
the art are installed in a paper mill, the
cost involves 25 percent to one-third of
the total investment in the plant.
If tough enforcement required every
industry in America to reach the highest
status of the art, all of the cost would
ultimately be borne by the consumer,
anyway. The cost of the automobile
would go up to that extent, the cost of
steel would go up to that extent, the cost
of paper would go up to that extent.
Therefore, to give tax advantages, tax
writeoffs, and matching funds or grants,
if a reasonable formula can be figured
out, would cost the taxpayer the same
amount, whether it would come out of
the Federal Treasury or would be built
into the cost of the product ultimately
bought by the consumer.
I am glad this question has been raised.
I shall be glad to join with any group of
Senators in sponsoring such legislation.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, in con-
nection with our consideration of S.2947,
I call to the attention of the Senators the
Water Resources Planning Act, which
was enacted in the first session of this
Congress. This act, which is Public Law
89-80, found in 79 Stat. 244, establishes
a National Water Resources Council,
composed of the officers of Cabinet level
rank of the Federal Government who
have responsibility for water resources
in the United States, as an overall study,
planning, and programming agency.
Title II of the act authorizes establish-
ment of River Basin Commissions for
comprehensive planning and coordina-
tion of Federal, State, and local water
resource development activities in par-
ticular river basins or groups of river
basins within a region.
Pollution control, of course, is but one
aspect—although a very important as-
pect, to be sure—of the water problems
facing our Nation. The relationship of
pollution control and other water prob-
lems was clearly set forth by Elmer B.
Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the
Budget, in his testimony before the In-
terior Committee on February 5, 1965,
expressing the support of the adminis-
tration for S. 21, 89th Congress, the bill
that became the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act.
Mr. Staats said:
The problem areas that confront us in the
water resources field are immense and varied.
They include flood control, navigation, hydro-
electric power, pollution abatement, and
water quality control, municipal and indus-
trial water supply, irrigation, recreation, and
fish and wildlife conservation
In general, the overall national water
supply is abundant, but it is not distributed
equally. Shortages in some sections of the
country are becoming critical and tend to
lestrict economic growth At the same time,
in areas with adequate quantities of water,
problems arise because of floods and pollution
The pollution of our streams and rivers is
of grave importance and of particularly deep
concern because of the impact of water qual-
ity on all water uses. Studies reported in
1961 by the Senate Select Committee on
National Water Resources, based oil data
furnished by the Public Health Service, esti-
mated the need for investment in sewage and
industrial waste collection and treatment
facilities alone would amount to over $42 bil-
lion between 1954 and 1980, and over $81
billion by the year 2000.
Thus, our goal must be to develop, manage,
and utilize our basic water supply to meet
demands as they arise—both in quantity and
quality The development of these vital re-
sources is a vast undertaking which is grow-
ing larger. Proper development will require
the concerted and coordinated action of Fed-
eral, State and local agencies which this bill
is designed to facilitate.
Mr. President, on behalf of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
which is the unit of the Senate that has
general legislative responsibility for na-
tionwide water resource matters, I wish
to commend the very able Senator from
Maine and his subcommittee, and the
able chairman of the full committee, the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RAN-
DOLPH], for the exemplary standards
that have been set in considering and
working out the specialized provisions of
S. 2947. I note that the Secretary of the
Interior Udall, in his testimony on April
-------
1104
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
20 of this year in support of the admin-
istration's clean rivers bill, S. 2987, the
provisions of which have been amalgam-
ated with the reported measure, S. 2947,
before us today, stated:
The bill provides for designation of a plan-
ning agency for a selected river basin. In
most cases, that planning agency will be a
river basin commission established pursuant
to the Water Resources Planning Act. In
others, however, we may want to establish
a commission such as the Delaware River
Basin Commission ... or to work with and
through some other type of agency.
This statement is found on page 109 of
the subcommittee hearings.
Mr. President, I am sure Senators will
agree that the legislative history of the
Water Resources Planning Act makes
clear the overall jurisdiction of the Water
Resources Council and the River Basin
Commissions in comprehensive basin -
wide planning to insure high water-
quality standards. Activities of State
and local planning agencies authorized
by S. 2947 must not supersede the water-
quality responsibilities of the Council
and Basin Commissions created by the
Water Resources Planning Act. Rather,
such agencies will supplement and com-
plement the work of the Council and
Commissions when S. 2947 cannot
reasonably be implemented and carried
out through the provisions of the Water
Resources Planning Act.
The Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs will follow closely and pro-
grams and activities of the Water
Resources Council and the River Basin
Commissions to be sure that they are
fully aware of their congressional man-
date to plan for the restoration and
maintenance of high water-quality
standards. My committee will also con-
tinue to be deeply interested in any
legislative proposals relating to compre-
hensive river-basin planning against
pollution of all kinds, and we will be
happy to cooperate with the Committee
on Public Works.
In this connection I wish to call at-
tention to my announcement that ap-
pears in yesterday's RECORD setting July
20 as the date for the confirmation hear-
ings on the nomination of Mr. Frank C.
DiLuzio to be an Assistant Secretary of
Interior under Reorganization Plan No.
2 of 1966. One of Mr. DiLuzio's respon-
sibilities in the new post will be the
administration of the Federal water pol-
lution control program, among other
water and related programs.
I wish to cordially invite the members
of the Committee on Public Works, par-
ticularly the able Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE] to participate in those
hearings, if they desire.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, as a mem-
ber of the Committee on Public Works
and a cosponsor of the bill, I wish to
commend and congratulate the distin-
guished and able Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE], the chairman of the sub-
committee which held hearings and
worked on the bill, the ranking minority
member [Mr. BOGGS] on the subcommit-
tee, and all other members of the
Committee on Public Works for their
splendid and diligent efforts in bringing
to the floor of the Senate this very far-
reaching and excellent bill which will
mean so much to the health, welfare, and
happiness of the American people.
The cleaning of our stream and rivers
is a gigantic problem. At a conservative
estimate it will cost over $100 billion to
clean our rivers and streams and keep
them clean up to the year 2000. I hope
that the moneys which have been au-
thorized in the pending bill will be a
strong beginning to alleviate the very
bad condition of our polluted rivers and
point the way for us to having all our
rivers and streams flowing with clear
and clean unpolluted water.
I wish to thank the distinguished
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] for
accepting my suggestions that the defini-
tion of the term "river basin" include
the word "streams" and also that the
term "estuarine zones" include "bays"
and "harbors" to take care of the peculiar
conditions in the State of Hawaii. This
will encompass Hawaii in the clear rivers
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1105
restoration program and in the estuary
study.
This is a good bill and I intend to
support it.
[p. 15620]
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 2947) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act in or-
der to improve and make more effective
certain programs pursuant to such act.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, 47
Members of the Senate are joined with
EDMUND MUSKIE, of Maine, in supporting
the proposed legislation, not only in its
purpose, but also by attaching their
names to S. 2947, the bill itself. This is
indicative of the general approval of the
purposes of the legislation which the
Senate is considering this afternoon, the
amendments to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.
I desire to say, on behalf of the Com-
mittee on Public Works and of its Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution,
that all of us, both on the Democratic
and Republican sides of the committee,
are joined in our commitment, which we
feel is the commitment of the Senate, to
move affirmatively in the field of pollu-
tion abatement and control, both of air
and of water.
The distinguished Senator from Ken-
tucky [Mr. COOPER] and all the other
Senators who form the Republican com-
ponent of the committee have worked
diligently and with determination in the
hearings and in executive sessions of the
subcommittee and the full committee.
This is testimony to the positive manner
in which we are moving on this impor-
tant, this vital, legislation.
Yesterday, on the amendments to the
Air Pollution Act, the vote on passage
was 80 to 0. Today it is our hope that
a unanimity of opinion will again be ex-
pressed in the yea-and-nay vote which
has already been granted.
Earlier this afternoon, the distin-
guished Senator from Indiana [Mr.
HARTKE] made a reference of pleasantry
to the coat that I am wearing today. A
younger man would, of course, call it a
blazer. It is ablaze with color. It dis-
plays the colors of West Virginia—blue
and gold and was presented to me last
year by the young men of the National
Youth Science Camp. Because the Sen-
ator from Indiana made reference to
this jacket, I invite attention to the fact
that in Washington, D.C., today are 100
delegates to the National Youth Science
Camp, which is held annually in West
Virginia. They have been in Washing-
ton as a part of the 3-week program
which is carried on largely in the State
of West Virginia, in the historic section
of Pocahontas County, at Green Bank,
near the famous observatory. The group
is comprised of two young scientists from
each of the 50 States.
They were challenged today, at the
luncheon meeting, by the words of the
Vice President, Hon. HUBERT H. HUM-
PHREY, who pointed out that no matter
how scientific an age we live in, we must
realize that the ultimate in science is the
heart of the scientist himself. I shall not
attempt to speak of the eloquence with
which the Vice President made this
point—a very moving and telling one.
But I shall, at a later appropriate time,
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD the address of the Vice
President of the United States to these
100 young men who are here in the city
today.
Later this afternoon, the Science
Camp delegates were privileged to meet
the President of the United States and
to be present as he commissioned a
modern research vessel as a further de-
velopment in the relatively new field of
oceanography. At the navy yard they
listened to the words of the President as
he indicated that at the bottom of the
sea are the substances with which life
will increasingly be sustained and sweet-
ened in the years ahead.
As these high school students were ad-
dressed by the Vice President during to-
day's luncheon, so in previous years they
have visited with other leaders of scien-
tific thought and effort in the Federal
-------
1106
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Government. In 1963, the inaugural
year of the Science Camp, and West Vir-
ginia's Centennial year, the speaker at
the Washington luncheon was Hon.
James E. Webb, Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration. In 1964 our guest of honor
was the Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg.
Both Dr. Seaborg and Mr. Webb were
present at the gathering this afternoon.
Last year, Gen. Bernard A. Schriever,
Commander of the Air Force Systems
Development Command addressed the
delegates, and discussed with them the
rapid advances of our Nation in building
airpower. Distinguished visitors at the
camp itself have included Astronauts
Neil A. Armstrong and M. Scott Car-
penter, as well as Col. Charles E. Yeager,
commander of the U.S. Air Force Aero-
space Research Pilot School.
During the 3 weeks of the National
Youth Science Camp the young delegates
participate in a wide range of science-
oriented activities. Included are field
trips, panel discussions, lectures, guided
tours and classroom sessions, all under
the direction of a capable staff. Director
of the camp is Prof. Charles N. Cochran,
of the mathematics department of West
Virginia University. He is ably assisted
by Joseph M. Hutchinson and Robert D.
Slonneger, associate directors, and a staff
of counsellors who are scientists in their
own right.
I commend the delegates to the West
Virginia National Youth Science Camp,
and express appreciation to those dedi-
cated individuals who give their time
and energies to see that this event is well
organized and smoothly administered
each year. The State of West Virginia is
gratified that so many Members of the
U.S. Senate could be present at today's
luncheon to greet the youthful scientists,
and to hear the Vice President. These
young men are aware that among the
principal duties of every citizen is that of
keeping informed on issues of national
significance.
Mr. President, we are belatedly aware
as a nation that the seemingly limitless
resources of this rich land are indeed
limited. We cannot and we must not, if
we are to preserve the bounty of this
land for future generations, continue to
waste and despoil our water, our soil,
and our other natural resources.
S. 2947, of which I am privileged to be
a cosponsor, offers dramatic evidence of
the concern throughout the United States
and within the Senate for the problem of
water pollution control. While this bill
is not the final answer to the problem of
water pollution, its passage will provide
essential funds to combat the problem
and to forestall even more serious water
quality crises in the future.
I compliment the subcommittee mem-
bers on this forward moving bill, and the
work which produced it. Last year, the
Congress took a great stride ahead in the
enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1985. This authorized the promulgation
of standards of water quality in inter-
state streams. Virtually all of the pollu-
tion abatement bills that have been
heard before the committee have had
their parentage in that act. This fact
testifies to the years of labor and effort
by the members of the committee which
came to culmination in the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965.
I further congratulate Senator EDMUND
S. MUSKIE, the chairman of this subcom-
mittee, for his tireless efforts on behalf
of water pollution control legislation.
This bill is a testament to his vision.
The newspapers refer to him as "Mr.
Water Pollution." Senator MUSKIE has
won the admiration of his colleagues for
his work as chairman of the subcom-
mittee by developing a comprehensive
and coherent program to attack the
problems of water pollution.
The pending measure is the product
of hearings and conferences conducted
by the subcommittee last year and this,
and the basic authorization figure of
$6 billion proposed was not just drawn
out of the air. It represents the best
estimate of professional intelligence, that
is, the Federal portion of one-third of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1107
the $20 billion estimated as the need for
municipal sewage treatment work re-
quired by 1972.
Mr. President, even this amount, if
authorized and appropriated, would not
complete the job. It would provide
treatment facilities for 80 percent of our
population. But more important, it is
my understanding that when we refer to
secondary treatment process; as with-
drawing 90 percent of the biological
oxygen demand, we are referring to only
[p. 15624]
90 percent of the 68 percent of the
biological oxygen demand, which is
processed in a 5-day treatment period.
It is for this reason, among others,
that the research and demonstration
funds that are proposed are of primary
significance, for we need to find economi-
cal methods of removing 90 percent of
the total biological oxygen demand, not
just 90 percent of two-thirds of it.
The river basin planning approach,
originally suggested by the administra-
tion, contains imaginative and construc-
tive concepts. Pollution must be
attacked at every point in the watershed,
if true control is to result. The State
and interstate planning agencies which
this bill authorizes will be most helpful
if the terrific water pollution problems
we face in West Virginia are to be solved.
I speak with conviction not only as
chairman of the Committee on Public
Works, but also as a Senator from the
State of West Virginia, a State which
has often been referred to as the Mother
of Rivers, because the origin of so many
rivers occurs among our West Virginia
hills. Yet, many of these streams, flow-
ing from pure springs and freshets in
the mountains, take on some character-
istics of industrial and municipal sewers
as they run to the sea.
Such a river is the Monongahela,
formed by the confluence of the West
Fork and Tygart Rivers at Fairmont,
W. Va., the drainage basin including the
southwest corridor or corner of Penn-
sylvania, the northeast portion of West
Virginia, and a small section of western
Maryland. The Monongahela and its
tributaries are severely polluted by the
discharge of untreated and inadequately
treated municipal sewage and waste, and
mine wastes.
I am told that the rudder of a river
barge on the Monongahela River lasts
from 6 to 8 months, due to the action of
mine acids, as compared to an average
lifetime on the Ohio River of approxi-
mately 18 months. I add that the Ohio
River leaves much to be desired in the
field of pollution abatement.
Another heavily polluted river in West
Virginia is the Kanawha River, which
originates in the south-central region of
our State, in Fayette County. From
there, it flows in a northwesterly direc-
tion for approximately 97 miles, before
emptying into the Ohio River. Though
the Kanawha is entirely within the
boundaries of West Virginia, it is a major
tributary to the Ohio River, and wastes
discharged into the Kanawha affect the
Ohio. The Kanawha Valley in the area
of Charleston is frequently referred to as
the little Ruhr, because of the heavy
concentration of industries, largely
petrochemical. There are approxi-
mately 30,000 employees and hundreds
of millions of dollars of capital invest-
ment in the chemical industry in the
Kanawha Valley.
These industries are a major segment
of the economy, not only of that area,
but of the State. And though they are
a source of great economic benefit to our
State, they are also a source of water
pollution. It is my desire that Congress
enter into a working partnership with
private industry through government
tax incentives in this effort for clean air
and pure water.
Several years ago the State water pol-
lution control commission directed the
industries of the Kanawha Valley to re-
duce their pollution load by 50 percent
over a 5-year period. I am informed
that substantial progress is being made,
but much remsins to be done by both the
industries and the municipalities that
are located on the river.
-------
1108
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Finally, there is the Ohio River, which
is formed by the Allegheny and the
Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh and
flows into the Mississippi River at Cairo,
111., some 900 miles below its point of
origin. This great river includes in its
drainage basin parts of the States of
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Ken-
tucky, Indiana, and Illinois. In each of
the five areas of the basin, there are
serious interstate pollution problems;
and these come from industrial and
municipal wastes.
I speak not only for West Virginia, but
for the region in which critical prob-
lems of an interstate nature have de-
veloped, but also focus attention on a
pressing national problem.
The need for Federal direction in leg-
islation is clear. The funds which this
bill would authorize are only a fraction
of what will be required across the coun-
try to insure clean water for present and
future generations. Increased Federal
grants will serve to stimulate the neces-
sary State, interstate, and local partici-
pation that must be provided if we are to
eradicate pollution of the waters in this
country. The research provisions of this
legislation will provide the tools needed
for further development of a cohesive
water management program.
We must control pollution by every
means at our disposal; we must actively
seek new techniques to match the enor-
mity of the problem. S. 2947 is a step—
a step in the right direction—but it can-
not be considered the final step.
The Federal commitment to water pol-
lution is and must be a continuing one.
Passage of S. 2947 will assure that this
commitment is expanded and continued.
In the passage of S. 2947, we shall take
another step forward. It is not the final
step. It is certainly a very good begin-
ning, and I compliment all the members
of the subcommittee and of the commit-
tee who have worked with such effec-
tiveness on this legislation. I assure the
Senate that it has the full commitment
of its Committee on Public Works and
its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pol-
lution to go into these matters thor-
oughly because we realize that here
there will be involved tremendous sums
of money, and the necessary partner-
ship with private industry must not be
disregarded.
Incentives to private industry must be
written into law, to make effective the
partnership between Government and
the segments and units of business and
industry in this country. As we attack
this problem, it must be a broad, strong,
frontal attack. But also, we must move
carefully and cautiously.
I say to the Senate that insofar as I
am concerned, I will not lend my influ-
ence or assistance to bringing to the Sen-
ate floor proposed legislation which is
not well reasoned. There will be differ-
ences of opinion, certainly; but I am not
concerned when such differences exist.
I am concerned when in the Senate of
the United States or in the country we
are indifferent to a problem of this mag-
nitude. There is a great difference be-
tween differences of opinion as to how
best to approach a problem and the
tragedy of indifference among our
people.
So if the Senate can express this after-
noon, as it did yesterday, the aspirations
of the American people for solutions to
these great problems, I think we shall do
well, and work our will in the public
interest.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I
should like to associate myself with the
remarks of the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Public Works. I
agree with him that the bill which is
before the Senate, if passed will make
and mark a significant step in the long
and costly struggle to clean up our Na-
tion's waters. For the first time, the
Government of the United States will
authorize realistic allocations of our
natural resources to try to abate pollu-
tion. I am pleased and proud, Mr. Pres-
ident, to have been one of the 48
Senators who cosponsored this legisla-
tion with the distinguished Senator from
Maine.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1109
I believe that the Nation, and par-
ticularly those of our citizens who are
concerned with conservation, with the
preservation of our great natural re-
sources of water and air, should recog-
nize the debt that we owe to the junior
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], the
chairman of this subcommittee, who has
been a leader in the forefront of this
field for many years, and whose guid-
ance, direction, and wisdom are really
the prime motivating force behind the
legislation upon which the Senate will
vote this afternoon.
It has been my privilege to serve on
his subcommittee. I have witnessed his
leadership, his expertise, his ability to
utilize the staff and the other members
of his subcommittee for the public bet-
terment; and I think that we are very
fortunate in having a Senator of his
caliber as chairman of such an important
subcommittee, managing legislation in
certainly one of the most vital fields in
the entire domestic sphere of legislation
for this country.
I think it unnecessary at this time to
review the entire contents of S. 2947 but
I do want to point out three aspects of
the bill which deserve special mention.
The first authorizes the Secretary of In-
terior to make a comprehensive study of
pollution in the estuaries and estuarine
zones of our country.
Tidal estuaries, Mr. President, are
those areas where the fresh water meets
the sea. It has been estimated by re-
sponsible scientific leaders that approx-
imately 70 percent of all edible fish, sport
fish, spend at least half of their lives in
estuarine waters. Estuarine waters in-
cluded the great bays, the inlets, and the
sounds. There is no costal area of the
United States whose estuaries do not at-
tract hundreds and thousands of people
[p. 15625]
to fish, to swim, or to enjoy the benefits
of the waters.
Yet we know very little about these
estuaries. This bill will authorize the
first comprehensive study of estuarine
life and the estuarine zones in the United
States which has ever been authorized.
The study will consider sedimentation,
fish and wildlife, recreation, water supply
and power, demographic trends, mineral
resources and fossil fuels, navigation,
flood and erosion control, and land and
industrial development. Only through
such a complete study can we learn what
we need to know about our estuaries.
These bodies of water—the mixing area
of fresh and salt water—are of great sig-
nificance to the country and are now
threatened by the destructiveness of
man. We must act now to learn about
our estuaries so that we may act soon to
preserve, protect, and develop them.
A second aspect of the bill which de-
serves consideration is the calling for a
study of boat and vessel pollution. The
committee did not feel that it should
propose sanctions or rigid regulations
without first studying the effects of boat
and vessel pollution. We shall have the
benefits of that study. However, the
legislation should serve notice to all
those interested in marinas and boats,
both pleasure and otherwise, that they
have certain responsibilities to preserve
the cleanliness of our rivers, streams,
and waters.
The final section of the bill, which I
feel deserves special attention, is that
section which is concerned with the
availability of trained personnel in the
pollution and sewage maintenance and
operation field.
As the report of the committee stated:
Proper and efficient operation and main-
tenance of these plants is the key to the
effectiveness of the water pollution control
program.
Unfortunately, we do not have suffi-
cient trained personnel.
Testimony before our committee, given
by responsible leaders, was to the effect
that we could increase the efficiency of
most small sewage plants by as much
as 50 percent if we had trained person-
nel operating the plants.
This bill makes a significant step
forward.
The report also pointed out the useful
-------
1110
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
work done in this area by the distin-
guished junior Senator from Massachu-
setts [Mr. KENNEDY]. His suggestions I
think are well thought out and certainly
have received the consideration of all
his colleagues.
I myself am now preparing legislation
to fill this manpower gap and hope to
introduce it in a short while. In sum-
mary, I feel that we must not underesti-
mate the importance of providing enough
trained people in the field of water pol-
lution control, and that we must act now
to meet this manpower need.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the testimony
which I gave before the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution of the Com-
mittee on Public Works on Wednesday,
April 27, beginning on page 191 and going
to the top of page 198 be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF HON. FHANK LAUSCHE, A U.S
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator LAUSCHE. As a preliminary to my
testimony, Senator, do understand that I
at one time was mayor of Cleveland and sub-
sequently Governor of Ohio In those two
capacities I had ample opportunity to learn
of the problem confronting Ohio's metro-
politan cities, especially, and also the rural
areas dealing with the pollution of streams.
Ohio has 230 miles of shore on Lake Erie.
Its metropolitan centers are in a substantial
degree located on Lake Erie. This bill pro-
vides an authorization to expend $6 billion,
as I understand, for the granting of help io
local and State governments in their efforts
to remove pollution from the streams and
lakes and inland water bodies.
The contemplation is to make available
$1 billion a year over a 6-year period and
that that $1 billion a year will be used as an
incentive system stimulating the local gov-
ernment authorities and people to develop
programs that will purify the waters that are
so essential to our living.
Last February 2 on the floor of the Senate
I spoke at length on the subject of water
pollution. At that time I pointed out some
of the weaknesses in our program of attack
I said in part, making reference to a confer-
ence which I earlier had with officials of the
division of water supply and pollution control
of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare:
"It was generally agreed that the Federal
grant programs and enforcement actions
under existing laws are not adequate to com-
bat the problem of water pollution. The
program as it now exists needs to be reor-
ganized There is a need for a more realistic
and fair distribution of funds provided by the
Federal Government. Under the present law
there is no provision for participation by
larger metropolitan areas due to existing
dollar ceilings, per capita income restrictions,
and so forth, which make their participation
unfeasible. They are the areas where the
need is most urgent. In addition to the need
for reorganization of the present program,
more funds will have to be provided."
That is the end of the quote which I made
on the floor of the Senate last February 2.
Senator MUSKIE, 1 am pleased to see that
several of the important recommendations
made generally and to which I subscribed
are contained in the subcommittee's bill, S.
2947: One, increasing the amount of Fed-
eral grant money to municipalities.
Two, removal of serious and stifling limits
or ceilings on individual project grants.
These limitations have been serious and have
only delayed progress and action where most
needed.
Three, the bill would provide incentives
for States to participate through a matching
bonus. And, four, then it would provide for
a long-term low-interest program to assist
communities where local resources are not
adequate to meet the local share
In my opinion the most important prob-
lem facing our Nation today is our contest
with the Communists of South Vietnam.
Four, and give priority to neither, I would
put the subject of eliminating pollution in
our streams and the fight against inflation.
Unless we clean the waters that are so es-
sential to our life, we can anticipate that
there will be nothing but frustrations, agony,
and despair in the future.
The need of solving this problem is long
overdue and unless we attack on a mass
basis now, its towering insolubility will grow
worse Six billion dollars I admit seems like
a large sum of money One billion dollars
a year, especially having in mind the national
debt of the present day, the responsibilities
in connection with the Vietnam war, and the
general program in which we are trying to
improve the welfare and life of our people.
But if there is to be retrenchment in spend-
ing. I say to you respectfully that there are
other fields which that retrenchment can be
done in with far greater justification than
in this field of righting air pollution and
water pollution.
If it were my way, I would put this pro-
gram in the very top ranks of the time for
solution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1111
If I may digress for just a moment, I travel
from border to border of the State of Ohio
by automobile and by small plane, and the
subject of water supply is one of the keen
ones. Rather tragically at a time when the
land was covered with legumes and grasses
and trees and when wildlife and bird life was
abundant, our ancestors, with good inten-
tions, did not recognize what the problem
would be with those who followed them be-
cause of the indifference to the demands that
water resources and natural resources be
preserved.
I would like to leave this thought with
you, Senator MUSKIE, that in Ohio we have
considerable strip mining and that strip
mining program has created toxic conditions.
When the coal is exposed to the air the ele-
ments in the air coming in contact with
the coal produce a poison and those poisons
are moving down into the streams in many
places.
I merely point that out in addition to the
indifference frequently of industrialists of
the past to take measures to keep the waters
clear.
There is an urgent need for a crash pro-
gram with the full support of the Federal
Government and State and local govern-
ments. Water pollution is one of the great-
est blights upon our Nation today. Too
long we have closed our eyes to the serious-
ness of this all important problem and we
have allowed it to grow until it now engulfs
many areas and cities and threatens their
economic existence.
Too long have cities and municipalities
and industries rid themselves of their wastes
only to damage those downstream. I can-
not help but carry my mind back to the law
school when we studied real property and
discussed the right of riparian owners, and
that is the riparian owner had the right to
the water that passed by his property in the
form of a creek or a river and that the up-
stream owner was not allowed to contaminate
or to divert or to create conditions that
would likely cause floods
That law seemed to me sound I remem-
ber clearly the Latin maxim, sic tuo utere
aut alienum non laedas, you use yours not
to injure that of others That was the law
applicable to the individual Yet the Gov-
ernment paid no attention to it. We used
our own to satisfy our whims, completely
indifferent of the rights of those who were
downstream, and completely indifferent to
the rights of those who were to follow us in
the habitation of our land
Too long, Mr. Chairman, have we sub-
scribed to the policy "out of sight, out of
mind" and dumped wastes into rivers to
get them out of our own backyards.
I point an accusing finger to no one We
as a nation however, have misused one of
our natural heritages, our waterways and for
more than a century and now we must face
up to those wrongful acts and pay the price.
The very areas that are most responsible
for this present condition are now the ones
that are most plagued by their sins of the
past and present. While some progress in
pollution abatement is being made in ihe
Nation as a whole, with Federal aid to the
States and municipalities it is far too little
[p. 15626]
and in highly developed industrial regions
we are losing ground.
At the pace we are now moving it will
take a century to clean up our rivers and
lakes and manifestly that will be too late.
In the meantime, some navigable lakes will
have become dead and ports and cities will
have suffered irreparable economic blight
Industry, so dependent upon water, will
have moved elsewhere Ultimately, area
economies will be so adversely affected that
it will be reflected in marked reductions in
Federal, State, and local taxes
Senator MUSKIE, in the Union School of
Theology at Cincinnati we have an archeolo-
gist by the name of Glick. He has won wide
acclaim and fame in archeological research
in Israel He wrote a book after his research
there. Standing out in that book is the
theme that the great difficulties of the an-
cestors in Israel was in their quest for water.
Every little spring and stream was utilized.
They fought for water There was a lesson
that should have caused us and other people
everywhere to understand the significance of
having an adequate water supply and of
course a water supply means plenty of water.
It does not mean poisoned and contaminated
water.
Mr Chairman, to demonstrate the impor-
tance and the immediacy of the problem, it
should be pointed out that the entire popu-
lation and industrial complex in the Great
Lakes States is based upon their proximity
to the largest source of fresh water in the
world, the five Great Lakes.
The adverse effect which loss of our ir-
reparable damage to this natural resource
upon the continued economic growth and
success of this complex is self-evident. It
should be noted that already some 40 per-
cent of our urban population and a higher
portion of our industrial activity is located
in only 4 of our 22 major river basins
To repeat, 40 percent of our industrial
complex is in 4 of the 22 river basins that
we have These basins frequently contain
huge megalopolitan complexes and inten-
sively developed watersheds where the gains
for systematic approaches are likely to be
large
The Great Lakes Basin is one of the four
that is relatively industrialized and with a
rapidly growing population and the pollu-
tion situation is extremely acute It is my
-------
1112
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
belief that those basins similar to the Great
Lakes Basin which are facing emergencies
should be given distinct priority in Federal
assistance, at least as to timing, if not in
relationship to the ultimate proportion of
allocation of money that will be made.
Time is essential in those areas. It has
been estimated that the cost of reasonably
complete abatement of pollution in this
country in a crash program would be from
$80 to $100 billion over a period of 10 years
This figure I think will be disputed by many.
Although it is given to me, Senator MUSKIE,
through the conference which I had with
the officials of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Senator MUSKIE. I don't think it is neces-
sarily out of line. Senator LAUSCHE. Our
estimate of $6 billion for Federal Contribu-
tions to sewage treatment grants for 6 years
is based on the concept of $20 billion just
for the current backlog in needed municipal
plants.
That does not include the industrial prob-
lem. It does not include other aspects of
the problem. So your figure is not neces-
sarily out of line.
Senator LAUSCHE. In my judgment sub-
stantial Federal assistance is definitely
needed. Far more liberal in both amounts
of money and formulas for allocating grants
than is permissible under existing law. I
have a thought that I have not set forth
in my paper that I would like to leave with
this committee.
The highway program financed by the
Federal Government I think according to
present figures will cost ?40 billion. It is a
self-sustaining program, the financing of
which is made through excise taxes on gas
and automobile accessories and tires.
I have tried to contrive some method of
paralleling the fight against water pollution
with the fight in eliminating the traffic haz-
ards and congestion of the highways. I
have been thinking of user taxes. But it is
a rather difficult problem because we have
no relationship of the intimate character in
the water problem that we have in the
using of the highways.
But I do suggest that this committee ought
to give consideration of ways and methods
of procuring additional funds to solve the
problem. I further have the suggestion,
which is not contained in my paper, that
the committee should give consideration of
working out a recommendation of some sort
of accelerated depreciation writeoff of a cap-
ital investment so as to induce private in-
dustry to install pollution elimination devices.
I think now under the tax law if an in-
dustry does install a device to eliminate the
pollution in its effluent it can depreciate that
capital investment in a period of 19 years.
We ought to study some incentive to urge
them to expedite the installation and to ac-
celerate the period during which they can
depreciate That is, instead of making them
wait 19 years and full depreciation, if we
allowed them to depreciate in 5 years, I
think that type of inducement would go a
long ways in helping some—in helping solve
the problem.
This is my case, Mr. Chairman, and I hope
that the Senator from Pennsylvania today
will give me support, though I sorrow when
I think how often he fails to give it to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to give my
formal statement.
Senator MUSKIE. Please proceed, Senator
LAUSCHE.
Senator LAUSCHE. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to appear before your subcommittee
today in support of S. 2947, of which I am a
coauthor.
While this bill provides for a 6-year, $6
billion program of grants to municipalities
for treatment construction with the Federal
Government paying 30 percent of the total
cost, it is only a "drop in the bucket" in
relation to the ultimate needs. It is, how»
ever, a step forward toward a goal in a
nationwide battle for pollution abatement.
The bill might have provided for greater sums
of money and for even more liberal Federal
assistance. Perhaps as progress is made
under S. 2947 and other pollution bills pre-
viously enacted into law, needs can be
reevaluated and modifications can be made
to expedite and make even more effective
our war against pollution. The 6-year, $6
billion program for grants to municipalities,
of course, places a heavy burden upon the
Federal budget, which is already sorely taxed
by military and foreign aid commitments. I
say, however, that an adequate Federal pol-
lution abatement program should have
priority over most other domestic and public
works programs, and, if there are to be any
cutbacks or deletions because of budgetary
problems, they should not affect our im-
mediate attack against pollution It needs
and should be given the highest possible
priority.
Last February 2, on the floor of the Senate,
I spoke at length on the subject of water
pollution and pointed out some of the weak-
nesses in our program of attack under Fed-
eral laws now existing. I said in part,
making reference to a conference I had
earlier with officials of the Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and
I quote:
"It was generally agreed that the Federal
grant programs and enforcement actions
under existing laws are not adequate to com-
bat the problem of water pollution. The
program as it now exists needs to be re-
organized. There is a need for a more real-
istic and fair distribution of funds provided
by the Federal Government. Under the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1113
present law, there is no provision for partici-
pation by larger metropolitan areas due to
existing dollar ceilings per capita income
restrictions, etc , which make their partici-
pation unfeasible They are the areas where
the need is most urgent In addition to ihe
need for reorganization of the present pro-
gram, more funds will have to be provided."
Mr Chairman, I am pleased to see that
several of the important recommendations
I made at that conference are contained in
this bill, S. 2947. They include:
(1) Increasing the amount of Federal
grant money to municipalities;
(2) Removal of serious and stifling limits
or ceilings on individual project grants—
these limitations have been serious and have
only delayed progress and action where most
needed;
(3) Providing for more incentive for States
to participate through a matching bonus;
and
(4) Providing for a long-term, low inter-
est program to assist communities where
local resources are not adequate to meet che
local share.
Mr. Chairman, the most important prob-
lem facing our Nation today is winning Ihe
battle against pollution of our rivers and
lakes, especially in those regions where Jie
situation is desperately acute, as in the
Great Lakes Basin.
There is urgent need for a crash program
with the full support of the Federal Gov-
ernment and State and local governments.
Water pollution is the greatest blight upon
our Nation today.
Too long have we as a nation closed our
eyes to the seriousness of this all-important
problem and let it grow and grow until it
now engulfs many areas and cities and
threatens their economic existence.
Too long have cities and municipalities
and industries rid themselves of their wastes
only to damage those downstream
Too long have they subscribed to the
policy "out of sight, out of mind" and
dumped wastes into rivers to get them out
of their own backyards
I do not point an accusing finger at .any-
one. We as a nation, however, have misused
one of our natural heritages, our waterways,
for more than a century, and now we must
face up to those wrongful acts and pay ihe
price. In fact, the very areas that are most
responsible for this present condition are now
the ones that are most plagued by their sins
of the past and present.
While some little progress in pollution
abatement is being made in the Nation as a
whole, the Federal aid to States and munici-
palities, it is far too little and in highly
developed industrial regions we are losing
ground At the pace we are now moving
it will take a century to clean up our rivers
and lakes, and that will be too late. In the
meantime, some navigable lakes will have
become "dead" and ports and cities will have
suffered irreparable economic blight In-
dustry, so dependent upon water, will have
moved elsewhere. Ultimately, area econo-
mies will be so adversely affected that it will
be reflected in marked reductions in Federal
State, and local taxes.
Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate the impor-
tance and the immediacy of the problem, it
should be pointed out that the entire popula-
tion and industrial complex in the Great
Lakes States is based upon their proximately
to the largest source of fresh water in ihe
[p. 15627]
world, the five Great Lakes The adverse
effect which loss of or irreparable damage to
this natural resource upon the continued
economic growth and success of this com-
plex is self-evident.
It should be noted that already some 40
percent of our urban population and a higher
portion of our industrial activity is located
in only 4 of our 22 major river basins. These
basins frequently contain huge megalopoli-
tan complexes and intensively developed
watersheds where the gains for systematic
approaches are likely to be large. The Great
Lakes Basin is one of the four that is rela-
tively highly industrialized and with a rap-
idly growing population, and the pollution
situation is extremely acute. It is my belief
that those basins similar to the Great Lakes
Basin, which are facing emergencies, should
be given distinct priority in Federal assist-
ance, at least as to timing, over those areas
where the situation is not of an emergency
nature
It has been estimated that the cost of rea-
sonably complete abatement of pollution in
this country in a crash program would be
from $80 to $100 billion over a period of 10
years Obviously, to carry out such a pro-
gram would be far beyond the financial abili-
ties of State and local economies Definitely,
substantial Federal assistance is needed, far
more liberal in both amounts of money
and formulas for allocating grants than is
permissible under existing law.
Mr Chairman, in conclusion, I recommend
that your subcommittee act favorably on
this bill. As a coauthor, I am pleased to
give it my wholehearted support.
Senator CLARK May I say, Mr. Chairman,
it is a rare privilege and a high honor, as
Speaker Rayburn used to say, to find myself
on the same side as the Senator from Ohio.
Senator MUSKIE As a matter of fact, Sen-
ator LAUSCHE, I particularly welcome your
testimony I know that you and I and Sen-
ator CLARK disagree in several areas as to ihe
responsibilities that the Federal Government
carries
To have your endorsement of this program
and your expression of concern is a real boost
-------
1114
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to our efforts.
We appreciate it.
Senator LAUSCKE. Senator TYDINGS, and
Senator Moss and Senator CLARK were not
here when I said if there is to be any re-
trenchment let it not be in the fight against
pollution. Let us retrench in other areas
where the need is not so demanding and
immediate as it is in this field.
Senator CLARK. Ohio and Pennsylvania
both border on Lake Erie.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator CLARK, we are
ready for you now. We welcome your pres-
ence. As I said before Senator LAUSCHE'S
testimony we are delighted so many Senators
are coming here to testify or to submit a
statement on this important subject. I think
now you are No. 23.
We might get a majority before this com-
mittee before we are through.
(At this point Mr. HARRIS assumed the
chair.)
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I am
very happy to get the floor after waiting
for an hour and a half and seeing other
Senators come to the floor, be recognized,
and leave after speaking.
It is indeed a privilege to speak to the
Senate under these circumstances. I do
want to address my remarks basically to
the bill under consideration.
I am sorry that in the interim the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. COOPER] has had to leave the floor.
I wanted to compliment him for the work
he has done and for his introduction of
a bill, which I have cosponsored, to pro-
vide incentives to private firms and cor-
porations who will be faced with the
very onerous task of meeting antipollu-
tion standards and taking antipollution
steps during the next few years.
I have personally felt that pollution
was one of the greatest problems which
face this country. I would place it above
many of the other problems, because it
affects the health of the Nation. When
we have any problem which affects the
health of the Nation, we then have some-
thing which ought to be one of the top
priorities of the Senate.
I am therefore very happy to have
supported, and will continue to support
at the proper place in the proper bill, an
amendment to provide an incentive, a tax
credit or an increased tax deduction for
moneys which are invested by firms or
corporations in the diminishment of our
pollution problems. There are many
such companies in the United States, and
some of them would be literally put into
bankruptcy today if they had to take
these steps under our present tax law.
I think the real solution is to provide
them with the incentive and the oppor-
tunity to do this. I think that then we
shall not have to worry so much about
what will need to be done later.
I also compliment the distinguished
Senator from Maine for his work upon
the bill. As is quite often the case, the
ranking minority member of the com-
mittee is overlooked. In this case, the
distinguished junior Senator from Dela-
ware [Mr. BOGGS] has done an outstand-
ing job. He has worked on the bill all
the way through. As the distinguished
Senator from Maine has said, he is
deserving of equal credit for the work
that has been done on the bill.
This is a bill which requires an almost
infinite amount of time and patience,
as the transcripts of the hearings which
lie on our desks will show. These two
Senators have spent many hours in these
hearings to try to come up with a work-
able bill to solve what to me is one of the
most important problems facing this
country. Their work is very praise-
worthy, and I think it deserves the
thanks of the Senate.
I rose to speak this afternoon upon
this matter for one reason in particular.
On page 15 of the report, and running
thereafter to page 18, is a discussion of
radioactive pollution.
On June 23 of this year, the Senator
from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the junior
Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK],
and myself were involved in a colloquy
in the Senate with respect to this matter.
I cannot say that I believe that the
language of the report contains any
direct misstatements. However, I be-
lieve that the wording of the language
is such that it raises in my mind—as I
am sure it will raise in the mind of any
casual reader, as distinguished from a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1115
careful reader—the fact that a real
problem of radioactive pollution exists in
the Colorado River Basin.
I wish to call attention to 2 or 3 state-
ments in the report.
On page 15 appears this statement.
The report established that, in the past, at
a period oi peak release of contaminants
from operating mills, there was a serious
problem with regard to the presence of con-
centrations of radium 226 in the Animas
and San Miguel Rivers.
These rivers arise in southwestern
Colorado, as everyone knows; and the
three words "in the past" are apt to be
overlooked.
When this problem arose in 1956, 1957,
and 1958, the senior Senator from Colo-
rado was deeply involved in it, and he
was deeply involved in the steps that
were taken at that time—several changes
in mill operations and other measures—
to clean up the Colorado River. The im-
portant point, in my opinion, is to em-
phasize and to underscore that this job
has been done.
I read from page 16 of the report:
The Counsel for the AEC testified that the
AEC could require stabilization of the tail-
ings piles if the pile represented a risk lo vhe
public health and safety. The FWPCA testi-
fied that the piles did represent such a risk
I do not find the facts in the hearings
to be quite in accordance with that state-
ment. For example, Mr. Murray Stein
testified before the committee on May 6,
and in part he said this:
In 1960, a conference was held on all of [he
Colorado River Basin at the request of nix
of the seven States involved, and the Animas
River pollution problems were incorporated
into this enforcement conference. The Colo-
rado River Basin water quality control en-
forcement project was then established and
included in its work were studies of other
sources of radioactive waste discharged 10
basin streams The Colorado conference has
met in five sessions, and recommendations
have been made to abate radioactive and
other sources of pollution.
Uranium mill waste discharges have been
substantially reduced This was achieved
through the joint efforts and cooperation of
the States involved, the Federal water pollu-
tion control program, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and the uranium milling indus-
tries themselves.
Then he continued:
Mr. President, this year Colorado
passed a water pollution bill which con-
tains several elements. First, it creates
a water pollution commission which
gives it general supervision over admin-
istration and enforcement. Second, it
adopts strict water quality standards in
accordance with those satisfactory to
Federal requirements where interstate
streams are involved. Third, it is em-
powered to accept and allocate loans and
grants. Fourth, it is capable of adopting,
modifying, and enforcing rules and
orders pertaining to water pollution
control. Fifth, it may employ, and does
employ, technical personnel and hear-
ing officers and others of general
responsibility.
Mr. President, I bring this matter up
because I believe the Colorado act on
water pollution control is one of the best
and most forward looking acts in the
United States. On several occasions I
have paid tribute to the legislature—
both Republicans and Democrats—that
[p.15628]
did such an outstanding job on this sub-
ject, under the leadership of Governor
Love. I believe the Colorado act will
constitute a model for good action upon
water pollution control from this date
forward.
In addition to the quotation of Mr.
Stein which I read a few moments ago,
I wish to read a few remarks from the
statement of Mr. Klashman, who is the
regional director of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration of
HEW in Denver. Mr. Klashman said
this:
-------
1116
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The cooperative industry-Government ra-
dioactive pollution abatement program has
been eminently successful. Early studies had
indicated that the tailings solids were the
major source of stream contamination, and
hence the industry instituted waste treat-
ment practices that successfully captured
and retained these settleable solids. Our
surveillance network demonstrates clearly
that for all practical purposes surface waters
of the entire basin are now free of recent
bottom deposits of mill tailings. In addition,
where needed, the industry installed addi-
tional chemical treatment facilities to
remove substantial quantities of radium dis-
solved in the liquid wastes before release of
the latter to the surface streams.
I shall skip a bit and continue with his
statement:
In earlier years, also, the industry had been
plagued by a series of accidents in which the
occasional rupture of earthen tailings pond
dikes released large quantities of radioactive
wastes to the water environment. Better
dike construction and maintenance has
essentially solved this problem.
Our surveillance program demonstrates
that as a result of this abatement program,
the surface waters of the Colorado Basin have
for several years contained no more than
one-third of the quantity of radium that is
regarded as safe. This is a precedent-setting
case in which an entire industry has co-
operated in reducing pollution to a level
sharply below that which has been regarded
as acceptable.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to read an
order which was issued by Dr. Roy L.
Cleere, who is the director of public
health, Colorado State Board of Health,
pursuant to the act which has been en-
acted in Colorado.
It is hereby declared to be the order of
the Colorado State Board of Health that vhe
owners, operators and other persons or cor-
porations having or claiming to have a legal
interest in the premises where tailing piles
from uranium or thorium mills are situated,
or persons having responsibility for the op-
eration of the mill, submit to the State De-
partment of Public Health within ninety (90)
days after the effective date of this regula-
tion a written report setting forth plans and
measures employed by them to stabilize such
tailing piles and what further plans and
measures, if any, are proposed to accomplish
the purposes of this regulation
Then I shall read the actual order
as it was put into effect, which was to
the effect that these people do exactly
this and report to the health department
what they have done along these lines.
It is hereby declared to be the order of
the Colorado State Board of Health that the
owners, operators and other persons or cor-
porations having or claiming to have a legal
interest in the premises where tailing piles
from uranium or thorium mills are situated,
or persons having responsibility for the op-
eration of the mill, submit to the State
Department of Public Health within ninety
(90) days after the effective date of ihis
regulation a written report setting forth
plans and measures employed by them to
stabilize such tailing piles and what further
plans and measures if any, are proposed io
accomplish the purposes of this regulation.
The effective date of this regulation will be
thirty (30) days from and after the date of
adoption hereinafter set forth.
Adopted May 9, 1966.
ROY L. CLEEHE, M.D., M.P.H.,
Secretary, Colorado State Board of Health.
I shall now take up one other aspect
of this matter. I shall not detain the
Senate for more than a few minutes,
but I believe the record must be made
clear.
Dr. Morris, who is the Director of the
Division of Operating Safety of the
Atomic Energy Commission, said this in
the hearings:
We felt that, simply as a matter of good
housekeeping prudence in being a good
neighbor, we should stabilize that pile and
return the land to its natural state.
This refers not to any plant in Colo-
rado but one in Monticello, Utah, and
which was operated by the Atomic En-
ergy Commission.
Mr. President, along the same lines,
after we had a coloquy on the floor the
Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT]
said this:
Mr. BARTLETT. I did not intend to so imply.
Obviously, the record is clear that no dangers
are to be encountered by anyone at this time.
One could go to the Arctic as a tourist, where
there has been a peculiar situation in con-
nection with radioactive fallout, and eat
caribou meat and there would be no danger
at all, or any dire consequences. We are not
so sure, yet that the Eskimos, who subsist on
caribou meat day in and day out, are not in
some danger even now, although several years
have passed since tests have been made in
the outer atmosphere.
I wish to assure my friend from Colorado
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1117
that I am not talking today and shall not
talk later as an alarmist. We have mined
uranium in the past. We have processed
uranium in the past. We are going to
continue to do so.
On April 29, 1966, I wrote a letter to
Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. Sea-
borg's reply to my earlier letter can be
found in full on page 14061 of the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD of June 23. I shall
not insert it again but I do wish to quote
a few paragraphs from his reply. He
states as follows:
The FWPCA report, which deals with po-
tential effects of uranium mill tailings on
rivers and streams in the Colorado River
Basin, states, "there is currently no signifi-
cant immediate hazard associated with
uranium milling activities anywhere in the
Colorado River Basin."
I continue with his letter:
However, the report recommends that be-
cause of the long half-life of radium-266—
the isotope of principal interest in the iail-
ings from a water standpoint—and the
uncertainties regarding changes that may
occur over centuries in things such as river
hydrology and the uses of water, measures
should be taken to prevent the erosion, spread
and distribution of tailings and that binding
agreements should be reached as soon as pos-
sible regarding long term public and/or pri-
vate responsibility for adequate maintenance
of the tailing piles.
In concluding the letter he said:
As you know, on May 9, 1966, the State of
Colorado Board of Health adopted regula-
tions concerning the handling and disposi-
tion of radioactivity-bearing ore materials.
The regulations which become effective June
10, 1966, require mill owners to submit LO
the State of Colorado health authorities
within ninety days from that date a written
report on measures taken to stabilize tailings
piles together with any further actions pro-
posed. We think the approach adopted in
the Colorado regulations is a good one.
Please let me know if you would like any
further information.
Mr. President, as I have said, I do dis-
agree with one statement in the report,
but nevertheless my reason for these re-
marks basically is to negative anything
that the casual reader might get from
the report that there is a present danger
in the Colorado River Basin from radio-
active water, because this is not the case
based upon any standards which we have
available to us today with regard to
radioactive material.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am delighted that the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT]
raised this question because it is not my
desire or the desire of the subcommittee
to create any undue alarm or suggest that
there is any immediate problem related
to uranium milling activities in the Colo-
rado River.
It might be helpful if I cite two or
three statements from the hearing record
to put the matter into proper perspective.
For example, on page 3 of the hearing
record, Mr. Murray Stein, chief enforce-
ment officer, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, made this state-
ment:
We believe the control and prevention of
radioactive pollution in the Colorado River
basin has been one of the significant success
stories in pollution abatement in this country
Mr. Stein made this statement on page
5 of the hearing record:
I do not believe that the people in the area
are now exposed to immediate health hazal'd.
I think the radiation levels have been re-
duced materially Certainly the water, as we
will point out, is one-third of the Public
Health Service suggested drinking water
standards.
On page 37 of the record of the hear-
ings, I made the following statement,
raising some questions which I directed
to Mr. Stein:
Senator MUSKIE Now, having listened to
all of this, let me pose two or three questions
which would seem to me need to be answered
before we can develop some policy with
respect to this problem.
First of all, do the piles as they exist con-
stitute any hazard to the health of anybody
who might be exposed to them—as they
stand?
Secondly, is there enough radioactive ma-
terial m the pile so that if concentrated in
any way it would produce a hazard to health?
Three, considering the physical character-
istics of the pile, the environment in which
it exists, and the erosion dangers which are
present, are conditions such that they could
lead to concentrations within any reasonable
-------
1118
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
anticipation of what might happen that
would be hazardous to health?
[p. 15629]
Mr. Stein's reply, which appears on
page 33, was quite extensive. He con-
cluded it with this sentence, which ap-
pears on page 39:
I would answer yes to all three of the
questions.
The subcommittee found itself in
something of a dilemma. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
obviously was more concerned with the
future problem or long-term hazard than
were the Atomic Energy Administration
representatives. We felt that on the
basis of the facts disclosed, relative to
the cost of stabilizing the piles in order
to reduce any potential hazard, that the
piles should have been stabilized.
We thought that the Atomic Energy
Commission witnesses were a little care-
less in their attitude toward the solution
of a potential long-term hazard.
But I should like to emphasize again to
the Senator from Colorado that no wit-
ness before the committee suggested that
there was an immediate hazard. The
sole question involved was: What should
be done in addition to what had been
done or had not been done to minimize
the possibility of future hazards? It was
on that question that we felt it essential
to invite the attention of the Senate and
the public to the conflict in the attitude
of the two agencies; to stimulate mini-
mal action in dealing with the problem.
I emphasize again that the committee
was and is concerned with "long-term
potential hazard."
Mr. ALLOTT. I very much appreciate
the remarks of the Senator from Maine.
I think that even in this instance it
might be reasonable to invite attention
to the remarks of Dr. Morris, who in his
opinion differed with Mr. Stein. His
statement is on page 40, the page fol-
lowing the one from which the Senator
from Maine was reading. Dr. Morris
was asked by the Senator from Maine
about the use of these piles as a child's
sand pile. Dr. Morris replied:
I think this allowable averaging applies
directly. If the Boy Scouts camped on it
for one night, there would be no danger
whatsoever.
Senator MUSKIE. How many nights could
they camp on it safely?
Dr MORRIS We could ask about the boy
who slept there every night. My rough cal-
culation shows if one was there 40 hours a
week, he would get about four times the
annual permissible dose.
Again, this is close to levels for which there
is no observable biological effect
So there is a difference of opinion on
this subject. I presume that the Senator
from Maine has not seen the piles. As
they come out finally, they are of very
fine sand.
They can be stabilized—not without
some difficulty, but stabilization is pos-
sible. At this point, I wish to make sure
that the condition which the report
might imply to a casual reader has been
obviated by the steps taken some time
since. Second, that any possibility of
damage from these piles is now being
diminished and done away with by ac-
tion of the Pollution Control Board of
the State of Colorado.
I am very much appreciative of the
Senator's remarks but I thought it was
important enough that we not leave the
impression that the Colorado River
Basin—most of which, incidentally, lies
outside the State of Colorado, although
Colorado supplies most of the water and
which extends through all of the South-
western States—was polluted from a
radioactive standpoint.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, water,
the vital resource, is much in our
thoughts and much in our pronounce-
ments today. But if we are to serve with
fidelity the people whom we represent
here, in the Senate of the United States,
it is not enough that we think about
water, or talk about water. We must
act, now, to assure that there will be
enough water, of adequate quality, to
meet the present needs of the people, the
growing requirements of the foreseeable
future, and the staggering demands of
the years to come.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1119
My State of Connecticut, like so many
States, owes much to the waters with
which she is endowed. Three important
river systems traverse Connecticut—the
Housatonic, the Thames, and the Con-
necticut, New England's greatest stream.
On the south the State is bounded by
the waters of Long Island Sound, and the
beneficiary of a beautiful shoreline.
Water turned the wheels of our earliest
industry. Our tobacco crop grows in
the fertile valley beside the long tidal
river. Fish and shellfish are gifts of our
waters. Swimming, boating, fishing for
sport, and other water-oriented recrea-
tion for the people of nearby commu-
nities are the prospect—if not always the
reality—which abundant water re-
sources have to offer us. And the
beauty of the Stats is enhanced by our
streams and lakes and coastal waters.
Water is a gift of nature. It is our re-
sponsibility to protect it, to develop it
wisely, and to use it well. New England
learned long ago about the ravages of
floods. We were reminded last year of
the devastation of prolonged drought.
And we are learning, painfully, about the
terrible plunder of pollution. What is
more we are doing something about it.
In Connecticut, Governor Dempsey's
clean water task force—a panel of dis-
tinguished citizens appointed by the
Governor last year—recently completed
a study of the water pollution problem.
Their recommendations—which have the
strong endorsement of Governor Demp-
sey—will provide an even stronger and
more vigorous State program to combat
water pollution. In one major recom-
mendation, the task force has proposed a
$150 million bond issue to provide a pro-
gram of State grants to municipalities
for sewage treatment facilities. I am
confident that this program will have the
support of the Connecticut legislature
next year.
The task force also urged the passage
of the bill we are discussing today, and
gave strong support to a program of tax
incentives for the construction of pollu-
tion abatement facilities by industry. So
we are moving forward. And S. 2947, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Amend-
ments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act
of 1968, offers sound solutions to the crit-
ical domestic problem of water pollu-
tion now, at last, faced squarely and
met head on with the weapons of new
knowledge, more money, and stronger
authority.
The Committee on Public Works and
its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pol-
lution, under the leadership of the Sen-
ator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH]
and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Mus-
KIE], has come forward again with sound
legislation after a difficult assignment.
I am proud to join in sponsoring S. 2947
and urge its speedy enactment into law.
S. 2947 is a bold bill. It is bold in its
call for an outlay of $3 billion in 6 years
as the Federal contribution to the esti-
mated $20 billion nationwide need for
waste treatment works construction. It
is bold in its call for the removal of re-
strictions on Federal assistance, which
hamper the construction of some of the
most critically needed projects. It is
bold in its call for a special effort to de-
velop advanced waste treatment for the
joint treatment of municipal wastes and
industrial wastes. It is bold in its call for
new enforcement authorities to assure
that the conference is armed with the in-
formation it needs on which to base a
workable, fair program of remedial
action. Enforcement is crucial to a suc-
cessful water pollution control program.
Federal enforcement has laid the
groundwork for the cleanup of difficult,
longstanding problems of the Connecti-
cut River, and I am convinced of its
worth.
S. 2947 is a sound bill. It is the product
of the exhaustive subcommittee hearings
in Washington and around the Nation
last year, of this year's thorough hear-
ings on water pollution control legisla-
tion, and of conscientious bipartisan
committee deliberations. It provides the
mechanism for the river basins approach
to water pollution control proposed by
the President, while building on the solid
-------
1120
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
foundation of present law so that no
momentum will be lost in the great na-
tionwide attack on the defilement of
America's waters.
With the passage of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments and
Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, we
will serve the people well.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr.
President, I welcome this opportunity to
vote today for S. 2947, a bill amending
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
By providing for the first time Federal
assistance on a scale necessary to meet
present antipollution needs, and by
eliminating dollar ceilings on sewage
treatment plant construction grants, this
bill is a major step in our drive to reduce
and eliminate water pollution. I am glad
to join Senator MUSKIE in cosponsoring
this measure and urge my colleagues to
support it today.
This bill authorizes Federal matching
grants for sewage treatment plant con-
struction that total $6 billion over the
next 6 years. It raises the annual Fed-
eral contribution to $1% billion a year
by 1971 in contrast to the $150 million
that would be authorized for the current
year. Although this may seem to be a
rapid growth, anything less would be in-
adequate for the job. It has been esti-
[p.15630]
mated that there is a backlog of sewage
treatment construction needs of about
$30 billion. The Federal share of this
program, under the existing 30-percent
to 50-percent matching formula, is some-
where between $10 and $15 billion. At
the current level of Federal funding, $150
million a year, it would take 100 years to
meet our current backlog alone. It is
no wonder that cities and towns are im-
patient at the delay they currently face
in attempting to get Federal assistance
for their projects.
In addition, by the year 2000, our pop-
ulation is expected to grow by at least a
third to a figure in excess of 300 million.
This additional sewage treatment need
not have been included in the estimated
backlog and must be added to the total.
Seen in this context, a Federal program
of $1% billion a year takes on a different
cast.
This bill also corrects a major limita-
tion in existing legislation by removing
the restrictions on sewage treatment
grants. The existing grant programs
discriminated against cities because their
construction costs far exceeded the limi-
tations of $4.8 million per project. New
York City, for example, is planning the
North River treatment plant which is
now estimated to cost $60 million. The
cost of a new sewage treatment plant
in Buffalo has been estimated to cost
more than $30 million.
Inadequate sewage treatment by a
major city can thoroughly pollute a river
and ruin the pollution control efforts of
smaller neighboring communities. Un-
der this bill, our cities will qualify for
Federal assistance and we will be able
to make progress in restoring the quality
of our waterways.
By providing Federal assistance to
our cities for sewage treatment plant
construction, Federal, and State Govern-
ments can also urge that new construc-
tion meet water quality regulations. For
example, New York City's North River
treatment plant, now in the planning
stage, is being designed as an intermedi-
ate quality plant that would remove only
55 percent to 60 percent of the active
pollutants of the sewage it will handle.
This plant is estimated to cost $60
million.
However, New York State and New
Jersey have agreed with Secretary Gard-
ner that new sewage treatment plants
on the Hudson River should provide sec-
ondary treatment that would remove 85
percent to 90 percent of these pollutants.
A North River plant designed in this
fashion would cost about $100 million.
The Federal Government would absorb
almost all of the additional cost of addi-
tional treatment, if this bill is passed.
This would make a major difference in
the quality of the water in the Hudson.
I urge New York City to design this plant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1121
so that it will provide secondary treat-
ment—for with this legislation the Fed-
eral Government can help.
Another major feature of this legisla-
tion is a provision that permits States
and communities to prefinance the Fed-
eral share of sewage treatment construc-
tion projects. This provision states that
all projects meeting Federal standards
that are started after July 1, 1966, will
qualify for Federal grants when funds
are available. This provision does not
guarantee that the funds will be avail-
able. But it does guarantee that a com-
munity and a State will not lose Federal
funds because they act now. This pro-
vision is of major importance to those
States, such as New York, that have
offered to assist local communities in
financing their new construction.
The bill also establishes a Federal loan
fund to assist local communities in meet-
ing their share of new project costs.
This eliminates major financial barriers
to a successful municipal sewage treat-
ment program.
I am also pleased that this legislation
incorporates Senator TYDINGS' bill, S.
3240, requiring a study of the importance
of our salt marshes and estuaries and the
effects of water pollution on these areas.
I cosponsored Senator TYDINGS' orig-
inal bill because of my concern over the
continuing destruction of our marshland
and the related effect on our fisheries and
wildlife.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission pointed out in its most re-
cent report that at least 70,000 acres of
coastal marshland along the Atlantic
Coast has been destroyed in the last 10
years. The President's Science Advisory
Commission has also pointed out that
60 percent of the seafood taken from
water surrounding the United State is
dependent on coastal estuaries and
marshland for their existence. If we
destroy our wetlands, we will destroy
our fisheries so that oysters, flounder,
and fluke either disappear or become
rare.
I have introduced a bill in the Senate
aimed at the preservation of 16,000
acres of marshland on Long Island's
south shore. This bill, S. 3271, may well
provide a pattern for cooperative local-
State-Federal protection of marshland.
But we also need to know what pollu-
tants threaten these marshlands and
estuaries. We need to know which areas
are now in danger. The provision of the
bill authorizing $1 million for a study
of our estuaries and marshland is there-
fore an important provision.
This legislation also speeds up the
Federal research program on water pol-
lution problems. Imaginative research
may provide new answers to our sewage
disposal problems, answers that can save
large amounts of money. Economical
closed-system waste disposal units for
individuals houses may make it possible
to eliminate collecting sewers and treat-
ment plants in new communities. New
chemical processes may reduce the cost
of municipal sewage treatment plants.
And an emphasis on pollution-free in-
dustrial processes may make it possible
materially to reduce industrial pollution.
Important as this legislation is, there
are several problems that it does not an-
swer1. It does not meet our lateral sewer
needs. We now provide some funds for
this purpose under the community facili-
ties program of the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development . But a
single county growing in population may
need lateral sewers costing $5 to $10 mil-
lion. The largest grant for lateral sew-
ers that HUD has given for this purpose
is $1% million. The Community Facil-
ities Administrator reports that as of
June 23, 1966 it has received 4,033 in-
quiries about grants that total $2,352,-
000,000. Their total authorization is
$100 million. This is a gap that we need
to close.
We also have not yet met the problem
of industrial pollution. We can only en-
force water quality standards if we can
help industries absorb the costs of treat-
ment. It is easier, for example, to re-
quire that a new plant be built so that
it does not violate local water quality
-------
1122
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
standards. But it is harder to require an
existing plant to maintain standards at a
cost which may drive it out of business.
The new river basin approach author-
ized in this bill makes it possible to pro-
vide tax credits to existing plants that
install new treatment facilities, river
basin by river basin. In those river
basins where the local communities are
providing effective municipal treatment
and water quality standards are en-
forced, it might be possible to grant tax
credits to those industries willing to in-
stall new treatment facilities on existing
plants.
We also need thoroughly to explore
the possibility of building pollution
treatment plants to service a number of
industries, with payments by the indus-
try according to the amount of pollution
it discharges. This approach will be
studied with research funds provided in
this bill. Both this approach and the one
discussed earlier deserve careful study.
In closing, I wish to compliment
Chairman MUSKIE and his colleagues on
the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pol-
lution. They have reported a strong
bill which I am glad to support.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, once
again the Senate Public Works Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution, on
which I have the privilege to serve under
the able leadership of Senator MUSKIE
and Senator BOGGS, has brought before
the Senate a most important and far-
reaching bill designed to further this
Nation's battle against water pollution.
Fighting pollution, whether it be air
or water pollution, is not an easy task,
but not to take action where action is so
clearly called for would be a dereliction
of duty by Congress and a disservice to
all Americans. Pollution is one of the
great domestic issues facing our Nation,
and it is a problem that increasingly
plagues more and more of our commu-
nities and endangers the Nation's health.
Because of my interest in and concern
with the water pollution problem in this
country, I was pleased to cosponsor S.
2947, which is before the Senate today.
The scarcity of water has tormented
man down through many centuries.
Today our water needs are great and
growing. Tomorrow the demands for
adequate water to supply industry and
agriculture for our exploding population
will be even greater. The world demand
is expected to double before the end of
the 20th century. It has been estimated
that by 1980 water supplies in the United
States will be inadequate to meet the
water requirements of our population.
Scientists tell us that the earth's origi-
nal supply of water is still in use. Little
has been lost or added. The centuries-
old hydrologic cycles of water continue
[p. 15631]
today. It is therefore not the total world
supply that is of concern to man but
its management and distribution that
will determine whether adequate water
will be available.
The history of my State, Mr. Presi-
dent, shows a strong link between the
development of the State and the devel-
opment of its water resources. So we in
California have long appreciated this
problem and the 240-mile-long aqueduct
canal in Los Angeles is just one of many
examples of California's effort to over-
come the unequal distribution of water.
Last year, Congress enacted important
legislation designed to alleviate the
water pollution control and abatement
problem. Important as this action was,
evidence gathered from hearings held in
California and across the country by the
Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee
indicated that we are not doing enough
and that greater effort is needed to deal
with this most serious national problem.
As a result of these hearings, the sub-
committee made recommendations to
further attack the water problem, and
many of these recommendations are
incorporated in S. 2947. Our subcom-
mittee found that greater Federal assist-
ance was needed to meet the costs of
municipal sewage treatment construc-
tion between now and 1972. S. 2947
would help to answer the dire need of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1123
the many communities across the Na-
tion by authorizing a 6-year Federal
program of sewage treatment construc-
tion grants. As costly as this program
would be, I am convinced it is necessary
for the health, welfare, and future
growth of the country.
We in the West have always been
keenly aware that water is a critically
important resource. The shortage ex-
perienced by the northeast section of
our country last year has served to
underscore the fact that the water prob-
lem is national in scope, that it must be
faced, and faced now.
That is why I feel that there is no
more important subject than that of
water. As the major substance of all
living things, water is truly an extraor-
dinary substance. It is essential for the
transportation of man's commerce, for
providing man with essential power for
irrigation of his farms and, yes, for the
sustaining of life itself.
The poet Byron once said:
Til taught by pain, men really know not
what good water is worth.
It is the duty of the Congress, the
States, the local communities, and indus-
try to see if the "pain" of inadequate
water supplies can be avoided by proper
and prudent planning.
The passage of S. 2947 today, Mr.
President, will contribute to that end.
Enactment of S. 2947 will again under-
score the determination of the American
people and of the Congress that the by-
products of modern society will not be
permitted to despoil our natural re-
sources, and that the genius and reason-
ableness of man will enable us to
overcome the pollution problem, thus
permitting our citizens to enjoy these
precious natural resources.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I
would like to congratulate the Senator
from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], for the effec-
tive manner in which he has managed
the bill now before the Senate.
This bill represents a further recog-
nition by the Senate of the tremendous
need for financial assistance to commu-
nities which are trying to clean up their
own water pollution. The job of clean-
ing up our Nation's rivers must be
accelerated; and this can be done only
through additional Federal and State
financial help. Our cities cannot be left
to bear the full cost of these expensive
treatment facilities which are of benefit
to entire regions.
My State of New Hampshire contains
the headwaters of six interstate river
basins. We know firsthand the expense
of installing municipal treatment plants.
Under our Governor, John W. King, New
Hampshire has played a leading role
among the States in financial support to
municipalities for controlling water pol-
lution. Our New Hampshire communi-
ties are looking forward to the additional
funds for which their State's efforts have
qualified them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill,
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered; and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce
that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
BASS], the Senator from Alaska [Mr.
GRUENING], and the Senator from Ari-
zona [Mr. HAYDEN] are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Sena-
tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. McGEE],
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERT-
SON], and the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATHERS] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
BASS], the Senator from Pennsylvania
[Mr. CLARK], the Senator from Alaska
[Mr. GRUENING], the Senator from Ari-
zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. McGEE], the Senator from
Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], and the Sena-
tor from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] would
each vote "yea."
-------
1124
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT]
is absent because of illness and, if pres-
ent and voting, would vote "yea."
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
SIMPSON] is detained on official business,
and, if present and voting, would vote
"yea."
The result was announced—yeas 90,
nays 0, as follows:
*****
So the bill (S. 2947) was passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, by
unanimously agreeing to expand the
Government's attack on water pollution,
the Senate accorded the distinguished
Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] an
outstanding tribute. I barely need add
that the tribute was highly deserved. I
join with the many Senators who com-
mended Senator MUSKIE for the excep-
tional manner in which he brought this
measure to its successful disposition. In
committee and on the floor of the Senate
today, his strong support, his clear, con-
vincing advocacy, and his effective
leadership assured the Senate's over-
whelming approval.
Furthermore, with the passage of the
clean air measure yesterday, followed by
the antiwater pollution proposal today,
Senator MUSKIE has indeed brought
great distinction to his Air and Water
Pollution Subcommittee. Clearly, all
Americans are deeply grateful for his
singular devotion to the solution of this
grave and most significant problem.
So, too, has the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee, the distin-
guished junior Senator from Delaware
[Mr. BOGGS], devoted his great talent and
energy to this problem. And of course
he must share the credit for today's suc-
cess. His vigorous support was essential
to this outstanding victory.
The chairman of the Committee on
Public Works, the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH],
similarly is to be commended for his
strong and articulate advocacy. Long a
supporter of effective legislation in this
vital area, his backing today served im-
mensely to achieve an overwhelming
endorsement. The Senator from Ken-
tucky [Mr. COOPER] and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] like-
wise contributed to the success both
with outstanding support and gracious
cooperation. The same may be said of
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT],
the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] ,
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NEL-
SON], the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH], and other Senators who
joined to assure unanimous passage.
Once again, I wish to praise Senator
MUSKIE and his subcommittee for a job
[p. 15632]
well done. Moreover, I praise the entire
Senate. The achievement is surely a
great tribute to this body.
[p. 15633]
1.2j(4)(b) Sept. 30: Considered and passed House, pp. 24546-24547,
24592-24619, 24622-24624, 24629
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 1026, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
H. RES. 1026
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R
16076) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in order to improve and make
more effective certain programs pursuant to
such Act. After general debate, which shall
be confined to the bill and shall continue not
to exceed two 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 the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute 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 of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute. The pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1125
vious question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to £nal
passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. After the passage of H R 16076,
the Committee on Public Works shall be dis-
charged from the further consideration of
the bill (S. 2947), and it shall then be in
order in the House to move to strike out all
after the enacting clause of the said Senate
bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions
contained in H R. 16076 as passed by the
House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
California [Mr. SISK] is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
gentleman from California [Mr. SMITH]
30 minutes, and pending that I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution is self-ex-
planatory. It provides for the Commit-
tee on Public Works to consider in the
Committee of the Whole a matter which
is of vast importance to our country
dealing with water pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I concur in the statement just
made by the gentleman from California
[Mr. SISK].
Mi1. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the rule. The purposes of the bill are
First, to authorize appropriations of
$2,450 million for construction grants for
the 5 fiscal years 1967 through 1971 to
be used to construct sewage treatment
plants; second, to change the grant for-
mulas under which Federal aid is made
available to give further incentive to
States and local governments; and, third
to provide $228 million for research
grants through June 39, 1969.
The original administration bill pro-
vided for unlimited funding through
1971; the Senate-passed bill, S. 2947, pro-
vides for authorizations of $6 billion over
the same period. The revised adminis-
tration bill calls for $3,450 million. The
committee-reported bill is the smallest
of all.
The authorization for construction
grants, totaling $2.45 billion over the
next 5 years is broken down as follows:
Fiscal year 1867
Fiscal year 1968
Fiscal year 1969
Fiscal year 1970
Fiscal year 1971
Million
$15
30
. 40
65
95
The grant formula and provisions gov-
erning maximum amounts available for
individual projects have been substan-
tially modified. The current dollar lim-
itation on grants to small projects is
doubled from $1.2 million to $2.4 million.
For projects serving two or more com-
munities, the ceiling increase is from
$4.8 million to $9.6 million.
The Federal share of such individual
project grants is increased from the
current 30 percent to 40 percent if the
State involved makes a contribution of
30 percent. If a project is part of an
approved basin plan it, too, is eligible
for an additional 10-percent incentive
grant above the 30-percent figure, with
no dollar limitation. This may again be
increased another 10 percent, to 50 per-
cent, if the States agrees to contribute
25 percent for all projects under the
approved basin plan.
To be eligible for basin plan grants, a
plan must be submitted to the Secretary
of the Interior and approved. If the
basin is within a State, the Governor
must submit it; if submitted by a group
[p. 24546]
of States, a majority of the Governors
must support it.
If an interstate agency, the Upper
Colorado and Columbia Basins or the
Tennessee and Delaware River Basins
submit a plan, provisions are outlined
for the required areawide support for
such plan.
The Secretary of the Interior is au-
thorized to pay in to 50 percent of the
administrative expenses incurred by
planning agencies in preparing basin
pollution control and abatement plans.
Research programs are authorized to
be funded to $228 million for fiscal years
-------
1126
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1967 through 1969, or about $76 million
per year. At least 25 percent is to be
used for the industrial pollution studies
in each year.
A study is authorized by the bill, to be
undertaken by the Secretary, in coopera-
tion with pollution agencies, of the esti-
mated costs of an adequate 3-year
Federal antipollution program beginning
July 1, 1968. Such report must be sub-
mitted to the Congress by January 10,
1968.
The bill increases the authorization
for planning grants to States and inter-
state agencies to assist them in meeting
the costs of maintaining prevention and
control measures. The increase is from
$5 million through 1968 to $10 million
for each of fiscal years 1968 and 1969.
Reimbursement is authorized for ex-
penditures made in advance of granted
funds if the Secretary approves the
project prior to the beginning of con-
struction.
The bill has administration support.
There are supplementary and addi-
tional views filed with the report.
Seven majority members support the
bill but feel that it falls far short of
what is needed; they favor enactment of
the Senate bill—$6 billion. They say
the waters of America are so polluted
that no effort to reduce and eliminate
the problem can be spared. They see
the House bill as substantial progress,
but not as much as the Senate.
Additional views are submitted by
nine minority members. They point out
that title II of the bill, entitled "Clean
Rivers Restoration Program" is actually
a new name for the expansion of the
existing Federal program of grants for
construction of municipal sewage treat-
ment plants.
They also note that title I, while a
great improvement over the proposal of
the administration, does not provide for
the construction of industrial waste
treatment facilities, or for the prevention
or control of agricultural pollution, or
for the removal of sludge from river
bottoms.
They support the concept of basin
planning but note that the remainder of
the bill is primarily a sewage construc-
tion-grant bill which will not produce
"clean rivers" because of the many pol-
lution problems left untouched. They
support the committee position with
respect to the amount of the authoriza-
tion.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 24547]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 16076) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
order to improve and make more effec-
tive certain programs pursuant to such
act.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill, H.R. 16076, with
Mr. HANSEN 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 Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK] will be recognized for 1 hour and
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
CRAMER] will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK].
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the chairman of the full Committee of
Public Works, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. FALLON] such time as he
desires.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 16076, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1986, which we
reported unanimously by the Committee
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1127
on Public Works.
[p. 24592]
I have stated before and I reiterate
that statement on this floor that today
one of the greatest domestic problems
facing the Nation is the cleaning up as
rapidly as possible of our Nation's pol-
luted rivers, lakes, and streams.
President Kennedy stated it succinctly:
The pollution of our water has reached ihe
proportions of a national disgrace It en-
dangers our health. It limits our business
opportunities. It destroys recreation.
Water use is increasing tremendously.
Since 1900, while our population has
tripled and continues to increase, fresh
water use has jumped eightfold. Agri-
cultural, industrial, and recreational
water use has increased tremendously.
By 1980, water needs will be 600 billion
gallons a day—almost twice the present
usage and about equal to the total sup-
ply on which the continued growth and
continued prosperity of this Nation
depends.
While water use on a large scale is
already a necessity, greater reuse is in-
evitable. More than 100 million Ameri-
cans get their drinking water from
rivers carrying sewage, industrial wastes,
and anything else that can be flushed
down a sewer or thrown from a bridge.
At the same time that municipalities and
industries need more clean water, they
are fouling their own water supplies with
their own wastes.
Water is industry's most valuable raw
material and by 1980 it will require twice
as much as today. Water recreation has
grown enormously during recent years
as the leisure time and income of the
American people has increased. They
need this recreation outlet, yet each year
more bathing beaches and water sports
areas are closed because of pollution.
The story is the same with sports fish-
ing. Each year the number of pollu-
tion-caused fish kills grows higher.
There is only one conclusion: This Na-
tion is faced with a very critical problem
of water pollution. The Committee on
Public Works has been aware of this
problem for a number of years. In 1956
from the committee came the first real
strong Federal Water Pollution Act.
That act subsequently has been imple-
mented by legislation reported by the
committee in 1961 and in 1965. All this
legislation is now on the statute books
of our Nation. It has proved to be an
effective tool in the fight against the
blight of our Nation's waters.
H.E. 16076 is one further step in the
effort that must be made to clean up our
waters. It envisions a full-scale Fed-
eral, State, and local partnership to bring
about the completion of the task that
is before us. It contains increased au-
thorizations for funds to provide proper
sewage-treatment facilities. There is
additional funding for research in all the
forms that are needed to help solve the
many problems created by the pollu-
tion of our streams, lakes, and rivers. It
would make an effort to bring about a
cleanup of our waters on a basinwide
approach. It is good legislation. It is
needed legislation.
We have hardly been able to hold our
own against the rising tide of pollution.
Our efforts to control pollution must be
geared to more speed than the force
which produces it—a swiftly growing
population, and an expanding urban, in-
dustrial society.
H.R. 16076 meshes in with this ap-
proach and it is a bill every Member of
this House can be proud to support.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress
and the Nation took a great step forward
when we enacted the Water Quality Act
of 1965 which authorized the establish-
ment of water quality standards on all
the country's interstate rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters. This act represents the
first effort in the history of this Nation
to attack the problem of water pollution
on an entire river basis. It recognized
the State's primary role in this field, by
requiring the States to establish ade-
quate water quality criteria applicable to
-------
1128
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
interstate waters by June 30, 1967. The
States water quality criteria plus the
plan for enforcement will, when ap-
proved by the Secretary of the Interior,
be the water quality standards for each
waterway. All 50 States have filed with
the Secretary of the Interior letters of
intent to establish such vital standards
of water quality.
Public opinion has clearly helped stem
the tide against pollution. The Nation
has been shocked into an awareness of
the problem. Dedicated men and women
in every State are determined that our
great rivers and lakes will be cleansed
and no longer used as cheap conveyors
of municipal and industrial wastes.
America now understands that our
waterways no longer have the capacity
to absorb the unwanted pollutants.
This contagious awareness of people
everywhere has meant action and the
President this year submitted new pro-
posals designed to commit on a larger
scale the resources of the Federal Gov-
ernment to the development of an ade-
quate program designed "to clean and
preserve entire river basins from their
sources to their mouths." The adminis-
tration sent to the Congress early this
year a proposal which would attack the
problems of pollution control on a river
basin basis, but it did not extend and im-
prove the present provisions of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. In the
other body, the Senator from Maine
[Mr. MUSKIE] introduced S. 2947 which
was cosponsored by 49 other Senators.
Under the Senator's able leadership, S.
2947 passed the Senate by a vote of 90
to 0.
The bill (H.R. 16076) before you today
combines the best features of the ad-
ministration bill and the Senate passed
bill.
It was reported by your committee
unanimously. The great interest of the
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], the
hard work and untiring efforts of mem-
bers of the committee of both parties,
and particularly that of Congressman
ROBERT JONES, of Alabama, have been of
immeasurable assistance in the develop-
ment of this important and vital bill
which we have reported. A little later
in these remarks I will review the pro-
visions of the bill and briefly discuss the
principal provisions.
Undoubtedly, the most critical do-
mestic problem facing this country to-
day with its wondrous resources is the
problem of adequate supplies of water
that is capable of use for all our domestic
needs. It is a gigantic problem, because,
until only recently, we have neglected,
and even refused, to meet head on the
problem of preventing the pollution of
our waterways. Now we are confronted
with the need to accelerate our efforts
and shift into high gear, but not on a
crash basis. We no longer can afford
the luxury of allowing our wastes to flow
untreated into our rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters. We must begin now
with imagination and vigor to take great
strides not in words, but in deeds.
While water resources vary in different
parts of the country, the United States
as a whole is richly endowed with fresh
water. But in this day and age, quantity
cannot be considered apart from qual-
ity. We not only need large amounts
of water to maintain our industrial-
urban-agricultural economy, we need
large quantities of usable water.
Fortunately, a grave shortage of water
in this country is not inevitable, if we
take appropriate steps to forestall it.
There are three known means of increas-
ing the amount of usable water.
One is the desalting of sea water, a
development already in the large-scale
pilot stage and destined for volume ap-
plication in the not too distant future.
Another is artificial precipitation.
Here again we are making great strides,
but more research is needed before we
can claim victory.
The third and most promising means
of increasing our supply is through the
reuse and recycling of existing water
supplies.
Through effective pollution control,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1129
water can be used over and over again
on its way to the sea. This we know. It
is, to an extent, happening today. It is
the course that we must pursue in the
future with increasing intensity—build-
ing on past experience, taking full ad-
vantage of new knowledge as it develops.
There is virtually no limit to the amount
of usable water that can be created
through the removal of wastes.
At the same time, it must be recog-
nized that taking advantage of the
water-creating potentials of pollution
control is by no means easy. No longer
are we dealing primarily with the sim-
pler forms of organic wastes. We are
dealing with an almost endless variety
of wastes produced by a burgeoning
technology. And we are dealing with
wastes produced in volumes hardly en-
visioned a few years ago.
One of the most difficult and increas-
ingly critical problems which must be
met in water pollution control is the in-
creased concentration of population and
industry in and around urban centers.
As these great urban-industrial com-
plexes grow and merge, water pollution
problems also grow and merge. By 1980
it is estimated that about 70 percent of
our people will be concentrated in the
cities and their suburbs. Joining in this
rush into the urban area, or being en-
compassed by its growth, will be a large
segment of industry. Thus, we can look
[p.24593]
forward to the development of larger
metropolitan complexes than we have
today. Some demographers foresee vast
supercities that will stretch hundreds of
miles along our coasts and the Great
Lakes, and to linear cities that will line
all the great rivers and major highways.
The water pollution problems such
metropolitan complexes will cause stag-
gers the imagination.
The tasks of collecting and treating
the wastes from today's larger cities is
already taxing our engineering and
scientific knowledge. The concentra-
tions of population and industry within
our large cities produce vast quantities
of complex wastes which often must be
discharged into a single, and usually
limited watercourse. Even when the
best of today's waste treatment is ap-
plied, the sheer amount of the treated
effluent causes serious pollution prob-
lems in the receiving streams.
The municipal waste treatment proc-
esses in use today were designed for the
wastes and problems of 40 and more
years ago. No essentially new or more
effective processes have been developed.
These conventional methods of sewage
treatment will continue to be useful for
many smaller cities for some time, but
for the larger cities they are proving to
be entirely inadequate. The volume,
potency, and complexity of future mu-
nicipal wastes can only result in the dis-
charge of even larger and larger amounts
of impurities intc^ badly needed water
resources if we continue to limit our-
selves to apply presently known treat-
ment processes.
From 1900 to 1960, industrial produc-
tion as a whole increased by 800 per-
cent but, in this same period, organic
industrial pollution—of animal or vege-
table origin such as meatpacking, food
processing, paper, textiles—increased by
1,000 percent. The 1960 industrial waste
production is expected to be doubled by
1980.
In addition to organic wastes, indus-
try discharges large amounts of inor-
ganic wastes—principally of mineral and
chemical origin—resulting from the min-
ing, processing, and manufacture of a
wide variety of mineral, metal, and
chemical products. In recent years,
radioactive wastes have been of special
concern.
A major new pollution problem has
emerged with the growth of the syn-
thetic chemical industry. This industry
has grown so rapidly, and the number of
new products it introduces annually, that
relatively little is known of the pollu-
tional characteristics of its products
and wastes, including their toxicity to
aquatic life, animals, and man. We do
-------
1130
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
know that synthetic chemical products
and wastes are very complex in compo-
sition and behavior, and are extremely
stable and persistent in the water envi-
ronment. We also know that many of
these synthetic chemicals interfere with
present-day water and waste treatment
processes, making them less effective in
removing the common pollutants while
they are relatively unaffected by such
treatments.
A third major source of water pollu-
tion is land drainage from both rural
and urban areas. Pollution from rural
land drainage has increased in recent
years as a result of an increase in the
use of agricultural pesticides and fer-
tilizers, in irrigated agricultural prac-
tices, and in specialized farming having
associate feedlots and facilities for beef
raising, dairy farming, and poultry rais-
ing. In certain areas, natural salt
deposits are an important source of
pollution.
Another and increasing problem of
land drainage water pollution is result-
ing from urban population and economic
growth. Each year additional millions
of acres of land are withdrawn for use
for streets, highways, airports, housing,
and other buildings. The runoff from
these hard-surfaced areas is nearly 100
percent and will if all of the accumulated
deposits—oils, organic matter, trash, soil,
and industrial dusts, other air pollu-
tants, fertilizers, and pesticides used by
weekend horticulturists, and whatever
else can be hydraulically washed into a
catch basin or nearby stream.
In addition, municipalities with com-
bined sewers are by-passing increasing
amounts of storm water sewage as hard-
surfaced areas and populations are in-
creased. Only recently have pollution
control agencies looked into the matter
of urban land drainage and have found
its pollution potential to be highly sig-
nificant. A great deal of study of this
important and growing problem is
needed.
Water pollution is many problems—
and it is a national problem. Water pol-
lution control calls for action at all levels
of government and by industry.
H. R. 16076, as reported from the
House Committee on Public Works, pro-
vides a realistic and positive approach
to water pollution control. Its provisions
will help all our cities and municipalities
to attain the goal of clean, pure water.
First. The bill extends the authoriza-
tion for grants to build needed waste
treatment plants to June 30, 1971. This
authority is due to expire on June 30,
1967. Since 1956 the 7,051 grants have
been made for projects costing a total
of $3,793 billion. The Federal share of
these projects was $803.4 million.
Clearly this program has been successful
and should be extended.
Second. The bill doubles the present
dollar ceilings on construction grants for
waste treatment works from $1.2 million
to $2.4 million for a single project, and
from $4.8 million to $9.6 million for a
joint project serving two or more com-
munities. The present 30-percent limi-
tation remains the same, except that the
bill provides a further incentive if the
States participate in the project costs.
The bill authorizes the Secretary to
waive the increased dollar limitations
and to pay up to 40 percent of the esti-
mated reasonable construction costs of
the project, if the State will pay 30 per-
cent of the project costs.
Third. The bill authorizes a new ap-
proach to the problem of water pollution
control as a logical extension of the
Water Quality Act of 1965. The new
clean rivers restoration program is
oriented to controlling pollution on a
basin basis.
Under this program the one or more
Governors of an interstate agency in
close cooperation with local communities,
will develop pollution control and abate-
ment basin plans. The plan will include,
among other things, recommendations
for the type and location of treatment
works and the necessary steps to main-
tain and improve the quality of the
waters consistent with applicable water
quality standards. The bill provides
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1131
that the Secretary may pay up to one-
half of the planning costs. Once com-
pleted, the plan must be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior and the
Congress.
As an incentive to encourage the State:
and local communities to initiate basin
planning, the bill authorizes up to 40
percent grants for the construction of
waste treatment works without any dol-
lar limits. In addition, this percentage
can be increased to 50 percent if the
States pay 25 percent of the project costs
Originally, the administration pro-
posed that the clean rivers program in-
clude a "one shot" financing scheme
designed to shift the entire burden on
local and State governments after the
initial Federal grant. Your committee
rejected this concept as unsound.
Fourth. The bill removes the present
$5 million ceiling on research and au-
thorizes up to $75 million for 3 fiscal
years for all research and for research
and demonstration grants. In addition,
it authorizes grants to industry for re-
search and demonstration projects that
have industry-wide application.
Fifth. The bill provides for re-
imbursement to local communities, such
as those in New York State, that initiate
construction on approvable projects for
which Federal funds were not available.
Sixth. The bill provides for the trans-
fer of the Administration of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924 from the Secretary
of the Army to the Secretary of the
Interior.
Seventh. The bill authorizes a total
appropriation for construction grants of
$2.3 billion over 4 fiscal years beginning
July 1, 1967.
This is $1 billion less than that author-
ized by the administration over 5 years.
The bill also directs the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and submit to the
Congress by January 10,1963, a cost esti-
mate study. If the study reveals that
larger amounts are needed before the
end of fiscal year 1971, appropriate in-
creases in future legislation can ba made.
Let me discuss some of the provisions
in H.R. 16076 in a little more detail.
The bill provides for two significant
changes in the existing grant program,
both of which should add to the effec-
tiveness of the construction grant pro-
gram.
The first is the doubling of the present
dollar limitation on projects. The bill
would make the maximum grants $2.4
million for an individual treatment plant
and $9.6 million for a combined project.
Under present law the grants to this
type of project cannot exceed 30 percent,
and the dollar limitations come into play
only when these limitations are less than
30 percent of the project cost. These
dollar limitations can now be removed if
the State agrees to contribute 30 percent
[p.24594]
to all projects in the State receiving
grants from the same allocation.
The second significant change is the
provision for permitting an increase in
the Federal contribution from 30 to 40
percent if the State contributes 30 per-
cent. The provision removing the dollar
limitations would be retained as in exist-
ing law.
If there is no State contribution, a
project which costs $10 million could,
under the bill, receive a maximum of $2.4
million. The community would have to
pay $7.6 million.
If there is a State contribution of 30
percent for a $10 million project, the
Federal contribution would be $4 million,
and the State $3 million, leaving the local
community only $3 million to pay. This
will bring in many of the less prosperous
cities which might not be able to raise
sufficient revenue for the larger amounts.
We recognized the difficulties larger
cities have in obtaining adequate Fed-
eral grants in the construction of their
treatment facilities. The modification
offered here will provide real assistance
to many cities.
The introduction of the concept of an
approved basin plan for incentive grants
under title II, clean rivers restoration
jlan, is new in the field of water pollu-
-------
1132
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion. If a project is part of an approved
plan for water pollution control and
abatement in a river basin or in coastal
waters, bays, lakes, or part thereof, it is
eligible for an incentive grant. State ap-
proval of priorities is applicable, as in
existing law.
The incentive grant amounts to 40 per-
cent which- is equivalent to 10 percent
above the basic 30-percent grant pro-
vided in existing law.
There is no dollar limitation. The
grant may be increased by another 10
percent, making a total of 50 percent, if
the State agrees to contribute 25 percent
for all projects for which Federal grants
are made under this program for the
same allocation.
In this case, the State matching re-
quirement has been reduced to 25 per-
cent so that the balance to be contributed
by local communities would also be 25
percent.
Twelve States are now offering finan-
cial assistance to municipalities in con-
struction of treatment facilities. In some
instances this assistance is offered on a
yearly continuing basis, and in one in-
stance in the form of a payment based
on a percentage of the original project
cost but offered as a means of assisting
in the financing of operation. The ob-
jective seems to be twofold: to provide
State assistance at lower annual cost to
the State and without the necessity for
a large bonding issue and to assure con-
tinued good operation of the facilities.
Such an approach is considered as ac-
ceptable as State financial assistance as
long as the project cost to the State is
equivalent to 30 percent of the original
project cost.
The use of the term "basin" does not
mean to imply that the plan as developed
should be only for the large river basins
or coastal areas, such as the Missouri
and Ohio Rivers, the gulf coast, or one
or more of the Great Lakes. The basin
for which plans may be developed may
vary all the way from very small basins
to large ones. They can be tributaries
to a main stream, or they can be parts of
a main stream together with its tribu-
taries between two points. They could
be small streams flowing into the ocean,
the gulf, or the Great Lakes. They can
also be combinations of these basins. In
other words, the concept of "basin" is
intended to imply a plan which has in-
terdependent units, each of which must
work in conjunction with the others. If
an area under study is composed of sev-
eral of the smaller basins, such as along
the coast or in the Great Lakes, these
may be grouped together in one overall
basin if it helps in the definition of the
problem and in the formulation of plans
to produce the end result. In other
words, the term "basin" is not intended
to be primarily a geographic description,
but rather a term for whatever physical
outline, large or small, is best fitted to
a study of the pollution control problem.
Secretary Udall told the committee:
Let me emphasize that when we refer to
"clean rivers," we are not merely referring
to a program. In fact, "clean rivers" is
not as descriptive a term as it might be
to a program which is not limited, or which
would not limit its aid or its organization
merely to rivers, whether they are larger
rivers or small rivers, interstate or intrastate.
We envision a program, and the legislation
recommended is so intended, whereby cities
on lakes which share the waters of the lakes,
such as the Great Lakes cities, or even sea-
coast cities, which may have a large or have
a small river, or what we would call a very
limited river basin, could all participate. In
other words, all the cities, all the municipali-
ties of this country would and should qualify
under this "clean rivers" concept.
After the Secretary approves a basin
pollution control and abatement plan, he
shall transmit it, together with all views,
comments, and recommendations re-
ceived from any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the Federal Govern-
ment, to the Congress for approval which
must be by a specific statute.
An exception is made in the case of
the Tennessee and Delaware Rivers
where the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion may develop a plan and transmit it
directly to Congress for approval.
A new provision has been added to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1133
bill covering grants to industries for re-
search and demonstration projects for
the treatment of industrial and other
waste which shall have industry-wide
application. 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 municipali-
ties and communities, has now become a
major polluter. The complexity of some
industrial waste problems requires the
active involvement of industry itself
which has intimate knowledge of manu-
facturing and other industrial processing
operations. The stipulation that 70 per-
cent of the cost of such investigations be
borne by the Federal Government should
be an inducement to have industrial sup-
port and participation in the studies.
We should not belabor industry for its
growing contribution to this problem.
Nothing will be gained by attempting to
fix blame. The problem is here and it
must be solved or some future generation
will be worrying about clean oceans.
More should be done by industry, and
we were 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, and particularly should also
the States, 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 re-
search 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 industrial and manu-
facturing processes.
Industrial research should not be
limited to the technology of waste treat-
ment. It should also include an inves-
tigation of possible financial methods
of providing for this treatment, includ-
ing methods of providing treatment
works to the smaller industries on an in-
stallment basis. If a small company is
faced with the necessity of putting in ex-
tensive treatment works as a result of
Federal and State laws or public pres-
sure, such financing could be helpful.
We believe that this bill offers a fine
opportunity to take aggressive action to
eliminate what some have termed a na-
tional disgrace. Surely, we must try for
there is certainly no more urgent domes-
tic problem facing us today that water
pollution control. As President Johnson
said:
No one has a right to use America's rivers
and America's waterways that belong to all
the people as a sewer. The banks of a river
may belong to one man or one industry or
one State, but the waters which flow between
those banks should belong to all the people.
I recommend to the House the passage
of H.R. 16076.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to my dear friend and colleague, one of
the leaders in this whole field of water
utilization as well as preservation, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES].
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, no one has been more dedicated,
more knowledgeable, or more useful in
the cause of pollution abatement than
has the chairman of the subcommittee
who handled this bill. The Committee
on Public Works as a whole has dedi-
cated themselves to the arrest and the
eradication of pollution problems wher-
ever they exist. So I think the gains
that we have made have been prominent.
They have been of great national benefit.
The problems are large. They are out-
standing, and they certainly will require
our constant attention.
But as long as the Congress of the
United States has in it the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] with his
zeal and his constant desire to improve
our situation, we all stand in good stead.
[p. 24595]
I believe it is necessary for us to
-------
1134
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
recognize and to give proper value to
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] and to the members of the
Committee on Public Works for the dis-
tance we have gained to the present
moment.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is
certainly most generous. He is genu-
inely sincere, as always, in his comments.
I do appreciate them deeply.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am delighted to
yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics.
Mr. MILLER. I should like to con-
gratulate the gentleman in the well [Mr.
BLATNIK] and the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the distin-
guished gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
FALLON], and the distinguished gentle-
man from Alabama [Mr. JONES], who
have been the leaders in getting this
legislation to the floor.
I congratulate the gentleman from
Minnesota particularly, for having au-
thored the legislation and for having
been the foremost champion of stream
pollution control in the House of Repre-
sentatives.
The Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics is making a very exhaustive
study of the whole field of pollution be-
cause it is one which crosses the juris-
diction of many committees and must be
attacked. We do not propose legislation,
but we hope to lay down a blueprint of
what can be done in the future.
I believe the gentleman will agree with
me that today we are groping for a solu-
tion to the problem of stream pollution,
which will go far beyond anything we
see today. That also is true of air
pollution.
One of the things which is responsible
for this is the massive population growth
and the inability of those who have gone
before us to understand the effect this
has upon our way of life.
I am happy that there are in the Con-
gress of the United States people on both
sides of the aisle and in the great Com-
mittee on Public Works who realize this
and are attacking it to the best of their
ability today.
I thank the gentleman for what he is
doing.
Mr. BLATNIK. I appreciate the re-
marks, which come from a distinguished
and respected chairman of an outstand-
ing committee. We know the work the
gentleman has done on other aspects of
water and oceanographic studies and,
currently, the very excellent series of
hearings conducted by the chairman of
the subcommittee [Mr. DADDARIO] on the
need for further research, new tech-
niques and applications, and some new
knowledge, either known or yet to be
proved.
It must be admitted, and I am rather
sad to confess it, that we have so
neglected technological advances in this
lowly and mundane field of water pollu-
tion control that frankly the modern-day
pollution control plant is very little ad-
vanced over the one that was built 50
years ago. As the gentleman from Ala-
bama [Mr. JONES] pointed out, in one of
the findings during the hearings that his
subcommittee of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations held, believe it or
not, even with secondary treatment in
municipal plants there is a high degree
of complicated pollutants such as metal-
lic substances, oxides, inorganic mate-
rials and organic materials, chemicals,
synthetic fibers, and detergents that are
still a real problem and manage to slip
through the pollution abatement plants.
It is just like trying to shake taffy off
of your fingers. You just cannot do it.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to add my voice to the many that have
praised the great work and leadership
of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] and his colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, in bringing here to the
floor of the House this afternoon what
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1135
I am sure will prove to be truly a piece
of landmark conservation legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I listened very care-
fully to the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota, and to his description
of the bill, and a very vital part of the
bill is that portion which seeks to get
the States to contribute to municipali-
ties which have to build waste treatment
plants.
An additional Federal incentive is
given when the State agrees to pay at
least 25 percent—30 percent of the esti-
mated reasonable cost of the project.
Mr. Chairman, Wisconsin's 1966 water
pollution law, described by Secretary
Udall as a model, provides that the State
shall pay up to 33'/i percent of the total
combined cost of the project costs and
the net interest and financing costs, in
equal annual amounts to be paid during
the life of the bonds issued by the
municipality.
Under the Wisconsin law let us sup-
pose a waste treatment plant in a river
basin costing $1 million to construct.
The Federal contribution of 50 percent
would be $500,000. The non-Federal
costs of $500,000 would be met by a bond
issue, on which the interest over a 20-
year period at 5 percent would be an
additional $500,000. The contribution
by the State of Wisconsin under its 1966
water pollution law would be $500,000—
33'/i percent of $1,500,000, the total com-
bined costs of the project and the net
interest and financing costs. In such a
case, the State of Wisconsin would seem
to have amply met the requirement that
it pay 25 percent of the estimated reason-
able cost of the project—in other words,
25 percent of $1 million, or $250,000.
In the judgment of the gentleman
from Minnesota, would this Wisconsin
system of State help for municipalities
adequately comply with the bill, H.R.
16706?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, in my opinion I
am confident the Wisconsin system
would be in full compliance.
I, too, want to join in commending the
leadership of the State of Wisconsin
for her State law. There are only 12
out of the 50 States that are giving some
form of assistance or support to mu-
nicipalities in water pollution.
I hope with the coming of this new
year in January we will at least have
psrhaps two-thirds of the State legisla-
tures in session and I am hopeful that
with the existing bill becoming the law
of the land, that it will serve notice and
be an encouragement to other States to
do something quite similar.
I am quite certain that the provisions
of this bill would justify reimbursement
and that the State of Wisconsin would
be in compliance with the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman and I commend him again
for his contribution toward creative
federalism.
Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mi. STALBAUM. Mr. Chairman, I
too want to join in commending the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK] and the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES] and others in bringing
forth water pollution legislation not only
this year but in the preceding years
prior to my arrival on the scene in
Washington.
As we are well aware, where we have
large areas of lake frontage such as I
have in my district, water pollution is
always a problem both as to the streams
that flow into the lake itself and the
lake itself.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. BLATNIK] is to be commended.
Mr. Chairman, I did rise, however, to
clear up a specific point which the gen-
tleman from Minnesota has made ref-
erence to.
I wonder whether I understood cor-
rectly, and I ask this primarily for the
purpose of clarification—am I right or
did I hear the gentleman correctly in his
statement that under this bill projects
can be started with some preliminary
-------
1136
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
approval and grants can be made at a
later date?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. STALBAUM. This is new in this
particular legislation, as I understand it.
Mr. BLATNIK. You are correct. It is
new in this legislation, but it is some-
thing that is quite common and has been
followed for quite some years in the
highway programs in which we have re-
imbursed States who have proceeded
faster than the schedule called for.
Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Chairman, I
want to commend the committee for
including this. As one who has been
working on various grants-in-aid to mu-
nicipalities and being new on the scene,
as I mentioned, I find one of the most
frustrating items is the fact that a com-
munity will get all steamed up and they
want to go ahead with a very fine proj-
ect, and seek to have the funds appro-
priated, and for one reason or another
they cannot be approved that year and
they tend to defer action. I recall, for
instance, an editorial in one of my more
prominently daily papers after I intro-
duced the pollution bill. This paper,
although normally very conservative in
nature, has long supported efforts to
[p. 24596]
abate water pollution. I thought they
would come out with a very fine editorial
in support of my efforts where we were
going to get some 90 percent funds in my
project if the bill had gone through—and
I appreciate your efforts here—the end
result was that in the editorial they said
that they felt that my legislation was
going to set back water pollution control
because municipalities would keep on
waiting, hoping to get additional per-
centages and be assured of their funds.
So I feel that by permitting munici-
palities and other groups, or groups of
municipalities and States to go ahead
with their projects and get preliminary
approval and not have to wait for the
grant of moneys before they can start
on these projects in a small way, that
you will be encouraging immediate ac-
tion by these municipalities, and not
have the delays we have seen in legis-
lation up to this time.
I am particularly pleased to see this
included in this particular act and I am
only hopeful we can get it in other simi-
lar acts that will be considered in this
Congress.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentle-
man for his comments.
Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in the strong support of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support
of the enactment of this worthwhile
piece of legislation which will have the
effect of accelerating the Federal water
pollution control effort.
The bill before us will help the na-
tional effort to abate and control the
pollution of this Nation's water probably
more than any other Federal water
pollution control bill ever enacted by the
Congress. The reported bill not only
provides additional funds for the various
research programs in an effort to deter-
mine ways in which the waters of Amer-
ica can be better treated so as to obtain
maximum purity, but it also substantially
increases the authorizations to construct
necessary sewage treatment works.
The inclusion of additional induce-
ments to the States in this bill to
participate more fully in the financial
contributions toward the costs of the
construction of sewage treatment works
is commendable. Last year's act made
significant steps toward greater State
financial participation in meeting the
cost of constructing sewage treatment
works, and it is encouraging to see that
this bill has included additional induce-
ments to the States. This long-held
Republican position of inducements to
the States, held firmly by the minority
Members since 1959, has greatly im-
proved the Federal water pollution con-
trol effort.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1137
The State of Indiana has made some
strides toward controlling pollution
within its borders, but the additional
inducements provided in last year's act
and this year's bill should permit it to
make even greater financial participation
efforts. The State of Indiana does not
have any legislation which provides tax
relief for water pollution control, al-
though the 1985 general assembly en-
acted a law exempting stationary
industrial air purification systems from
taxation by the State of Indiana and any
political subdivision. The 1965 general
assembly did enact a law creating an in-
dustrial development fund from which
loans may be made to municipalities for
construction that will aid in the growth
of industry within the Hoosier State.
Loans may be made for any period not to
exceed 10 years and shall bear interest
at the rate of 2 percent per annum.
Mr. Chairman, several months ago I
introduced a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 so as to encourage
the prevention of water pollution by al-
lowing the cost of treatment works for
the abatement of water pollution to be
amortized at an accelerated rate for in-
come tax purposes. The bill before us
today authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study to determine
ways in which industry, the largest single
source of pollution, can more fully par-
ticipate in the construction of facilities
to control its own pollution without hav-
ing to pass the expense on to the ultimate
consumers of the products. The study is
to include recommendations on tax in-
centives. I hope that the Secretary in-
cludes in this study recommendations
for the needed amendments to the
Internal Revenue Code to permit such
accelerated amortization.
Mr. Chairman, I have strongly sup-
ported the enactment of water pollution
control legislation in the past, for I sin-
cerely feel that the control of pollution
of our Nation's waters and the related
abatement of those waters is essential for
the long-range development of our Na-
tion which relies so greatly on the
quality of our water.
I strongly support the enactment of
the bill before us today and I urge its
enactment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
CRAMER].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Committee, I rise in sup-
port of this important legislation. I am
proud to report to the House, as did
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr,
BLATNIK], that H.R. 16076 was voted out
of the committee unanimously this year
as was last year's Water Quality Act of
1955. From the first Federal water pol-
lution control bill which was enacted in
1953, which I and several other Members
had the privilege of cosponsoring, Con-
gress has declared and carried out a war
on water pollution. Congress is hereby
declaring war on those who with de-
structive ignorance and with apparently
vandalistic abandonment have polluted
and clogged the once-sparkling rivers of
our land. They have polluted and
clogged the very arteries of our Nation
with filth and have affected the health
and welfare of our Nation adversely.
Adequate clean water is a challenge to
the ingenuity of mankind and to the de-
termination of Congress. It is a chal-
lenge that we must meet and we are to
a large extent meeting it here today.
The substance of life and the long-
range future not only of our Nation but
of the world hangs in the balance on
what Congress does in this year and suc-
ceeding years, on what industry does in
the future, and on what the people them-
selves do in the future to preserve clean
water and to abate and control water
pollution.
It is a sad commentary that we, as the
greatest Nation in the world with the
most powerful legislative body in the
world and with the greatest resources
available to us in the world have within
a stone's throw of the Nation's Capitol
one of the filthiest rivers in the world—
the Potomac. That is a clear-cut ex-
ample and one well known to us that
-------
1138
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
action is critically needed in cleaning
up the rivers of America.
I am proud to rise in support of this
bill. I do not intend to duplicate the
remarks of the gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. BLATNIK], but very briefly the
bill provides for quite a substantial in-
crease in authorizations for sewage treat-
ment plants. It provides for $2.3 billion
additional through fiscal year 1971. Next
year the authorization will be twice the
present authorization of $150 million per
annum, or $300 million; the following
year $400 million, or 2% times the pres-
ent authorization; the next year, fiscal
year 1970, $650 million, or 4'/i times the
present level; and the next year fiscal
year 1971, some 6% times the present
sewage treatment works construction
program, or $950 million.
I believe this is as fast as the com-
munities and municipalities can tool up
for the job. It is a responsible approach.
It will provide the necessary incentives
to those communities to do more. With
these incentives provided in this bill, it
is my belief that next year there will be
twice as much; the next year almost
three times as much; the next year
nearly five times as much; and the next
year nearly seven times as much con-
struction. With the essential incentives
provided in this bill and for which we
on our side have been fighting for a
number of years, if the States put up 25
percent, an additional 10 percent, mak-
ing it from 30 to 40 percent, will be
available for Federal matching for the
costs of constructing sewage treatment
plants.
If in fact a clean river basin is estab-
lished, and additional 10-percent incen-
tive is provided, meaning 50 percent
maximum Federal.
So every possible incentive is being
offered to the local communities to go
ahead with sewage treatment plant con-
struction, with secondary treatment fa-
cilities included, so that our streams can
be cleaned up.
I want to stress, however, that the bill
in itself is not an arrangement; the bill
in itself is not the total answer, albeit a
major step. Providing money for sew-
age treatment plants is only one aspect
of the total solution and scope of the
problem. Sewage treatment is one pol-
lutant. There are many others. There
is industrial pollution. There is sewage
drainage pollution. There is agricul-
tural pollution. Nature itself contrib-
utes through increased growths of
nitrogenous algae. These are not being
treated other than in a study or research
[p.24597]
manner with $75 million a year provided
and with general research provisions.
Industry must face up to its respon-
sibility. We must provide the tools with
which industry can do the job.
This bill provides, in section 211
thereof, for a study to determine possible
future incentives for industry to join in
the antipollution fight. I am glad to see
that we did not take away the 7-percent
investment credit to industries in the
vote today on the floor of the House on
the tax investment credit bill. I con-
gratulate the gentleman from California
[Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN], who offered this
new section in the form of an amend-
ment, for such a farsighted move.
Additional incentives are needed for
industry to do this job. When the bill
came before us it had three major pro-
visions as recommended by the adminis-
tration:
First. It had a provision for clean
river restoration, setting up basin ap-
proaches, which must be the approach
for cleaning up our rivers.
Second. It provided for no additional
financing. At that time the administra-
tion did not recommend it, although
later the administration came up with a
$2.4 billion recommendation.
Third. It provided for amendments
relating to enforcement. I am glad to
see that our committee was responsible
in not acting on amendments to enforce-
ment provisions when just last year we
passed a sound enforcement procedure
just presently getting underway under
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1139
which States are to provide a plan for
abatement and proposed standards by
June 30 of 1967.
We do not want to shake up the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration again. We just transferred it
from HEW to Interior on May 10. We
just completely changed their authority
and responsibilities in the bill last year.
So I believe it is sensible to let them set-
tle down to business with cleaning up
America's streams, and providing the
standards and encouraging the Statas
and local communities to do their jobs,
rather than shaking them up again this
year.
So I am glad to see that the committee
felt that that was a sound approach, and
no additional amendments to the en-
forcement provisions were proposed in
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have a bill
that is justified on almost any grounds.
It is consistent with the President's rec-
ommendation. I want to congratulate
the committee for recognizing in this
instance fiscal responsibility in limiting
the spending to that recommended by
the President.
ADDITIONAL FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS
Mr. Chairman, the minority members
of the committee in their additional
views on H.R. 16076, as reported, spelled
out a number of programs, other than
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, through which funds can be
obtained for water pollution control pro-
grams. It is our belief that those who
advocate increased authorizations to the
level of a crash program are guided by
their emotions more than by facts and
evidences as to actual needs. They over-
look other Federal programs which
provide financial assistance in the con-
struction of sewage treatment works and
related facilities. There are no less than
five Federal assistance programs which
provide some type of funds for water
pollution control programs and projects.
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 1965
Under this act, Federal grants up to
50 percent of the total cost and loans up
to 100 percent of the total cost are avail-
able for "the acquisition of land and
improvements for public works, public
service, or development facility usage,
and the acquisition, construction, reha-
bilitation, alteration, expansion, or im-
provement of such facilities, including
related machinery and equipment"
within redevelopment areas. Sewage
treatment works can be and have been
financed under this act.
In addition to this, section 101 of the
act authorizes "supplementary grants"
for the purpose of increasing the Federal
contribution up to 80 percent of the cost
of projects constructed under other Fed-
eral grant-in-aid programs, including
sewage treatment works financed under
the Federal Water Pollution Act.
Under the act, specific amounts are not
set aside for sewage treatment plants,
but a total of $500 million is authorized
for all grants and supplemental grants
for the fiscal years 1966-69, inclusive,
and annual appropriations for making
and participating in loans are authorized
up to $170 million for fiscal years 1986-70,
inclusive.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1965
The Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1985, Public Law 89-117, provides
for Federal grants of up to 50 percent of
the total cost of the project to finance
specific projects for basic public water
facilities, including works for storage,
treatment, purification, and distribution
of water, and for basic public sewer
facilities in areas with comprehensive
planning as defined in the act except
those works and facilities eligible under
the provisions of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended. Such
Federal grants may also be mads for
the advance purchasa of land to be util-
ized for future construction of works
-------
1140
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
thereon. There is some question as to
whether or not such funds are being
used to construct works and facilities
which are eligible under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The act
authorized $200 million per annum for
each of the fiscal years 1966, 1967, 1988,
and 1969, exclusively, for such purposes
totaling another $800 million from the
Federal Treasury.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
OF 1965
This act, Public Law 89-4, authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to make
grants for the construction of sewage
treatment works in the Appalachian re-
gion in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended. The act authorizes a sum
not to exceed $6 million to be appropri-
ated for the program.
In addition to this, section 214 of the
act authorizes "supplementary grants''
to increase the Federal contribution up
to 80 percent of the cost of constructing
projects under other Federal grant-in-
aid programs, including sewage treat-
ment works under the Federal Water
Pollution Act. A total of $90 million
is available for making "supplementary
grants" under section 214.
CONSOLIDATED FARMERS HOME
ADMINISTRATION ACT, AS AMENDED
Under this act, as amended in 1965—
Public Law 89-240—the Secretary of
Agriculture may make grants totaling up
to $50 million each fiscal year to finance
"specific projects for the development,
storage, treatment, purification, or dis-
tribution of water or the collection,
treatment, or disposal of waste in rural
areas."
In addition to this, the act—as
amended by Public Law 89-240—author-
izes the Secretary to make or insure
loans to finance—among other things—
the "conservation, development, use, and
control of water, and the installation or
improvement of drainage or waste dis-
posal facilities" in rural areas.
! As used in the act, the term "rural
areas" does not include any area in any
city or town which has a population of
more than 5,500 inhabitants, thus assur-
ing that the financial assistance will go
to those areas which are least likely to
have adequate taxing authority, bond-
ing capacity, or other financial resources.
PUBLIC FACILITY LOANS—42 U.S.C.
1941-1947
This program provides long-term con-
struction loans to local public agencies
for needed public works for which fi-
nancing is not otherwise available on
reasonable terms and conditions. Loans
may be made to finance up to 100 per-
cent of the project cost for a wide range
of non-Federal public works, including
sewage treatment works.
Mr. Chairman, title II of the Demon-
stration Cities Act of 1966, as reported by
the House Committee on Banking and
Currency, provides for Federal grants of
up to 70 percent of the total costs for
facilities within a metropolitan area as
defined in the act and meeting all quali-
ficatiors for metropolitan comprehensive
planning set forth therein. Water pol-
lution control and sewage treatment
facilities are eligible for such assistance
under the provisions of the bill, if en-
acted in its present form.
REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS—SECTION 207
OF H.R. 16076, AS REPORTED
Mr. Chairman, on March 15 of this
year, I introduced a bill, H.R. 13655, to
amend section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to include a new
subsection (h) thereof to authorize re-
imbursement of States, municipalities
and intermunicipal or interstate agen-
cies that wish to undertake the con-
struction of sewage treatment works in
advance of the availability of Federal
funds. The gentleman from New Hamp-
shire [Mr. CLEVELAND] introduced an
identical bill on that same date. Existing
law contains no provision for Federal
reimbursement to those entities for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1141
construction of sewage treatment works
in
[p. 24598]
advance of the availability of Federal
participating funds.
Although similar bills for Federal
reimbursement had previously been in-
troduced this Congress, H.R. 13355 was
the first measure whose provisions for
reimbursement for the construction of
sewage treatment works had general,
nationwide application. Most previously
introduced bills had provided for reim-
bursement only to States which use the
proceeds of bonds issued by the State,
county, city, or other political subdivi-
sion of the State for the construction of
one or more projects which would other-
wise have been eligible for a grant under
the provisions of section 8 of the act. In-
asmuch as those measures were too lim-
ited in their application to a national
need, being particularly limited at this
time to the State of New York, I felt it
essential that legislation be introduced
to provide for a method of reimbursing
those entities recognized in the act as
having authority to receive grants under
its provisions and subsequently did so.
The need for reimbursement proce-
dures in the act has been evident to me
as the ranking minority member on the
committee for some time. It is encour-
aging to see that the committee has
adopted the position held by certain
minority members of the committee that
reimbursement procedures are essential
to continue accelerated construction
programs in a number of States and to
encourage others to move ahead with
construction projects in advance of the
availability of Federal participating
funds. The expansion contained in my
bill to provide for reimbursement to
States, municipalities, intermunicipal
agencies and interstate agencies will
meet the requirements of the program
more effectively than merely providing
for the States being able to claim pay-
ment of any portion of sums allotted or
reallotted under section 8 as previously
introduced bills would have done.
The minority members of the commit-
tee have advocated greater financial
participation by the States in the con-
struction of sewage treatment works for
many years, particularly since 1959. Due
to a great extent upon the insistence of
the minority members that additional
authorizations for appropriations should
be coupled with inducements to the
States to participate in the cost of con-
structing sewage treatment works, the
Water Quality Act of 1985 contained, for
the very first time, measures to bring
the States into the financing of the
cost of construction of sewage treatment
works under the provisions of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended. The adoption of additional in-
ducements to the States for participation
in the construction program and the
providing of procedures for Federal re-
imbursement in H.R. 16076, as reported,
are a continuation and an extension of
this long-held minority position of
greater State participation.
My bill, H.R. 13355, provided that if,
prior to commencement of construction
of any treatment works in advance of the
availability of funds for a grant under
S3ction 8 of the act, the Secretary of the
Interior approves such a project, and the
State, municipality, intermunicipality, or
inters Late agency thereafter constructs
such a project and submits an applica-
tion to the Secretary approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control
agency or agencies for a grant for such
project, the Secretary, upon his approval
oi' such application, would be authorized
to make a grant under section 8 for such
project to be paid from future appropri-
ations. The bill provides, however, that
no such grant shall be made unless all of
the provisions of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act have been complied
with to the sams extent and with the
same effect as though the grant were to
be made for future construction of the
project and that no grant shall be made
in an amount exceeding a grant which
would otherwise be made under the sec-
-------
1142
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion for the future construction of the
project.
Under the provisions of H.R. 13655,
neither an approval of the projects by
the Secretary of the Interior prior to
construction, nor the making of a grant
by the Secretary for a project to be paid
from future appropriation, nor any other
provision of the new subsection (h)
which my bill would add to section 8,
shall be construed to constitute a com-
mitment or obligation of the United
States to provide funds to make or pay
any grant for a project.
The substantive text of my bill has
been included, word for word, as section
207 of H.R. 16076, as reported by the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of this
discussion and for the benefit of the
Members, the new section 207 of the re-
ported bill reads as follows:
SEC. 207. (a) Section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new sub-
section.
" (h) If, prior to commencement of con-
struction of any treatment works in advance
of the availability of funds for a grant under
this section, the Secretary approves such
project, and the State, municipality, inter-
municipal, or interstate agency thereafter
constructs such project and submits an ap-
plication to the Secretary approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control
agency or agencies for a grant for such proj-
ect, the Secretary, upon his approval of such
application, is authorized to make a grant
under this section for such project to be paid
from future appropriations. No such grant
shall be made (1) unless all of the provisions
of this Act have been complied with to the
same extent and with the same effect as
though the grant were to be made for future
construction of the project, (2) in an amount
exceeding a grant which would otherwise be
made under this section for the future con-
struction of such project. Neither an ap-
proval of the project by the Secretary prior
to construction, nor the making of a grant
by the Secretary for a project to be paid from
a future appropriation, nor any other pro-
vision 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 a project "
(b) The amendment made by subsection
(a) of this section shall apply to any project
on which construction is initiated after June
30, 1966, except that in the case of any proj-
ect on which construction was initiated after
June 30, 1966, and before the date of enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary may approve
such project for the purposes of section 8(h)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
subsequent to the commencement of con-
struction.
The inclusion of provisions establish-
ing reimbursement procedures for the
construction of sewage treatment works
recognizes in legislation for the first time
that the Federal Government needs to
provide some procedures for reimburse-
ment to those entities which are moving
ahead with their construction programs
at a rate in excess of the availability of
Federal funds to participate in such con-
struction, while at the same time giving
notice that such provisions shall not be
construed to constitute a commitment or
obligation of the United States to pro-
vide funds to make or pay any grant
for a project to be funded from future
appropriations.
While keeping in mind that the new
subsection 8(h) does not constitute a
commitment or obligation of the United
States, it will permit many States, mu-
nicipalities, intermunicipal agencies, and
interstate agencies who are meeting their
responsibilities in the area of water pol-
lution control with determined efforts to
clean up their rivers and streams and
who have, consequently, accelerated
their construction programs to continue
or even further accelerate those pro-
grams with the understanding that reim-
bursements provisions are contained in
the law.
Hopefully, with the incentives to the
States contained in the reported bill this
year, and with means for reimbursement
available, if this bill is enacted, along
with the incentives to the States con-
tained in the Water Quality Act of last
year, many more States will accelerate
their construction program. Water pol-
lution is a problem which must be met
with by the exercise of responsibility on
all levels of government—Federal, State,
and local. This can only be done effec-
tively through making it worthwhile for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1143
the States to participate in the construc-
tion of sewage treatment works.
As I have already pointed out, section
207 of the reported bill provides for re-
imbursement for the construction of any
treatment works initiated after June 30,
1986, in advance of the availability of
funds for a grant, subject to five quali-
fications which have been spelled out in
the committee report on the bill, Houss
Report No. 2021. Thess five qualifica-
tions are:
First. The Secretary of the Interior
must approve the project prior to com-
mencement of construction, except for
projects initiated after June 30,1966, and
before the date of enactment of this act
which he may approve subsequent to
commencement of construction.
Second. The State or appropriate
agency which constructs the project
must submit an application to the Secre-
tary, approved by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency, for a
grant for the project.
Third. Upon his approval of the appli-
cation, the Secretary is authorized to
make a grant for such project to be paid
from future appropriations.
Fourth. All provisions of the act must
have been complied with to the same ex-
tent and with the same effect as though
[p. 24599]
the grant were to be made for future
construction of the project.
Fifth. The approval of the project by
the Secretary, or the making of a grant,
shall not be construed to constitute a
commitment or obligation of the United
States to provide funds.
This reimbursement provision applies
to grants made under the authority of
section 8, as amended, and does not apply
to grants under title II of the clean river
restoration program.
Mr. Chairman, the inclusion of provi-
sions for reimbursement for the con-
struction of sawage treatment works is
a step forward in this highly important
program.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that limiting
this to what our present evidence and
present experience shows probably is the
maximum capability for these communi-
ties in sawage treatment plants for the
next four years is a wise move. Should
evidence be brought to the attention of
Congress in future years that additional
money is needed in those future years,
we can then consider that additional
evidence.
I ask for support by the House of this
bill. I hope it will pass unanimously, as
did the bill last year, which was a major
step in cleaning up America's streams.
STUDY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TAX
INCENTIVES TO INDUSTRY
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Pub-
lic Works included a new section 211 of
the bill, H.R. 16076, the Water Pollution
Control Act of 1966. The new section
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a full and complete investiga-
tion and study of methods for providing
incentives designed to assist in the con-
struction of facilities and works by in-
dustry designed to reduce or abate water
pollution. The 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 the
study, the Secretary of the Interior shall
consult with the Secretary of the Treas-
ury as well as the head of any other ap-
propriate department or agency of the
Federal Government.
As the new section 211 is written, as
reported, there is no date by which the
Secretary is to make the report to Con-
gress. I understand the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. HARSHA] will offer an amend-
ment, at the appropriate time in today's
consideration of the bill, to require the
Secretary to make the report to Congress
on or before June 30, 1968. I hope this
amendment is accepted by the leader-
ship, and I am confident that it will be
accepted by them.
The inclusion of this amendment, its
enactment, and the subsequent report of
the Secretary should aid the Congress
greatly in determining what the role of
-------
1144
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
industry should be in the overall effort
to clean up America's waterways.
This amendment brings to the fore
the overall question of tax incentives to
industry for the construction of sewage
treatment works, and at this point in
my remarks today, I will not dwell at any
great length on it; however, in the near
future I intend to make a detailed ex-
planation of this entire area of water
pollution control to the Members for
their benefit. The action just taken by
the House to exclude facilities for air
and water pollution control from the
suspension of the tax investment credit
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
does not go to the center of this overall
issue on such facilities, although it is a
landmark in the recognition by Congress
of the need to provide for accelerated
amortization of air and water pollu-
tion treatment facilities constructed by
industries.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. REID of New York. I commend
the gentleman in the well for this state-
ment and for his initiative and work on
the committee. I riss in support of this
legislation; however I should like to ask
him a question about the formula.
As I understand it, if there is no State
matching of individual project grants,
the formula would be 30 percent or $2.4
million for an individual project, which-
ever is the smaller of the two.
Mr. CRAMER. That is under the
present law, Public Law 560, as amended.
Mr. REID of New York. Under the
present law. Then it would be 30 per-
cent or $9.6 million for two or more
municipalities, whichever figure is the
smaller of the two. And if there is a
State matching grant of 30 percent, the
dollar limitation would be removed en-
tirely and the Federal share would go
to 40 percent, and additionally it would
go to 50 percent if there were a river
basin approach.
Mr. CRAMER. That is correct.
Mr. REID of New York. In other
words, in the case of New York, which
has a $1.7 billion program, this would
permit a matching of either 40 or 50
percent, depending upon the approach of
the State or States.
Mr. CRAMER. So long as the State
matching equaled 25 percent of the total
cost of the project.
Mr. REID of New York. I wish to say
that I believe the new Federal matching-
grant formula is a significant advance
which is very important to our State and
to Westchester County and Long Island
Sound. I commend the gentleman for
his statement.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman.
Of course, this effort to get the States
into the picture is a result of the work
last year. This 10-percent incentive, I
believe, will result in the States coming
into the picture more and more. It will
have the effect of a partnership program,
Federal-State-local, and also it will
have the effect of cutting back the Fed-
eral money needed in the future.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. CLEVELAND. I am glad that
attention is being paid to the fact that
in this legislation a significant advance
is being made in encouraging those
States which are already doing some-
thing in this area to do more and encour-
aging those States doing nothing to come
into the picture.
As the gentleman knows, we discussed
this at great length in the committee and
during a good many sessions of that
committee. I believe that one of the
really significant features of this legisla-
tion is the extra 10-percent incentive
grant given to States, such as my own
State of New Hampshire, which have
already gotten into this with both feet.
As the gentleman knows, New Hamp-
shire has the largest contribution of any
State in the Union. It is now up to 40
percent. There are other States which
are up to 30 percent.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1145
This extra 10-parcent bonus under this
act I believe is one of the most significant
phases of the legislation.
The gentleman from Florida is to be
commended, along with the other mem-
bers of the committee, for helping me to
get this feature into the bill and to keep
it in the bill.
New Hampshire also gives a property
tax abatement for pollution abatement
installations by private industries. This
is why I have proposed and fought for
a Federal tax credit as an incentive to
industry to join the battle against pollu-
tion and to follow New Hampshire's
lead. Our action earlier today in adopt-
ing the Byrnes amendment to continue
the investment tax credit for pollution
abatement installation is a step in this
direction.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is cor-
rect. I congratulate the gentleman for
the services he rendered not only to his
State but also to the Nation in providing
for these incentive additional amounts
not only to his State but to other States.
I believe this is the key, really, to
effective programs in the future. I con-
gratulate the gentleman.
The gentleman also supported the
effort, in section 207, to reimburse for
projects already constructed under
proper conditions, which is a matter the
gentleman in the well was quite inter-
ested in.
The gentleman from New Hampshire
[Mr. CLEVELAND] has helped the com-
mittee with his knowledge in the pollu-
tion abatement field. Apparently, his
State is a leader in this respect, and the
gentleman's long experience in the New
Hampshire State Senate has brought
fresh insights to the work of our com-
mittee. He can take full measure of
credit for the 10-percent bonus incentive
features of this legislation for which he
fought and argued persuasively in com-
mittee. The people of his district should
be proud of him and the Nation gratified
for his contributions.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Indiana.
Mr. HALLECK. It is late, and I do
not wish to prolong the debate, but I
wish to remark, as I suppose almost the
newest member of the great Committee
on Public Works, it has been a real
pleasure for me to work along with the
other members of the committee in the
development of this bill. I am happy to
see it brought to passage today. I am
sure it will be good for the whole
country.
[p. 24600]
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentle-
man from Indiana.
I wish to say that I am proud, and
rather humble, I might add, to be serv-
ing on the committee with the gentle-
man. It is the way things go in
Washington that I have seniority on the
committee greater than that of the gen-
tleman from Indiana. The gentleman
has done a tremendous job in working
not only on the water pollution control
bill but also on many other matters
before the Public Works Committee. I
for one am doubly proud to have him
as a member of that committee.
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. REID of New York. I should like
to thank the gentleman and also the
majority for the new formula of assist-
ance they are giving to the State of New
York. In its first 6 months the pure
water program had already expended
$493 million. I believe the additional
help authorized in this bill will be vital
to the New York program and highly
consistent with what we are trying to
do in the State of New York.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank tha gentleman.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, again, I am pleased to be able to
-------
1146
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
rise in support of legislation designed to
improve the water quality in America.
As we present this bill to the House to-
day, it makes me proud to be one of the
members of the Public Works Commit-
tee. With the gentleman in the well [Mr.
CRAMER], expressing himself in his usual
articulate manner, I think it is appro-
priate to recognize him for his outstand-
ing work on this legislation. Also, I
want to compliment the chairman of our
subcommittee [Mr. BLATNIK] for per-
mitting the committee to work its will.
Because of this, we again have been able
to report a bill out unanimously and I
will predict the vote on this bill by the
full House will be unanimous as it was
last year.
I will not take the time to repeat what
has been presented so ably by Mr.
BLATNIK and Mr. CRAMER. However, I
would like to place emphasis on a couple
of points.
First of all, in describing this bill, I
truly believe it could have been more
accurately labeled as the "Water Quality
Incentive and Inducement Act of 1986."
I say this because of the emphasis on
providing grant incentives to States,
communities, and counties to move for-
ward in the development of water pol-
lution control programs. This should'
prove to be very successful in helping
these political subdivisions resolve some
of their most pressing problems. Also,
I am pleased with the fact that our com-
mittee accepted my amendment, which
is section 211 of the bill, to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
full and complete investigation and
study of methods for providing incen-
tives to assist in the construction of
facilities and works by industry to re-
duce or abate water pollution. The
study will include, but not be limited to,
the possible use of tax incentives as well
as other methods of financial assistance.
Today the tax bill just passed gives rec-
ognition to this objective so we are mak-
ing great progress.
While I am on this particular point,
I do want to recognize the present and
contemplated nationwide effort being
carried forward by the League of
Women Voters addressed specifically to
the question "Should financial help be
given by the Federal Government to
private companies as incentive and as-
sistance in meeting the cost of water
pollution abatement?" I believe their
effort is very timely and I commend
them for their interest and activity—
they are rendering a very valuable
service.
During the committee hearings, the
new director and chairman of the Water
Resources Committee for the league, a
Mrs. Donald Clusen, of Green Bay, Wis.,
appeared and testified before our Public
Works Committee. We were all tremen-
dously impressed with her excellent
testimony. We all felt that her presen-
tation was very realistic and I believe
this bill, as now presented to the House
for approval, is a reflection of her point
of view. Mr. CRAMER and I both felt that
to enact a law is one thing but "tooling
up for implementation" of that law is
another. It takes a certain amount of
time for the communities and States to
find, hire, and train the type of qualified
personnel to carry out the administration
of the program.
Mrs. Clusen said, very wisely:
We would like to see the programs estab-
lished by the present laws given a longer
trial
In view of her excellent testimony, I
would like to include her full remarks
in the RECORD at this point because as
the record is built here today, it would
not be complete, in my judgment, unless
it included her full statement.
Mr. WRIGHT. We have a very pleasant task
to bring before the committee Mrs. Donald
K. Clusen, director and chairman of the
Water Resources Committee of the League of
Women Voters of the United States.
The League of Women Voters is an organi-
zation which has been crying in the wilder-
ness for oh these many years, on behalf of
pure water, to eliminate contamination of
our streams.
Of all the organizations that appear before
us, it is probably the most nonpartisan and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1147
in many cases the most constructive The
League of Women Voters is an organization
that has no particular axes to grind Your
activities do not benefit your own members
any more than they benefit the Nation as a
whole, so it is an honor always to have a rep-
resentative of this splendid organization with
us, and we want you to take whatever time
you desire, and we are anxious to hear from
you.
If you would like, Mrs Clusen, to present
the other ladies who are with you
Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you, Mr Chairman
As the new chairman of the Water Resources
Committee of the League of Women Voters
of the United States, I find your introduction
most heartwarming.
STATEMENT OF MRS. DONALD E CLUSEN, DIRECTOR
AND CHAIRMAN OF THE WATEB RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. CLUSEN. In a sense, I am fresh from
the halls of the State legislature and appear-
ing before legislative committees, but the
thought of appearing before this august con-
gressional committee has been upsetting me
for a couple of days. However, it has been a
most interesting experience.
I am Mrs Donald E. Clusen of Green Bay,
Wis., an elected director of the League of
Women Voters of the United States.
I am the spokesman for the 146,000 mem-
bers organized in 1,227 local leagues in ihe
50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the District of Columbia
Although this is my first opportunity to
represent the League of Women Voters at a
congressional hearing, since 1960 I know that
a number of preceding chairmen of the
league's water committee have been here to
appear in support of improvements and ad-
ditions to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. In their local communities and in
their States, also, our members have been
working for stronger laws, for better enforce-
ment, and for additional financing to mitigate
water pollution.
As you probably know, league stands are
the outgrowth of study, discussion, and con-
sensus by league members in local meetings.
Our current position on water resources was
most recently confirmed at our national con-
vention in May of this year, when the 1,343
voting delegates sent by their local and State
leagues approved this statement, and I
quote.
"The League is convinced that the pro-
gram of federal aid to local communities,
expiring this year, has been a great incentive
for the installation of sewage treatment
plants which should be continued and ex-
panded We believe that our large cities have
not benefited under the program to the extent
that they should, since the cost of projects
to meet their needs are far in excess of grants
allowable under existing law. We have sup-
ported proposals for federal research and
recognize that more research is needed on
treatment methods for new pollution prob-
lems but we are convinced that research
efforts should not be unnecessarily duplicated.
We have supported efforts to make our states
sirong and to approach water resource prob-
lems on a regional or river-basin basis. Leg-
islation which will help to strengthen state
government and help comprehensive plan-
ning by a regional approach is approved in
principle "
The League of Women Voters prefers to
see local governments make a strong effort
to bear the cost of good waste management;
and league members often back this prefer-
ence by hard work to pass local sewer and
treatment facility bond issues We encour-
age State assistance to lower jurisdictions;
for example, the leagues in New York State
made a great effort to build support for
proposition 1, the State's pure waters bond
issue. Leagues carry on this work; not be-
cause their numbers fear "big government"
on the Federal level, but because they have
agreed upon the principle of shared financial
responsibility in water resource development.
It is for this same reason that the League
of Women Voters of the United States, since
1960, has steadily supported Federal grants
for sewage facility construction.
The Water Quality Act has added greatly
to the work the responsible State agencies
should be doing. Since this additional re-
sponsibility was placed on the States by
action of the Congress, particularly by ihe
House, it seems appropriate that additional
Federal funds be used to help States carry
out their new standard-setting duties. The
league therefore supports the proposal to
[p. 24601]
double Federal aid to States and interstate
agencies for establishing and maintaining
their pollution control programs
For the standards program for interstate
waters and the cleanup schedules set by
Federal enforcement conferences to be effec-
tive, much more money must be spent,
especially by medium and large cities, for
whom Federal aid has been restricted be-
cause of the dollar ceiling on grants. The
league therefore supports the proposal that
Federal aid be 30 percent of construction
cost, with no dollar celling However, be-
cause we believe that interjurisdictional co-
operation and enforcement of State laws will
be improved if States help pay for pollution
abatement facilities, we would like to see
Representative BLATNIK'S "basic 'carrot and
stick' approach" apply here We suggest
that the full 30 percent of construction cost
be paid by the Federal Government when the
State agrees to match this Federal help.
-------
1148
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Tied in this way, the removal of the dollar
ceiling should act as an incentive for States
to share the responsibility for financing
necessary construction.
We also support an increase in the funds
authorized for the construction grant pro-
gram. Whether it should be the increase
proposed in H.R. 16076 and in H.R 13162 and
the companion bills is the proper amount to
get the job done and is the precise amount
for this country to invest for control of mu-
nicipal water pollution, we neither know nor
have the factual basis for judging. In fact,
it would be presumptuous for us to state an
exact figure.
We therefore welcome inclusion in H.R.
16076 of the proposal for a detailed study of
the cost and economic impact of attaining
and maintaining water quality standards as
established under Federal and State law.
It seems only commonsense to encourage
States and localities to move ahead on
cleanup as rapidly as they can. We therefore
support the idea of authorizing reimburse-
ment to States and local governments which
prepay project costs, during the time of this
construction grant authorization.
Many league members have attended en-
forcement conferences in their own river
basins, and at the invitation of State con-
ferences league representatives have testified
at a number of these conferences. More
specifically, in the Lake Erie Commission, the
Michigan one and the Connecticut River.
While this may pose some difficulties in
scheduling, and so forth, we think this is
outweighted by the advantages of wider in-
volvement and the presentation of the full
range of information We believe that the
citizens of each basin have knowledge and
understanding of the problems and should
have an opportunity to express them at vhese
conferences
In the Lake Erie Basin, where leagues have
been studying regional pollution problems,
some of our members found it hard to under-
stand why information on industrial waste
discharge was so difficult to obtain They
were encouraged when, at the time of the
Federal enforcement conference in Cleveland,
a number of companies volunteered to supply
the Federal pollution control agency with
information about discharges from their
plants. With industrial wastes becoming an
ever bigger part of the U S. pollution prob-
lem, we think the time has come when the
quantity and quality of industrial as well as
municipal wastes must be known to Ihose
responsible for water quality management
The league supports the modest proposal of
H R. 16076 that such reports be required
If the needed information can be obtained
in this way, the Secretary may not need
the subpena power which is proposed in a
number of other bills.
For the past 10 years the League of Women
Voters of the United States has been inter-
ested in governmental machinery for river
basin planning and administration, and as
part of this concern the league worked for
passage of the Water Resources Planning Act.
It has been our belief that planning should
be long range and comprehensive. We would
be as reluctant to see pollution control sepa-
rated from other elements of basin water
management as we have been to see planning
for basin flood control or navigation carried
out without proper concern for water quality.
We expect planning for pollution control to
be an integral part of a comprehensive plan
prepared by any river basin commission
created under title II of the Water Resources
Planning Act.
We have been saying for many years that
rivers are not respecters of jurisdictional
lines, and from the time we adopted a posi-
tion in favor of river basin planning back
In 1958, leagues in different cities and in dif-
ferent States have worked together in inter-
league river basin groups. We organized our
own river basin groups, and we organized
our own organizations to examine the prob-
lems and work for their remedies with the
welfare of the entire basin in mind.
No organization is more convinced than the
league that pollution control needs to be
planned in terms of the whole river, that
citizens and governments in the basin must
move beyond planning stages into joint ac-
tion and then must continue united effort
for improved water quality management for
the entire basin. Many leagues have been
trying in various ways to carry Lhis message
to their communities and their elected officials
Because of our conviction of the need ior
interjurisdictional planning and projects, the
league has supported the bonus for projects
conforming to a metropolitan plan and the
larger amount of aid made available when
municipalities combine their grants. How-
ever, we question the value of creating a
special planning commission as proposed in
H R. 16076. Is this needed? Cannot States
and local governments set up permanent ar-
rangements to handle basin pollution now?
We think it may add to the confusion to have
the Secretary initiating single purpose river
basin planning commissions at the same time
that, at the request of the Governors, the
President is creating comprehensive river
basin planning commissions. We agree with
many of the aims of the administration's
"Clean Rivers Restoration Act," H.R. 13104,
but these proposals seems to us to be poorly
attuned to the workings of local government.
For this reason and because we ihink this is
not the time to crystallize these aims into
Federal law, the league does not support this
bill
We have considered the recommendations
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1149
for stronger enforcement as proposed in a
number of bills presently before this com-
mittee The league wants communities to
be required to live up to Federal and State
statutes and regulations affecting water
quality, just as we want to see Federal in-
stallations required to set a good example
in this respect. Our members realize that
industrial pollution must be controlled.
However, at the present stage in the devel-
opment of water quality management, we
think that emphasis should be placed on
Federal encouragement, for we believe that
where the public is aroused, as it certainly is
in the Lake Erie Basin, and as seen in the
testimony of the Cleveland mayor, financing
remains the obstacle to be overcome. For
this reason, the league does not .support the
proposals to strengthen Federal enforcement
provisions at this time.
We would like to see the programs estab-
lished by the present laws given a longer
trial. We believe that research and develop-
ment, State pollution control programs,
treatment facility construction, the program
for standards for interstate waters, and ihe
Federal enforcement possible under the Fed-
eral law must go strongly forward and be
given an adequate try. We agree that the
time has come to provide specifically for
studies of estuaries and pollution from
vessels and boats, particularly on the Great
Lakes. We believe that the Nation is ready
to move and that the Federal incentive pro-
gram is the level
We have already listened with interest lo
comments here on proposals to provide finan-
cial incentives to industry for the treatment
of their waste. I think you will be inter-
ested to know that the league is currently
involved in studying these proposals and
seeking from its members in their local units
an expression of opinion on this subject by
January 3 of next year
If agreement is reached either for or
against this philosophy, we will be present-
ing this to you in the next session of Congress
and in various State legislatures.
I live on a polluted river, as you know if
you know Green Bay, and I have seen what
happened to recreation and tourism, to a
municipality, to industry, as a result, and
although my State has recently adopted
progressive authority on legislation to remedy
conditions, we in the league throughout ihe
United States firmly believe that Federal
funds, Federal enforcement, and govern-
mental cooperation are essential to the solu-
tion We commend you gentlemen of this
committee for what you have done in the
past, and we anticipate with confidence what
you will do in the future in the prevention
of pollution and the protection of American
streams
Mr. WRIGHT. Mrs. Clusen, I know I 3peak
for the entire committee in expressing our
gratitude to you and to the organization you
have represented, for your testimony today
and for that which you and your associates
in the League of Women Voters have done so
effectively down through the years in at-
tempting to call the public attention to ihe
demonstrable need for cleaning up our
rivers
I want to ask one or two brief questions
on the comments you have made.
You made reference in your statement to
industrial pollution, the difficulty of obtain-
ing specific information as to the sources and
volume of pollutants that enter streams
from specific industries.
A little later on you declared that your
organization does not favor the somewhat
punitive approaches of increased penalties
for pollution of streams.
You are aware, I am certain, of a vast in-
crease in industrial pollution that has oc-
curred during the last several years in which
it certainly seems likely to continue and
grow If we are not to improve the problem
of industrial pollution through a system of
penalties upon those who willfully pollute a
stream or to fail through inaction to clean
up their wastes before dumping them into
the rivers, what would you recommend as
the best approach toward this, and how do
we go about encouraging—if that is the
word—encouraging industry to clean up its
rivers, its wastes before it dumps them into
the rivers?
Mrs CLUSEN In the first place, in the
beginning of your questioning, I believe you
are tying this, Mr. Chairman, to my state-
ment about difficulty of obtaining informa-
tion—and, of course, following this we are
supporting the proposal that these reports
be required, and saying that we think, how-
ever, that we could give this a trial before
saying that the Secretary should have
subpena power.
As far as increasing Federal enforcement—
and I think probably when I used the \vord
"encouragement"—basically I was talking
about the same thing with a somewhat
different philosophical concept.
I think it is the feeling of the league that
there may come a time when stronger en-
forcement is needed But we do think that
the machinery exists light now to encour-
[p. 24602]
age—and the funding exists, if it is increased
as we hope it will be—that the machinery
and the money exists now to get some results
as far as industrial pollution is concerned;
and that maybe this needs another 1 years
before it is necessary to increase enforcement
This is very much a problem in the area
where I live, where industrial pollution—
particularly the papermill variety—is quite
-------
1150
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
a problem; but I think that some ol the
very progressive gentlemen who are head-
ing this or these industries are working
very hard to try to cope with this problem
as fast as they can.
I think that all we are saying is wait a lit-
tle while longer before we come or become
too punitive about it.
Mr WRIGHT. Thank you I do not think
I have any other questions Do other mem-
bers of the committee desire to question15
Mr. CRAMER. My comment and questions
will be very brief. I want to congratulate
you and the league. I think this is one of
the most constructive and objective state-
ments that has been made before this com-
mittee on water pollution I am particularly
interested in the fact that you are going
to study the incentive possibilities related
to private enterprise, and I hope testimony
from industry yesterday was some help It
certainly was to me. I know it will be in
your deliberations.
Second, I am glad to see that you feel
this incentive approach is essential. You
know there has been some disagreement on
that in the testimony before us in that that
has been our objective for a number of years
to try to, at least some Members, to get the
States in the picture.
As I gather from your testimony, you think
that is essential, do you not9
Mrs CLUSEN And not only the States, we
approach the opinion of sharing financing
We believe there should also be local in-
volvement as much as possible.
Mr. CRAMER. The suggestion on the sub-
pena power is one more or less consistent
with the position of Congress last year, and
I think that is extremely well taken
We do have the basic problem, however, in
the context of your statement, if we decide
that that is the approach to take, as it relates
to how much money is available to do the
job, how much of that the States should put
in, and where normally it would come from.
The Senate has passed a $6 billion bill The
administration has suggested they might be
willing to go as far as $3 46 billion bill just
recently
The initial approach of the administra-
tion was not to provide increased construc-
tion grants for sewage treatment plants this
year. It is a dilemma our committee has.
What do you think we ought to do'
Mrs CLUSEN I have a basic confidence
that you will be able to reconcile these fig-
ures, and that you will find it proper to rec-
ommend as much as you think we can aflord
at this time
Mr CRAMER I appreciate your answer; and
I realize that it is our problem I will not
ask you to be more definitive
You have been very helpful to us.
Mrs CLUSEN Thank you.
Mr CLAUSEN. Mr Chairman, I want to
join the commendation as expressed by Mr.
CRAMER, to the fact that we have the name
similarity makes it all the more enjoyable
that we would have the fine testimony by
the lady from the League of Women Voters.
In your testimony on page 4, you refer to
the fact that—this is at the bottom of the
page-
"Cannot States and local governments set
up permanent arrangements to handle basin
pollution now?"
You may be pleased to know I gave a sim-
ilar speech in my own congressional district
where we have two large river basins: and it
follows essentially the recommendations you
have made here
What we have used is the establishment
of a so-called joint exercise of power agree-
ment among the various communities or the
counties involved, and I would be inclined
to send the League of Women Voters a copy
of my speech in this regard.
Mrs CLUSEN We would be very glad to
have it.
I support H.R. 16076 as it has been
amended and reported by our Commit-
tee on Public Works. Under the pro-
visions of this bill, the next logical step
in the ever-increasing effort to end the
wasteful and unnecessary pollution of
this country's waters has been taken.
The Federal Government has long
played a leading role in the improvement
of our rivers and harbors and has
financed and directed irrigation and
flood control projects since the early
1900's; however, it was not until 1956
under the Eisenhower administration
that the first comprehensive Federal
Water Pollution Control Act was en-
acted. Under this act, grants were made
to States and interstate agencies for
water pollution control activities, and to
municipalities for the construction of
sewage treatment works. Also, a per-
manent procedure for governing Federal
abatement action against interstate pol-
lution was established.
Although the 1956 act was a good
beginning and laid a firm foundation for
future action, it soon became apparent
that, if this program were to be success-
ful, there would have to be greater State
financial participation in the construc-
tion of sewage treatment works. Thus,
since 1959, the Republican members of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1151
the Committee on Public Works have
insisted that any increase in the funds
authorized for Federal grants must be
used to accelerate needed construction
by offering an inducement to the States
to participate in the cost of treatment
plants.
H.R. 16076, as reported by the commit-
tee, accepts this principle. It contains
substantial inducements to the States to
participate in the cost of projects under
both the accelerated existing program
and the proposed clean rivers program.
Thus, if a project is a part of an approved
plan for a river basin, coastal waters,
bays, or lakes, it is eligible for an incen-
tive grant of 10 percent above the basic
30-percent grant, and with no dollar
limitation. The grant also may be in-
creased by and additional 10 percent if
the State agrees to contribute 25 percent
for all projects under this program. This
provision for incentive grants will bring
the States more actively into the pro-
gram, will reduce the need for future
Federal funds, and will encourage local
communities to provide adequate sewage
treatment facilities.
Certainly the amounts that are made
available for Federal grants must bear
some relationship to the ability of the
States and local communities to utilize
such grants. The amounts which would
be authorized by this bill are, we believe,
the maximum that can be used wisely.
Moreover, a massive Federal program
could hinder rather than help the over-
all effort by encouraging the States and
local communities to believe that the
Federal Government has taken over the
water pollution problem and little or no
effort on their part is required.
This bill, aside from, providing for
basin planning, is primarily an expan-
sion of the existing Federal program of
grants for construction of municipal
sewage treatment plants. It does not
attempt to solve the pollution problems
that arise from the many sources unre-
lated to municipal sewage. Thus, the
cleaning up of the rivers of the Nation
unrelated to the treatment of municipal
sewage will be the result of the pollution
abatement enforcement provision and
requirements for water quality stand-
ards in the existing law.
Through the adoption of my amend-
ment, the committee has in this bill laid
the foundation for possible future legis-
lation that could provide for additional
pollution control and abatement. Under
section 211 of this bill, the Secretary of
the Interior is directed to conduct an
investigation and study of methods for
providing incentives to assist in the
construction of facilities and works by
industry to reduce or abate water pollu-
tion. This study shall include the pos-
sible use of tax incentives as well as
other methods of financial assistance.
The bill also provides for 70 percent
Federal grants for research and demon-
stration projects for prevention of pol-
lution of waters by industry. These
provisions are highly desirable. They
may point the way to a future solution
of the pollution problems created by
industry. Such a solution must and will
be found, and this provision is an impor-
tant first step.
In this period of extreme inflationary
pressures and excessive Federal expend-
itures, every proposed increase in
Federal spending must be carefully con-
sidered. This bill would authorize the
administration-recommended appropri-
ation of $2.45 billion for the fiscal years
1967-71. However, this authorization
must be contrasted with the $6 billion
authorization for fiscal years 1967-72
which is contained in the Senate-passed
measure. Moreover, it will fund a pro-
gram that has been carefully devised to
assist in solving a serious situation that
demands immediate action. Under the
provisions of this bill, the States, the
cities and the communities will be en-
couraged to do their share in combating
the common problem of water pollution.
I believe that the importance and the
urgency of this task justifies the expend-
iture of the proposed fund. I, therefore,
urge the enactment of H R. 16076.
Mi. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank
-------
1152
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the gentleman very much, and I yield to
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
GROVER].
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, I want
to associate myself with what the gentle-
man from California just said. Coming
from the trailblazing State of New York
in the field of water pollution, I am
thoroughly pleased to see the committee
do what it has done. When I got on this
committee several years ago there were
very wide ranging differences in dealing
with this matter of pollution. It has
taken a great deal of persistence and pa-
tience on the part of the gentleman in
the well as well as all of the members on
this side and the other side of the aisle.
[p. 24603]
That persistent patience has brought
forth a piece of legislation here which
will do great things for this country. I
hope that the other body, when we get
into conference on this bill, will realize
the great pains that both sides on this
committee have gone to to bring out a
truly bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. GRAY].
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the distinguished subcommittee chair-
man [Mr. BLATNIK] for yielding me this
time, and I want to take the opportunity
to commend the very able and outstand-
ing gentleman from Minnesota as well
as the chairman of the full committee
[Mr. FALLON], and the ranking minority
member [Mr. CRAMER], for doing an out-
standing job on this bill. I know of no
piece of legislation before the House that
has been more thoroughly discussed in
hearings and in the markup of the bill
than has the bill presently pending be-
fore the House. It is a good piece of leg-
islation and the country needs it badly.
I urge all of our colleagues to vote in the
affirmative on this very important piece
of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee, this is a very important piece
of legislation.
This bill would provide for the devel-
opment of basin pollution control and
abatement plans through the establish-
ment of additional incentives; by in-
creasing grants under the existing
program for waste treatment; would
provide reimbursement for projects
starting after June 30, 1966; would
authorize studies of cost estimates, ad-
ditional State personnel, financial assist-
ance to industry, research on industrial
wastes, and estuaries; as well as other
minor provisions.
This bill contains, in the judgment of
our committee, those features which are
now necessary to accelerate as much
as possible the water pollution control
program. It increases the Federal par-
ticipation more than seven times. It
introduces a new concept of incentives
which will move the program forward
that much faster.
It is the first bill to attack the problem
with the amounts of money commensu-
rate with the size of the job to be done.
Mr. Chairman, several proposals were
pending before the committee which
were considered. The administration
proposal provided for $3.45 for construc-
tion grants for the 6-year period 1967-72.
The bill as passed the Senate provided
$6 billion for the 6-year period 1967-72.
The present bill reported by the commit-
tee provided $2.45 billion for 5 years.
The committee, in arriving at the total
figure of $2.45 billion, made a careful
analysis in its efforts to arrive at a figure
which would more realistically lie in the
same range as the amounts which could
actually be used over the next few years.
Available information indicated that
there are not enough projects ready for
the utilization of the sums contemplated
under the Senate proposal, due partly to
a lack of readiness in the completion of
planning, design, and specifications, and
partly to the fact that even when plans
are completed the financial resources of
the States or the local communities are
not sufficient to supply their share in a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1153
program in which the Federal Govern-
ment would so markedly increase its
participation.
The incentive grants provided for in
the bill are based on two things: First,
a new concept of an approved basin plan
known as a clean rivers program; and
second, State participation. Under each
program there will be made available
a 10-percent incentive grant, or a total
of 20-percent incentive grant for partici-
pation in both programs.
In connection with research and de-
velopment, the committee feels that this
program has been strengthened by first,
industrial research; second, estuarine
research; and third, by including all re-
search under one authority. The total
authorization, which under the present
law has no ceiling, has been set by the
committee at $75 million per yei.r for
the fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969, plus
$1 million per year for the same years
for a new study of estuaries. The com-
mittee feels that every new avenue
should be explored in the quest for solu-
tion of the many pollution problems this
Nation faces, and waste problems require
the active involvement of industry itself
which has intimate knowledge of manu-
facturing and other industrial processing
operations.
Mr. Chairman, the necessity for early
and favorable action by the Congress on
this subject is vital. In closing, I want
to commend the very able and distin-
guished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK], the subcommittee chairman
and [Mr. FALLOW], the full committee
chairman, along with the gentleman
from Florida [Mr, CRAMER], the ranking
minority member, for their hard work
on this bill. It has been a real pleasure
to work with these distinguished legisla-
tive leaders in bringing out this impor-
tant legislation. I hope it will pass
overwhelmingly.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I want
to join the gentleman in his comments
and thank him for his splendid partici-
pation in our deliberations. I also want
to thank all of the Members not only on
our side but on the other side for the
splendid cooperation they have shown.
Particularly, I wish to include the leader
of the minority, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER], and all of the
members and staff on both sides. This
is one of the finest examples of a joint
effort on a major multibillion-dollar
proposition that I have ever seen outside
of the defense measures.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may use to the distin-
guished gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. KUNKEL].
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this legislation to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
I trust the bill will be approved over-
whelmingly. Naturally, it contains many
matters of detail giving rise to differences
of opinion.
But in the broad, overall view, Mr.
Chairman, this bill is an excellent one.
In fact, it is the best approach-—the most
realistic approach—ever devised to grap-
ple with the the most serious problem
threatening the natural resources which
sustain this great Nation. That problem
is the pollution—the slow poisoning-—of
our sources of water supply—our lakes
and rivers and streams, our under-
ground basins. It involves the question
of whether we are going to have enough
clean water in future years to maintain
a healthy and growing civilization—clean
water for drinking, for industrial proc-
esses, for recreation and for agriculture.
At this stage, it is a problem which—
more so than any other—has a direct and
fundamental bearing upon the general
welfare of our people and our future
generations. Unless all levels of Gov-
ernment act to meet the challenge, our
civilization is going to bury itself in the
waste products of its own dynamic
energy.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Govern-
ment has been concerned in meaningful
ways in the field of water pollution con-
trol for 10 years. This is the fourth
major step the Congress will have taken
in this field since 1956. It is often said
-------
1154
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the third time is the charm. It is
not my intention to downgrade the
Water Quality Act we put on the books
last year. That was good legislation. It
was the third step taken by the Congress.
But in this case, I believe, we must say
that the fourth time is the charm.
It is not that the bill before us is a
cure-all. It certainly is not that. There
are phases of the problem which it still
leaves virtually untouched. Industrial
pollution is an example. The bill does
recognize those additional aspects, of
course, and lays groundwork for future
action. It is well to remember, in that
connection, that Rome was not built in
a day.
Nor can we say this legislation goes as
far as it might even in the fields where its
greatest strengths lie. Some say much
more money should be authorized to
assist in the construction of sewage dis-
posal and treatment works. Others say
that, for the immediate future, not a
great deal more money could be spent,
anyway, because our public agencies,
our planners and builders, are not yet
geared to do so. I am inclined to agree
with the latter view.
But the important thing, Mr. Chair-
man, is the approach taken by this bill.
For the first time, I believe, we are really
coming to grips with what has to be done.
It is an approach which says that, what-
ever else we do about water pollution,
we are not actually going to be on the
road toward a solution until we start, in
earnest, to build the plants and the facil-
ities that are needed for the proper dis-
posal of wastes.
It is impossible for me to visualize how
we can have a strong and prospering
America 20 or 30 or 50 years from now
unless this building job is done. In com-
parison with that, all of the dictums
issued from Washington—all of the ju-
dicial decrees—all of the declarations of
outraged indignance—will mean little or
nothing.
[p. 24604]
Mr. Chairman, last year the Water
Quality Act became bogged down for a
time in the legislative process. The
quarrels then were over complex ques-
tions of establishing and enforcing water
quality standards.
At that time, it was my observation
that a much more important question
involved the building job that needs to
be done. I remarked:
We are not going to get very much pure
water . by sitting on the riverbank counting
the bacteria floating by.
Certainly, I do not mean to say we
should not have standards. We do need
goals and objectives to shoot for. They
help to place the problem in perspective.
They remind us how much more must be
accomplished. In that respect, I think
a quite suitable compromise was reached
last year. It encourages—almost forces
—the States themselves to undertake the
task of establishing quality criteria on
interstate waters by next year. It has
the virtue of practicality. It places the
major responsibility for setting these
goals in the hands of those who best
know the obstacles to be overcome. It
has the additional advantage of coaxing
the States into a more fruitful partner-
ship with the Federal Government and
the local communities in the field of
water pollution control.
But, in my estimation, there was an-
other provision of at least equal impor-
tance in the bill enacted last year. That
was the one increasing by 50 percent—to
$150 million a year—the amount avail-
able for construction of municipal sew-
age treatment facilities. This was a
breakthrough. Indeed, there was sup-
port for it, originally, neither from the
White House nor in the other body. It
was here in the House where it was ham-
mered out. It signified the dawn of a
new day. It was the first real act of
recognition of the immense task con-
fronting us.
This new legislation now before us is
a reaffirmation of that. It carries the
principle further. It takes the next great
stride that must logically follow. Of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1155
course, there are those who will say this
is just another case of the Federal Gov-
ernment doing nothing more than throw-
ing money at a problem. They have a
perfect right to that opinion. I would
not deny for a minute that the Congress
has done a number of things which, to
my way of thinking, amounted to not
much more than that.
But I believe there are three aspects of
this legislation on which such criticism
founders.
First. It must be obvious by now that
we are not going to clean up our rivers
and streams—and our other sources of
water supply—without spending a con-
siderable amount of money. A figure of
$100 billion often is cited as the cost to
all agencies—public and private—of do-
ing the job by 1972. When all sources of
pollution—and all remedies—are taken
into account, the cost could be much
higher. I have heard estimates ranging
all the way up to $250 billion.
Second. This bill makes a great effort
toward encouraging additional expendi-
tures by the States and local communi-
ties. This is far from a case of the
Federal Government throwing money
around indiscriminately—or shouldering
the burden alone.
As a basic rule of thumb—in the
municipal waste treatment program'—
Federal funds make up 30 percent of
project costs, local funds 70 percent.
Under this bill, the Federal share will
increase to 40 percent if there is a con-
tribution by the State amounting to 30
percent. In addition, under the provi-
sions encouraging joint development of
areawide plans by agencies within the
same river basin, there will be the same
incentive of an additional Federal
contribution of up to 10 percent for
approved projects. With State partici-
pation amounting to 25 percent, the Fed-
eral share could go up still another 10
percent—to 50 percent—under the basin
plan.
Undoubtedly, these incentives will fos-
ter a greater financial effort by the
States. How much so—and whether it
will be sufficient—are questions yet to be
answered. Despite past attempts along
this line, only 12 States are now provid-
ing assistance for municipal waste treat-
ment projects. Additional methods of
encouragement may have to be devised
and tested in the future. Obviously, we
must rely heavily on the States and local
agencies to carry the larger share of the
burden. The approximately $700 mil-
lion spent by the Federal Government on
this program since its inception in 1956
may sound like a huge sum of money.
But we must remember that it is only
about one-fourth of the amount that the
States and local communities have spent
on these projects during the same period.
A third factor that places the proposed
new money authorizations in better per-
spective is this: The House bill is the
most conservative of all proposals that
have come before the Congress this year.
For the waste treatment program, it to-
tals $2,450 million for 5 years. The ad-
ministration originally proposed a $200
million ceiling for fiscal 1967 but unlim-
ited amounts thereafter under the basin
plan. Then it came back with a revised
request for $3.45 billion for 6 years. The
Senate bill seeks $6 billion for 6 years.
But even as conservative as the House
bill is, it calls for expenditures over a
5-year period more than three times
greater than would result if the program
continued at its current rate. Moreover,
the authorization would increase year by
year until—in 1971—it would be more
than six times higher than the 1967 level.
If this is not accelerating the program
with a vengeance, I do not know what it
is.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is still the
question: Is there any assurance that
even this amount of money can be uti-
lized? For we must consider that not
only would the availability of Federal
grants grow almost geometrically; there
must also be the presumption that the
States and local communities will be able
and willing to increase their expendi-
tures in practically the same proportion.
Certainly we hope they will. We must
-------
1156
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
do everything to encourage it. But this
is where the catch is. It is going to take
time for the States and local commu-
nities to "tool up" for such a job. They
must prepare plans, make financing ar-
rangements. They are going to require
taxpayer support.
The availability of materials and quali-
fied contractors may be another limiting
factor.
The report of our Public Works Com-
mittee states that the $2.45 billion figure
"is in itself somewhat optimistic, since
it actually exceeds the amounts that
would be obtained if a truly mathemati-
cal projection was made of the data now
available on local capabilities and on the
status of planning."
Undoubtedly, if we are to lick the pol-
lution problem, greater expenditures are
going to be required. Indeed, it is likely
that the authorizations in this bill, if
enacted as proposed, will be raised be-
fore they run their course. At least it is
to be hoped that the circumstances will
warrant it. But they should not be
raised merely to figures picked out of the
air. The determinations should be based
on much harder evidence—on much
more extensive information—than we
have been shown to date.
For the purpose of gathering such data,
this bill contains a most valuable provi-
sion. It authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to make a study of the national
requirements and the costs involved in
cooperation with the various pollution
control agencies. The Secretary will
submit the initial study to the Congress
by January 10, 1968. It will cover a
3-year period beginning July 1 of that
year. The study will be updated every
year thereafter. As a method of keeping
on top of the problem—as a spur to
greater efforts and as a means of keeping
our objectives in front of us—this is a
vital provision.
Returning to my central point, Mr.
Chairman, I believe this bill places us on
the right road. It begins fully to recog-
nize the enormous building job that must
be done. I hope this will be held in mind
as we pass this bill—and that it will
remain a primary guiding principle
when the Congress moves on to addi-
tional enactments in the field of water
pollution control in future years.
Mr. Chairman, much has been said
about the urgent need for greater coop-
eration and joint efforts among the Fed-
eral Government, the States and the local
agencies in this field. Much has been
said and done about controlling the sew-
age and household wastes of our cities
and towns. These needs and problems
fall most naturally into the public sector.
As a result, they have received the great-
est attention of the public and of all
levels of government.
There are additional problems that
have received far too little attention—
despite the fact they are major contribu-
tors to the pollution of our water sources.
These include the chemical wastes from
our industries, the radioactive pollution
resulting from the mining and processing
of radioactive ores and the minerals
and pesticides and other materials
washed into rivers and lakes from our
farmlands.
[p. 24605]
By far the most serious problem among
thess, nationally, is that of industrial
pollution. In many places in this coun-
try where sswage is adequately con-
trolled, streams and rivers nevertheless
have been poisoned and made unfit for
any kind of beneficial uss—by the wastes
from manufacturing processes alone.
These pollutants are too seldom cap-
tured by municipal disposal systems and
too often turned loose wholly untreated.
By and large, proper treatment and dis-
posal of industrial wastes is an unprofit-
able and money-losing proposition. In
many cases, workable methods have not
even yet been discovered.
So besides the requirement of a more
active partnership among the various
levels of government, there is also a
crying need for a similar working rela-
tionship and cooperation between gov-
ernment and industry. By comparison
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1157
with what it does in the field of sewage
treatment and disposal, this bill can be
criticized for doing too little about in-
dustrial pollution. However, it does
take two important steps toward cor-
recting this.
First, it authorizes research grants for
the purpose of finding and developing
new methods of handling industrial
wastes. This research will not be lim-
ited to the technological phases of the
problem. It may also delve into the
question of devising practical and equi-
table means of financing treatment
works. A tremendous amount of work
remains to be done in these areas before
a massive attack on this problem can be
launched on any sure-footed and fair
and reasonable basis. Out of a total of
$75 million in each of the next 3 years
for water pollution research, the bill
allots not less than a fourth of that
amount for industrial research and dem-
onstration projects.
The second step taken in this field is
one that could lead to effective action in
the more immediate future. It author-
izes the Secretary of the Interior to make
a complete study of all possible financial
incentives for encouraging industries to
install and construct facilities to reduce
or abate water pollution. This study
will lay the foundation for any legisla-
tion the Congress may enact in the
future to provide such incentives.
In the past number of years, many
suggestions along this line have been
offered in the form of bills introduced
in the Congress. But these bills have
died. I have detected a growing feeling
in this Congress, however, that the time
has arrived for putting this type of pro-
gram into effect. A start must be made
along this path.
Incentives most often suggested have
taken two forms. One is a tax credit by
which a certain percentage of the cost of
pollution control facilities could be
deducted from a corporation's income
tax liability. The other likewise would
lighten the tax burden by providing
accelerated depreciation on facilities of
this nature. There are other approaches
that could be taken, all the way up the
line to grants and low-cost Government
loans.
Mi. Chairman, I believe little doubt
remains but that industry must be
brought in the picture, by some such
means, as a more active participant in
the fight against water pollution. Hope-
fully, the contemplated study will pro-
duce an effective way of doing this.
Certainly, at present, there is no com-
pelling reason for it to happen. Pollu-
tion control equipment is costly. In
virtually every case, it is nonproductive
and unremunerative. It is nigh on to
impossible to justify this kind of expense
to corporation stockholders interested in
profits. It is true that many companies
have expended large sums for this pur-
pose. But there is a limit as to how far
industry can go m serving goals lying
almost exclusively within the realm of
the public interest. Somewhere along
the line, we have to recognize that it is
a two-way street.
Earlier this year, I received from
Armco Steel a most instructive analysis
of this problem as it relates to that cor-
poration's own situation. Since 1950,
Armco has spent $16.9 million on air and
water pollution control facilities for its
nine plants across the country. The cost
each year of operating these facilities is
$1,560,000. Insofar as the corporation's
own fiscal picture is concerned, this is
money that has gone almost entirely
down the drain. This equipment does
not contribute directly to production.
There is minimal recovery of usable
wastes.
Moreover, to meet all of the various air
and water pollution standards, Armco
would have to spend $65 million in the
next 5 years on equipment. Its annual
cosls of operating these facilities would
go up another $6 million. There would
be no return on the capital investment
and little return on operating costs. To
put it mildly this does not shape up as
a profitable adventure for Armco.
When information like this is pro-
-------
1158
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
jected nationwide, we can begin to see
the astounding task confronting us in
the industrial field alone. Establishment
and enforcement of pollution standards
is one of the ways of striving toward a
solution. Under Federal law, for exam-
ple, abatement proceedings can be
brought against an industry whose
wastes pose a health hazard in a neigh-
boring State. This places the entire bur-
den of a solution upon the industry itself.
But there is a definite limit to this. In
my mind, it is questionable whether
such a tool can be effective unless it is
combined with a whole battery of other
remedies. If an industry finds it too
costly to operate in one area as a result
of certain standards it is expected to
meet, it can pick up and move to another
area where the circumstances or the
standards are different. That, or it
might go out of business if it is in a
marginal situation. When it comes down
to a choice between enforcing standards
and preserving the jobs that are the life-
blood of a community, it is the latter that
is likely to win out. The public inter-
est, it should be noted, can work in all
sorts of fascinating ways.
In the last analysis, the wonderful—
and, of course, often troublesome—
wheels of progress are not going to be
stopped by paper laws. In the absence
of any other reasonable give and take
between Government and industry,
abatement proceedings based on pollu-
tion standards will tend to break down
under the pressure of that progress—and
under the ravenous need of our economy
to continue expanding and providing
more and more jobs, come what may.
So, Mr. Chairman, we come back once
more to the crux of the problem. Again
I submit that is the tremendous build-
ing job we must do. The public interest,
in my estimation, undoubtedly will re-
quire that we provide incentives for
industry itself to help do that job. It
will require that we build more and
more public facilities to handle not only
industrial wastes but pollutants of every
other kind.
Time is short. Our supplies of clean
water are running short. It is estimated
that by the year 2000, this country will
require 1,000 billion gallons of water
every day to sarve its needs. Present
and contemplated developments will
provide only 650 billion gallons. It is
obvious that, to a much greater extent
than at present, this will require reuse
of the same water. Much of it will have
to be used over and over and over again.
In view of that, the pollution of this
natural resource will become more and
more intolerable. Even now, it threat-
ens the health and livelihood of people
in many areas. It is spoiling fully a
fourth of the pure water we currently
need for purposes other than irrigation,
industry and power generation. It is
turning once beautiful streams and lakes
into virtual sewer drains and cesspools.
Undoubtedly, the most repulsive ex-
ample is Lake Erie. Not long ago, Lake
Erie was a sparkling blue body of fresh,
clean water. Now it is leaden and almost
dead, choked by wastes from five major
cities, practically stripped of any recrea-
tional value and able to support only a
small fraction of the fishlife it once did.
It is said that even if all of the rivers
flowing into it were completely freed of
contaminating material, it would still
take some 20 years to flush Lake Erie
clean.
The other Great Lakes face a similar
fate unless the most stringent measures
of pollution control are effected. The
cost of cleaning up these lakes already
is placed at $20 billion.
A final point I wish to make is this:
Roughly speaking, every dollar spent for
pollution control ultimately will be a
dollar saved from the cost of water
development and distribution. Every
gallon saved from the poisoning of our
wastes is a gallon that will not have to
be obtained by other means.
Most assuredly, water development for
this country cannot afford a backward
glance. It must proceed with all of the
speed and resourcefulness at our com-
mand. No matter what we do, this Na-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1159
tion is going to be caught in a close race
between supply and demand. Our bur-
geoning population—the soaring needs
of industry and agriculture—make that
a surety.
One of the great hopes in this field is
in the desalination of sea water. Much
progress has been made since the first
saline water demonstration plants were
authorized in 1958. But the output of
these plants still is far from competitive
with our traditional sources of supply.
[p.24606]
In the not too distant future, hopefully,
converted sea water should be a boon for
our coastal cities. Before that happens,
of course, the cost must be reduced
dramatically. The research necessary to
that must be accelerated.
Above all, more efficient distribution
of the water resources we already have
is imperative. The transport of water
from areas of surplus to areas of short-
age is making rapid progress. More
will have to be done. But even in this
field, we must hold in mind that—as our
population grows and spreads—areas
now having a large surplus of water may
someday be facing shortages.
Possibly, in the distant future, it will
be necessary to import supplemental
water supplies from sources far outside
of the United States. This may become
imperative not only from the consump-
tion standpoint alone. A factor just as
important may be the need for enormous
amounts of clean water constantly to
freshen our lakes and rivers—and most
particularly our underground basins.
This is the significance of the North
American Water and Power Alliance
proposal to bring water from the great
rivers of northern Canada and Alaska.
This plan is estimated to cost $80 billion
and to require 30 years to complete.
Great difficulties are inherent in it be-
cause of the international arrangements
that would have to be made and the
concessions that might have to be
granted. In some circles, it is viewed as
a pipedream. But as our problems of
water supply and pollution mount in
future decades, it could be one of those
pipsdreams that comes true.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we
cannot put too much reliance on any one
approach. Only at the risk of deluding
ourselves can we expect to be forever
reaching out for new sources of water
where the grass seems greener. At little
or no more expense, we can salvage vast
amounts of the water we need right here
at home. We can and must get the best
possible use out of what we already
have.
Beyond these practical considerations,
this Nation's water resources are a herit-
age we are obligated to preserve. They
constitute a magnificent assat we must
treat with care if the hopes we hold for
our future generations are to material-
ize. We have a tremendous building job
ahead of us. I urge the passage of this
bill so that we can get on with that job.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. HORTON],
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I wel-
come this opportunity to add my sup-
port to H.R. 16076, which provides the
comprehensive additions and amend-
ments to the water pollution control
program. I, too, want to commend the
gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman
of the subcommittee, and the gentleman
from Maryland, the chairman of the full
Committee on Public Works, and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER],
and particularly the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. JONES] for their work in
making possible this very comprehensive
bill which is presented to us here today.
As ranking minority member of the
Natural Resources and Power Subcom-
mittee of the Government Operations
Committee, on which I have the privi-
lege of serving with Chairman ROBERT E.
JONES, I know how massive and how dif-
ficult the problems are in the pollution
field. The bill as reported by our Public
Works Committee reflects an under-
standing of these problems, and a deter-
-------
1160
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mination to deal with them promptly and
positively.
I especially want to applaud the com-
mittee's inclusion of a comprehensive
program for research in pollution abate-
ment technology. I am pleased that the
provisions of my bill, H.R. 17576, provid-
ing for 70-percent grants for research
into methods of controlling industrial
pollution, have been included in the
measure that is now before us. Under
this program, $75 million is authorized
for antipollution research for each of the
next 3 years. Twenty-five percent of
this money is earmarked for industrial
research.
While there is no question that indus-
try is responsible for much of the water
pollution we are faced with, it is also
evident that the research and vast finan-
cial outlays required to eliminate indus-
trial pollution cannot be provided by
industry alone. Further, there is serious
doubt, as evidenced by recent hearings
of the Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics, that the technological tools
needed to solve this problem are suffi-
ciently developed. Thus, it is doubly
important that we provide adequate aid
for industrial research which is needed
to develop these methods and equipment,
and to bring the solutions within our
reach. I hope that my colleagues will
give their full support to this crucial
provision of H.R. 16076.
I also support the section of this bill
which raises the maximum allowable
grant under the waste-treatment con-
struction program from $1.2 million to
$2.4 million. This will enable more mu-
nicipalities to participate meaningfully
in the grant program. Also, this bill
raises the maximum allowable Federal
participation to 40 percent where the
State contributes 30 percent of the
project cost. By lessening the burden on
local taxpayers, this will enable many
smaller cities and towns to participate
in the grant program—particularly in
States which, like New York, have es-
tablished substantial antipollution pro-
grams. Previously, significant State
participation was not coupled with this
additional Federal incentive.
As part of my duties on the Govern-
ment Operations Subcommittee on Nat-
ural Resources and Power, I have taken
part in hearings and field inspection
tours in many areas of the Nation. These
have revealed that cities and towns in
every population category are faced with
inadequate waste-treatment facilities
and inadequate funding to provide them.
The bill, which recognizes the value of
closa cooperation with States and locali-
ties in solving the pollution problem,
will enable millions more American citi-
zens to reap the benefits of our enlight-
ened Federal attack on pollution, through
positive and prompt corrective action
on the local and regional level.
Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to
propose an a-nendment to the bill here
today. In particular I wanted to talk
in terms of assistance to industries
through grants for industrial pollution
research. While this program will help
all industries overcome contamination
of natural resources, I want to point out
that many companies across the Nation
are already spending large sums of
money to control the quality of their
effluents into our lakes and streams.
Much of this effort on the part of these
companies has gone uncredited, but in-
dustry in general has been doing a fine
job in meeting its immediate respon-
sibility to help in the cleaning up of our
waterways. They have done their share
to combat pollution. This also applies to
many of the small firms. Earlier this
year I introduced H.R. 17170, which pro-
vides for a program of public recogni-
tion of industries and municipalities
demonstrating excellence in pollution
control. Under this program the Secre-
tary of the Interior would set up stand-
ards under which such recognition
awards would be given.
The awards are not financial, but sym-
bolic. The Secretary would award a flag
or certificate of suitable design—perhaps
depicting a clear drop of water—to each
industry, city or town which qualifies
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1161
under these standards.
At the same time that certain munici-
palities and firms are criticized for their
failure to take action to reduce or elimi-
nate their contamination of public
waterways, we must foster a positive
public attitude toward those who have
willingly and eagerly accepted their
responsibility to society and who have
taken adequate corrective action.
This program will provide an incentive
to industries and municipalities. On the
date the Secretary makes an award, a
public announcement would be made,
and the President and the leaders of both
Houses of Congress would be informed.
The recipient is authorized to display
publicly the flag or certificate, and may
include the flag insignia and the fact that
the award was received in its adver-
tising or other material which is pub-
licly distributed or broadcast. Thus,
recipients will be publicly singled out as
leaders in the pollution abatement effort.
There is considerable precedent in
Federal history for such a recogni-
tion award. The Defense Department
awarded an "E" award to war production
plants which made exemplary contribu-
tions to the war effort during the early
1940's. Last May, the President named
a "Small Businessman of the Year" to a
deserving recipient to demonstrate the
importance of and opportunity for small
business in the United States. During
the war, the Maritime Commission
awarded an "M" pennant for superior
production records. The Bureau of
Mines successfully used a stamp of its
approval to promote the use of safe
mining equipment.
The battle against water pollution is
one of national scope. It makes sense
to couple our research and construction
grant programs with an incentive award
program to cities and companies which
have exemplary records in waste treat-
ment and pollution control.
[p. 24607]
The idea for this program came up
during a brief stop on a helicopter pollu-
tion inspection tour which our Subcom-
mittee on Natural Resources and Power
took in the eastern Great Lakes region.
During a stop at Sodus Point, N.Y., I
talked with Mr. Leonard C. Schlee,
Wayne County clerk, who expressed
concern about the negative public atti-
tude that is building up around the pol-
lution fight. It was he who suggested to
me the analogy between a pollution
awards program and the Defense plant
"E" awards during the war. After
further discussion with local officials,
representatives of industry, and other
Members of Congress, I decided to put
his suggestion in the form of a legislative
proposal.
Since my introduction of H.R. 17170,
Congressman JAMES HANLEY, of New
York, and JIM WRIGHT, of Texas, have
sponsored similar measures, and the idea
has received praise from many sources.
Mr. Chairman, as I previously stated,
it was my original purpose to offer this
as an amendment today. I did offer this
bill in August of this year. I feel that we
have not had an opportunity as yet to
take a good look at the potential involved
so that we, perhaps, could make this
legislation even more effective.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES], chairman of the Natural
Resources and Power Subcommittee of
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, on which I serve, to comment upon
this subject matter.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORTON. I am delighted to yield
to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
HORTON] is, as the gentleman said, a
member of the Subcommittee on Gov-
ernment Operatiors, a member who has
been with the committee during its hold-
ing of hearings throughout the entire
country.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, no one has
been more diligent than has been the
gentleman in attending these hearings,
-------
1162
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and based upon the experience which
the gentleman has compiled, a bill such
as he describes certainly in my opinion
possesses merit.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
1 additional minute to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. HORTON. I yield further to the
gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I do believe that the subject mat-
ter contained in the gentleman's bill,
however, will require careful committee
consideration. Consequently, I wish to
assure the gentleman from New York
that insofar as I am concerned, as a
member of the committee, we certainly
intend to take up his proposal and ex-
plore the entire subject matter of his bill.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
JONES] for his comments.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I might say that
I have spoken with the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. BLATNIK] and the gentleman
has indicated his willingness to have the
committee take up this proposal at the
meetings of the committee during the
next session of Congress.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORTON. I am delighted to yield
to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, this is a matter
that certainly ought to be and should be
studied, but we need more time during
which to do it. However, I believe it is
too early right now, but I am very hope-
ful that we can give it adequate consid-
eration next year.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. SWEENEY].
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, I, too, would
like to join the very laudatory com-
ments of this afternoon as they bear
upon the service of our distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Public
Works, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mi. FALLON], the chairman of the sub-
committee, the gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. BLATNIK], and the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. JONES] and cer-
tainly, Mr. Chairman, the outstanding
chairman of the minority, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CRAMER], for their
unity of purpose and the cooperation that
they have displayed within the commit-
tee and on the floor in bringing to the
Houss a bill, a water pollution abatement
bill, which is one of substance and which
will certainly prove to be a historical
landmark in our effort, in the great na-
tional effort, to obtain clean water.
Mr. Chairman, although there are
many areas of needed research in the
water pollution control field, clearly the
one having highest priority is that deal-
ing with development of new and
improved technology relative to the
treatment of wastes and renovation of
waste waters. New treatment methods
must be developed for handling wastes
from all sources. Laboratory research
has demonstrated that it is now scien-
tifically possible to take any waste water
end convert it to a quality suitable for
reuse. There is, however, a big step
from laboratory research to the actual
application of these results. It requires
pilot plants, field evaluation and demon-
stration units which are quite costly.
The Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tation has already developed several
waste water reuse systems up to the pilot
scale.
There is no question that one of the
most effective and sound ways of pro-
viding the necessary water realization
of our water resource potential will be
through the mechanism of total pollu-
tion control which is the objective of the
expanded research program which we
are recommending.
Presently available waste treatment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1163
techniques are proving increasingly in-
adequate to deal with the pollution prob-
lems currently facing our Nation. They
will certainly not meet the need of the
future. The Federal Government must
take a leadership role—developing these
new techniques and must demonstrate
them on a plant scale basis. As with any
innovation, a considerable amount of
risk is involved. Since the benefits of
these new findings will be shared by our
Nation as a whole, it is quite appropriate
that Federal funds be used for this
purpose. Many municipalities and in-
dustries cannot afford the risk capital in-
volved in developing and proving these
new techniques.
There are other important research
and development needs for which in-
creased funds are necessary and will be
provided in this bill. More effective
methods are needed to measure and
predict the long range effects of pollut-
ants on all our water uses—municipal
and recreational water supplies, indus-
trial water supplies, agricultural water
supplies, and propagation of fish and
aquatic life.
We must have a vigorous research and
development program to deal with
wastes from dispersed sources which are
not readily collectible for treatment.
Techniques for control of pollution at
its source must be given increased
emphasis.
During the next 5 years, billions of
dollars will have to be spent on waste
treatment facilities for both municipal
and industrial wastes for the problems
associated with combined sewage, and
for the provision of low-flow augmenta-
tion. We must carry out an effective
research and development program to
provide needed answers for efficient and
effective pollution control.
Furthermore, it is essential that we
mass the required scientific research re-
sources needed to solve our growing
water pollution problem. The in-house
capabilities of the Federal Government
must be supplemented by the industrial
and university research resources of our
country. The amendments to the
Water Pollution Control Act would pro-
vide the necessary funds and authori-
zation to proceed with a vigorous
research and development program to
solve our water pollution problems.
The bill provides a substantial in-
crease in the funds authorized for re-
search. In addition, it adds a specific
provision designed to encourage indus-
trywide research on the treatment of
industrial wastes.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sup-
port this bill.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
HOWARD], a member of the committee,
5 minutes.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in wholehearted support of the bill, H.R.
16076.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to mem-
tion my appreciation for an exemption
that was made with respect to the pro-
cedure to be followed in the case of
regional agencies such as the Delaware
River Basin Commission and the Tennes-
see Valley Authority. These agencies are
already directed by law to adopt com-
prehensive water resource programs for
their constituent States. The language
[p. 24608]
approved by our committee makes it
possible for these agencies to submit pol-
lution control programs directly to the
Congress for approval, rather than to the
Secretary. This is a compliment to the
fine work that has been done in the past
by the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion and to our distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
THOMPSON], who commended that work
to the attention of the committee. The
Commission and the residents of the
Delaware Valley are fortunate to have
such a forceful spokes nan to present
their causa.
It is due to his efforts that the resi-
dents of Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, as
well as the counties of Mercer and Bur-
lington are so well represented here in
this Congress.
-------
1164
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. MCCARTHY].
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I
just want to compliment the committee
and say that this is a step forward in
water pollution control legislation. I
think this is an excellent bill. It means
in 5 years we will be moving from the
level of about $100 million annually to
close to $1 billion annually.
But, Mr. Chairman, along with the
"seven young Turks" on our committee
who signed separate views, I am dis-
appointed that the bill does not go far
enough.
I believe that water pollution is the
most urgent domestic problem facing our
country. The other body, by vote of 90
to 0, passed a 6-year, $8 billion bill, and
I would hope that after the conferees
meet that the House will soon find itself
voting for a conference report contain-
ing something more than we have in
this present bill. There is a great deal
of sentiment here in the House for more
money. Members recognize that this is
a very urgent, if not the most urgent,
domestic challenge we have. I would
hope that the conferees will come out
shortly with a somewhat larger amount.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. BYRNE].
Mr. BYRNE of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, one of the most important
problems facing the people of Philadel-
phia today is water pollution control.
Philadelphia has taken many important
steps toward reducing pollution in the
Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. We
have been working closely with U.S.
Geological Survey in developing instru-
ments to set up automatic testing sta-
tions on the Delaware River to determine
the quality of waters.
We have put up substantial funds in
the actual development and construc-
tion of waste treatment works. Under
our capital program, we are able to plan
5 or 6 years ahead. We have spent over
$180 million on water supply facilities,
and over $300 million in sswers and dis-
posal facilities. Three new sewage
plants are under operation on the Dela-
ware River.
Since 1948 the total cost to the city
has been $85 million for three sewage
treatment plants plus intercepting sew-
ers. If this had to be built today, you
would have to add 25 to 30 percent for
the cost.
Only a few days ago in a recent report
to the Federal Power Commission, it was
pointed out that the Delaware River
Basin has a great undeveloped potential
for lessening water shortage and for hy-
droelectric power. Let me say that I
fully agree with the members of the
House Public Works Committee that the
best answer to water shortages in the
East is to use and reuse water. This only
points up the importance of the pollu-
tion control program and the bill before
us today. I am pleased that the com-
mittee saw fit to employ the Delaware
River Basin Commission as the respon-
sible agency to deal with the pollution
problem—ssction 209 clearly states this.
Undoubtedly, H.R. 16076 will be very
beneficial to Philadelphia and the Na-
tion because it firmly commits the Fed-
eral Government to pollution control. I
urge its passage.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the distinguished gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. JONES] as much time as
he might consume.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, last year the Congress recognized
that the problem of water pollution con-
trol constitutes one of the gravest do-
mestic threats to this great Nation of
ours and its vast resources. The Water
Quality Act of 1965 was a milestone in
history because it marked the first time
in the Nation's history that we recog-
nized the need to control the pollution
of entire streams, not just segments of
our waterways. That act was the begin-
ning of the "river basin" approach to
pollution.
We need only walk a few blocks and
stand on the banks of the once unspoiled
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1165
Potomac to see what man has done to the
stream. The stench of the pollutants
permeates the air and is offensive to us.
The Potomac, however, it not the only
river in this condition. The Hudson, the
Delaware, the Savannah, and many
others all over this country are in this
condition or fast approaching this stage.
What must we do to alleviate and even
eliminate this problem? We must do
two things.
First, we must establish without delay
adequate water quality standards for our
interstate streams and hopefully for all
our waters. Last year's Water Quality
Act requires the States to act by June
30, 1967. All 50 States have indicated an
intent to do so.
Second, we must develop adequate
plans to implement and maintain and
improve the established water quality
standards. The plans must be developed
for the entire basin or a total watershed
or a lake or our coastal waters. This is
the thrust of the clean rivers restoration
program authorized by this bill.
Many of our large cities have devel-
oped near our great rivers or lakes or
coastal waters. These cities are depend-
ent on these waters for many uses. In-
dustry usss them. People usa them for
drinking, for boating, and for swimming.
Even our fish and wildlife use them.
Each of these cities is concerned with
the effects of pollution on thess usss.
Most cities cannot afford a polluted
stream. But some cities respond to the
problem quicker and try to control their
pollutants. All of them, however, pol-
lute these waters in some way. The
wastes of our community usually affect
the other communities on the stream
Thus, it is important that the effects of
all the communities on a waterway be
coordinated. Again this is the thrust of
the clean rivers approach.
This approach is new in the pollution
control field. It is admittedly untried.
The engineering and economic value of
the basin concept is, however, not new.
It is the first time that this approach has
been ussd to stimulate State and local
participation in controlling pollution.
The possibilities of this new approach
are unlimited. Coordinated and unified
efforts in attacking pollution are without
a doubt the most logical way to accom-
plish our goal of cleansing the Nation's
waterways.
The bill provides that if a basin lies
entirely within one State, that is, it
drains intrastate waters only, the Gov-
ernor of that State may develop a basin
plan. If all or part of more than one
State is within a basin, that is, if the
basin is drained by interstate waters, 50
percent of the Governors in that basin
must concur in the plan. In all cases,
it is expected that the local communities
in the basins will participate in develop-
ing the plans.
Once the plan is developed it will be
reviewed by the Federal agencies on the
Federal level. The Governors would be
expected to obtain the views of the
affected communities.
Following this review, the Secretary of
the Interior must review and approve
the plan. In the case of the Tennessee
River the plan will be developed and
approved by the Tennessse Valley Au-
thority. Similarly, in ths case of the
Delaware River Basin, the Delaware
River Basin Commission, of which Sec-
retary Udall is a member, will review
and approve the plan. All of these plans
must then be submitted to Congress for
statutory approval.
The objective of the basin approach is
clear and simple. It is to develop a uni-
fied approach to pollution control. We
want to develop comprehensive plans for
pollution control along the same pattern
followed over the years in the field of
water resources generally. To date,
waste treatment has not been considered
in terms of basin planning. The time
has come to revamp our thinking and to
try this new approach. It will not be
easy, but this docs not mean that it
should not be done. In view of the pres-
ent condition of the Nation's waters, the
basin approach looms up as not only be-
ing highly desirable, but quite necessary.
-------
1166
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The basin approach offers the commu-
nities increased Federal grants. The bill
authorizes up to 40-percent grants for
the construction of waste treatment
works without any dollar limitations if
a comprehensive pollution control and
abatement basin plan is developed in a
particular basin and approved by the
Congress. In. addition, the bill offers the
communities another increase of 10 per-
cent or a total of 50-percent Federal
grants if a basin plan is approved and the
[p.24609]
State wherein the project is located pays
25 percent of the estimated reasonable
project costs.
The principal objective of these in-
creased grants is to stimulate and to in-
tensify local and State action to develop
a meaningful coordinated approach to
pollution control. This basin approach
also will encourage economies and effi-
ciencies through adequate planning not
just on a community-by-community
basis, but on a basin basis.
In summary, this new basin approach
to the pollution problem calls for basin
planning and increased grant incentives
and offers, as in the case of the existing
law, an opportunity to shoulder more re-
sponsibility for cleaning up our Nation's
streams. This approach combined with
the opportunities offered industry by this
bill will go a long way toward reclaiming
our Nation's waters from the malignancy
of pollution.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to another distinguished member of our
committee, our dear friend from South
Carolina [Mr. DORN], such time as he
may require.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, this is
another outstanding piece of legislation
which will go down in history. I com-
mend each member of our committee
for their united efforts to bring this bill
to you today. I particularly commend
my distinguished and illustrious col-
league, the gentleman from Minnesota
JOHN BLATNIK, who is now known
throughout America as "Mr. Water Pol-
lution." This is another milestone in
his great career. It is another milestone
in the history of our great country and
the modern-day dynamic progress of our
people.
I wish to commend the chairman of
my committee, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. FALLON], and my great
and beloved colleague, the gentleman
from Alabama, BOB JONES. Mr. JONES
has studied the rivers of this country
from Maine to California, from Canada
to Mexico. With the overwhelming pas-
sage of this legislation today, we can
look forward to the day when the teem-
ing millions in American cities will have
pure water, when they will have recrea-
tion free of pollution.
Mr. Chairman, I can even foresee the
day when our children, yours and mine,
can wade and swim in the Potomac.
This bill is a States rights bill; it is a bill
with emphasis on local government; it is
a free enterprise bill; it is a bill to pro-
mote harmony and cooperation between
business and municipal, county, State,
and Federal governments. This bill is
for tomorrow. It is legislation for the
future. I predict this bill will pass
unanimously.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to another effective member of our com-
mittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
ROBERTS] such time as he requires.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this amendment.
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, if an
enemy attack or a sudden natural catas-
trophe had wreaked the devastation
which now exists in Lake Erie, there
would be no hesitation in declaring it a
Federal disaster area. We would speed
funds to the area without delay.
But the poison of pollution which is
destroying our national water supply has
been a gradually encroaching process,
the urgency of which is only beginning
to be the cause of widespread alarm.
We who represent the Cleveland area
have been aware of it from the outset,
coming as we do from the shores of the
most badly polluted body of water in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1167
Nation. I have consistently voted for
water pollution control since my fresh-
man days in the House, in the 84th Con-
gress, when I cast my first vote for the
Water Pollution Control Act on June 13,
1956.
It is apparent that the efforts of Con-
gress, working with the States and mu-
nicipalities, still is insufficient to stem
this tide of disaster. During the past
decade I have seen more and more recre-
ational beaches closed along Lake Erie,
I have witnessed an alarming drop in
commercial fishing, I have seen with my
own eyes the insidious growth of algae
in the lake, which today covers 4,000
square miles.
Lake Erie is the lifeblood of the in-
dustrial complexes which line it. It is
the most important resource and asset
of the State of Ohio.
As those who know my voting record
are well aware, I am always cautious
when I vote to spend the taxpayer's
dollar. I have gained some note as an
economy-minded Member of this House,
even during times when it was con-
sidered popular to spend. But it would
be false economy to vote against the au-
thorization before us today. More bil-
lions and many of them will be required
to do the job which so desperately needs
to be done. The economy, the health and
the welfare of too many millions of citi-
zens depend upon our action today and
our intelligent planning and funding for
the future.
I wish to express my complete support
of today's bill to increase funds available
under the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, water
pollution is our greatest natural resource
problem today. It is a manmade
scourge that threatens the future of
many people, and perhaps our country.
No matter how much we have tried to
solve the problem—and we have tried
more and more in recent years—it has
not been enough.
I strongly urge passage of H.R. 16076,
so that we may expand and accelerate
our attack upon this national problem,
which affects us all. Unless we do that,
our children might say that we did too
little and too late.
The bill would make important im-
provements in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. That act now author-
izes Federal grants to municipalities to
assist in construction of waste treatment
works. In the last 10 years, Federal,
State, and local agencies spent over $3.8
billion on such works, of which over $800
million was in Federal grants. But the
backlog of needed treatment facilities,
including obsolete facilities that should
be replaced or supplemented, now re-
quires the further expenditure of at
least another $4 billion. We are on a
treadmill.
This bill would increass the $150 mil-
lion authorized for fiscal year 1967 for
sewage works to $300 million for 1968,
with further increases up to $950 mil-
lion for 1971. We need these increases.
They will benefit us all.
The bill would also liberalize the
amounts that could be granted to com-
munities for treatment works. It would
double the present dollar limitation on
grants for smaller projects from 1.2 to
2.4 million, and for projects serving two
or more communities from 4.8 to 9.6 mil-
lion. Under certain conditions the
amount of the Federal grant could be up
to 50 percent of the project cost.
The bill has other important features.
One of the greatest sources of pollution
is flow from combined storm and sani-
tary sewers. We have this problem in
Cleveland, and in over 1,900 other com-
munities. When these sewers were built,
they had capacity for both rainwater and
sewage. But population grew, while the
sewage system capacity was fixed. So
in heavy rain, sewage is washed into the
surface waters, helping to ruin their
quality. The act now allows the Federal
Government to pay 50 percent of the cost
of projects to demonstrate a new or im-
proved method of controlling such dis-
charges. The bill would allow the
Government to pay 100 percent. We
-------
1168
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
need to find an answer to this phase of
the problem.
The bill provides for strong Federal
support for an accelerated program of
research including for the first time
grants to industry. If we are to succeed
in solving the problem of water pollution
control, we must have the help of indus-
try. The Federal Government would
bear up to $1 million or 70 percent of the
cost of research for any project that
would have industrywide application.
By stepping up research, we can evolve
new tools and weapons and methods to
carry out our national attack.
The bill has many other important
and desirable features. It is a product
of the careful, skilled, and dedicated
work of members of the Public Works
Committee, of which the inspired efforts
of our colleagues, the gentleman from
Oklahoma, BOB JONES, and the gentle-
man from Minnesota, JOHN BLATNIK, has
been outstanding.
This legislation is of paramount im-
portance to the future of our Nation. It
would strengthen significantly our na-
tional program of water pollution con-
trol. We have no other course if we are
to avoid national disaster.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I have just
learned that I may have to be off the
floor of the House when the vote is taken
on the water pollution bill. It appears
there will be no opposition to this meas-
ure and that its passage is assured.
Nevertheless, I want to make clear my
support for this bill and the potential it
affords for bringing us closer to the goal
of clear, clean water. I have often said
we must establish clear priorities in
these times of deficit spending and, in my
opinion, the priority which this bill de-
serves ranks far ahead of the measure
which passed the House yesterday.
I am especially pleased that earlier
today the House recognized the impor-
[p. 24610]
tance of pollution control by extending
an exemption from the suspension of the
investment tax credit to those firms in
industry which seek to implement new
pollution control measures.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I sup-
port H.R. 16076, as amended and re-
ported by the Committee on Public
Works. No more important single issue
faces our country today than the problem
of "good water." The steadily increasing
pollution of the once-clear waters of the
United States has become a problem of
immediate concern to all citizens. The
magnitude of this problem is so great
that a solution must be found in short
order, and such a solution will require
the concerted action of all levels of gov-
ernment. We Clevelanders are, perhaps,
more aware of this than others because
of the condition of our own Lake Erie
and Cuyahoga River.
The Federal Government has long
played a leading role in the improve-
ment of our rivers and harbors and has
financed and directed irrigation and
flood control projects since the early
1900's. However, it was not until 1956
under the Eisanhower administration
that the first comprehensive Federal
Water Pollution Control Act was enacted.
Under this act, grants were made to
States and interstate agencies for water
pollution control activities, and to mu-
nicipalities for the construction of sew-
age treatment works. Also, a permanent
procedure for governing Federal abate-
ment action against interstate pollution
was established.
Although the 1956 act was a good be-
ginning and laid a firm foundation for
future action, it soon became apparent
that, if this program were to be suc-
cessful, there would have to be greater
State financial participation in the con-
struction of sewage treatment works. It
was established clearly that Federal aid
should serve as an inducement, rather
than a substitute, for added State and
local participation. H.R. 16076, as re-
ported by the committee, accepts this
principle. It contains substantial in-
ducements to the States to participate in
the cost of projects under both the ac-
celerated existing program and the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1169
proposed clear rivers program.
The provisions of H.R. 16076 are as fol-
lows: It provides $2.45 billion for sew-
age treatment plants through June 30,
1971; it doubles the present dollar limita-
tions on grants for smaller projects from
$1.2 to $2.4 million and for projects serv-
ing two or more communities from $4.8
to $9.6 million; it would add an addi-
tional 10 percent to the present 30-per-
cent Federal grant, making a total of 40
percent if the States contribute 30 per-
cent; it would establish a new concept of
incentive grants amounting to 10 per-
cent for the development of basin plans
for water pollution control; it would in-
crease the total Federal grant by another
10 percent, or up to 50 percent under
the basin plan, if the States matched to
the extent of 25 percent of the total
costs.
Another important provision of this
bill lays the foundation for possible fu-
ture legislation that could provide for
additional pollution control and abate-
ment. It directs the Secretary of Inte-
rior to conduct an investigation and
study of methods for providing incen-
tives to assist in the construction of
facilities and works by industry to re-
duce or abate water pollution. This
study shall include the possible use of
tax incentives as well as other methods
of financial assistance. A bill which I
have introduced, H.R. 11866, would pro-
vide tax incentives for industry to meet
this problem.
The pollution of our streams and wa-
terways has been going on so long that
we cannot expect a clean-up overnight,
but we must make steady progress. In-
creased participation by the Federal
Government along with State and local
cooperation—made possible under H.R.
16076—should facilitate further progress
in this area, in a partnership in which
responsibility is shared.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, with-
out a doubt, the most perplexing and
challenging feature of this very impor-
tant legislation before the House Public
Works Committee concerned the dollars
to be authorized for the increased grants
offered by this bill for the construction
of waste treatment works. The mem-
bers of our Committee all agreed that
the present pace of the construction
grant side of the pollution control pro-
gram is too slow. We recognize that
more needs to be done and that there
is a tremendous backlog of projects in
this country today, not to mention the
fact that in addition to the backlog we
must be prepared to re-build projects
that are now obsolescent and to build
projects that will match population in-
creases. But, even with this knowledge,
we lacked adequate information to sup-
port most of the proposed dollar in-
creases.
We were told that the Conference of
State Sanitary Engineers 1966 study esti-
mated, based on a comparison of 20 cities,
that the backlog alone in needed waste
treatment works WES $2.643 billion. The
cities themselves, however, estimated
that the true backlog is about 3.33 times
the reported conference backlog or about
$8.90 billion. Such a wide discrepancy
makes one wonder about the reliability
of either of these figures.
The administration's revised proposal
of last July 20 recommended a new dol-
lar authorization of $3.25 billion over a
5-year period beginning July 1, 1968. In
addition, the administration's proposal
would add an additional $50 million this
year.
On the other hand, S. 2947, as passed
by the other body, authorized $5.850 bil-
lion over a 5-year period beginning July
1, 1968. That bill did not change the
amount of $150 million authorized for
this fiscal year.
The committee was of the unanimous
opinion that a substantial increase in the
authorization was needed this year. The
members believed that the time had
come for the Federal Government to
make a meaningful and, in the face of
the staggering proportions of the job to
be done, a realistic commitment to par-
ticipate fully in obtaining the President's
and the Nation's goal of cleaning and
-------
1170
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
preserving "entire river basins from
their sources to their mouths." The
members of the committee clearly want
the program to move at a swifter pace,
but, let me emphasize, they did not want
to turn this into a crash program. The
job cannot be done overnight. Thus, the
committee agreed to adopt the annual
increments in the administration's pro-
posal, except for the first year, but the
committee limited the authorization to 4
fiscal years instead of the 5 years in the
administration's proposal in S. 2947. The
Committee added the $50 million, which
the administration included in this fiscal
year, to the first fiscal year of this new
authorization.
The committee's authorization of $2.3
billion is the most reasonable estimate of
the need. It will serve to stimulate the
States and local communities into action
on a much more accelerated pace, while
at the same time it will not mislead them
or lull them into the belief that the Fed-
eral Government is going to do the whole
job. That is the message conveyed by
the extremely accelerated increases au-
thorized by S. 2947. We can ill afford to
allow the States or the local communities
to think for even a very brief period that
the responsibility for pollution control
now rests entirely with the Federal Gov-
ernment. This would be disastrous to
the program. The States and local com-
munities must continue to exercise the
primary responsibility in the field.
Also, it should be remembered that
this figure of $2.3 billion in the House bill
or the $5.85 billion figure in S. 2947 is
only an authorization. It is not an ap-
propriation. With the increased costs, of
our foreign and other domestic pro-
grams, we cannot be assured that the
actual appropriations will even approxi-
mate the annual authorization. Thus,
we should not mislead the American
people at this stage. To do so, would be
courting a disaster which we cannot
allow to happen.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I can-
not agree more with the remarks of the
distinguished chairman of the commit-
tee, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
FALLON].
We have come a long way since 1956
in our fight against pollution. The pub-
lic awareness of the parameters of the
problem has grown tremendously in
these short 10 years. The Nation's cities,
once quite passive, to the problem now
are exhibiting encouraging signs of a
keen and urgent desire to conquer pollu-
tion as quickly as possible. These cities,
big and small, are, however, under great
financial strain. The demands on their
budgets stagger the imagination. They
want to do the job, but they need help.
Thus, they have turned to the Federal
Government. We cannot turn our backs
to them. We must be responsive. But,
we should not delude ourselves or the
cities into thinking that large sums of
money alone will accomplish wonders.
There is no doubt that substantially
more money is needed, but that is not all
that is needed.
When the members of the committee
considered the problem of dollar au-
thorizations, it was necessary to look
behind the figures presented by the sani-
tary engineers and the cities. We had
to look at the capability—other than
[p. 24611]
financial capability—of the cities to
spend large sums, assuming appropria-
tions approximated these large figures,
in an effective manner. When we did
this, we found that the cities had not
yet "tooled up" for these sums.
One of the most important problems
facing all cities of every size was the lack
of adequately trained technical and pro-
fessional people in the field of water pol-
lution control. The Nation has made
great strides in pollution control re-
search in the last few years. We have
concentrated our efforts in this area and
in building waste treatment plants. But,
to a large extent we have neglected a key
element of effective pollution control,
namely, trained personnel.
As we proceed on an accelerated pace
—but not on a crash basis—we simul-
taneously create a need to intensify our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1171
efforts in supplying adequate personnel.
We cannot hope to operate waste treat-
ment plants efficiently and effectively
until we have trained competent people.
Thus, without this key element, it is
unrealistic and wasteful to expand our
efforts too greatly.
The bill before you today authorizes
the Secretary to make a complete inves-
tigation to determine the need for addi-
tional trained State and local personnel
to carry out pollution control. The study
must be completed by July 1, 1967. In
addition, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act now authorizes grants to
cover the cost of training personnel. The
committee has urged the Secretary to
use this authority to the greatest extent
possible.
Another problem facing the cities was
created last year by the Water Quality
Act of 1965. That act requires the States
to establish water quality standards by
June 30, 1967, and, if they fail to do so,
the Secretary of the Interior must act.
The uncertainty concerning what those
standards will be makes it difficult for
these cities to plan effectively. While
we would not want these cities to wait,
we can appreciate the problem.
A third problem is research. There
are many areas in the pollution control
field that need further research, such as
the problem of storm sewers. More re-
search is needed in the field of industrial
waters. Research should include the de-
velopment of techniques for area treat-
ment of wastes, either as combinations
of municipal and industrial wastes or as
combinations of industrial wastes.
The solids resulting from treatment of
wastes pose problems, particularly in
metropolitan areas where land is not
available for solid waste disposal. The
practice of haulage of solids for disposal
into lakes or ocean can merely change
the location of water quality impair-
ment. Research is urged into means of
reducing the amount of solids and into
methods of disposal which improve the
overall situation.
The committee also understands that
comprehensive studies have demon-
strated the desirability of having more
effective techniques to appraise the as-
similative capacity of streams in order
to better assess effects of increasing
populations and industrial and agri-
cultural usage. We believe that since
the proper usage of such capacity is both
an economic resource and an integral
component in assessing water quality
standards, demonstration projects to de-
termine practical measuring and control
techniques would be most desirable.
Also, since the objective of the pollu-
tion control program is to provide water
of acceptable quality, research is needed
to explore possible supplemental treat-
ment techniques, and methods for treat-
ing the residual water quality problems
which remain in areas where treatment
facilities have been constructed. This
would include methods which would
permit harvesting algae and recovering
silt from land erosion. Research is also
needed to better define the water quality
levels which do adversely affect those
using the water.
H.R. 16076 provides additional re-
search authority and funds which should
be extremely useful in resolving this
problem.
These are the problems facing the
cities today. They are not insurmount-
able, but they must be considered in ar-
riving at a dollar authorization that
makes a meaningful Federal commit-
ment to fight pollution and at the same
time is not misleading.
Let me also emphasize, as my col-
league, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. FAIXON], has done, that more re-
liable cost figures are needed relative to
the national requirements under this
program. We cannot effectively under-
stand the scope of the problem until we
obtain adequate cost data. The bill di-
rects the Secretary of the Interior to
submit this data for the 3-year period
beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress
by January 10, 1968.
Again, let me urge passage of this vital
legislation.
-------
1172
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I strongly endorse H.R. 16076.
Those of us in northern Virginia at
times tend to think of the Potomac as
"ours." But the Potomac also belongs
to the Nation. Likewise, the rivers,
streams, and lakes of all sections of the
country belong partly to Virginians.
Pollution of any of our waters deprive all
citizens of their usefulness and beauty,
and I feel it is a necessary and appro-
priate Federal function to continue
financial support of State and local pro-
grams to clean up our waters; to support
research for improved means of prevent-
ing future sources of pollution; and to
coordinate both of these efforts.
This bill is particularly commendable,
I believe, from several standpoints. The
authorization of $2.3 billion for the next
4 years appears to be realistic in terms
of what can actually be used during that
period. The planning of many projects
is incomplete, and State and local finan-
cial resources are reported to be inade-
quate to supply their share of a more
comprehensive program. The increased
grants in this bill should in time help to
alleviate the latter situation. Future
legislation can increase the authoriza-
tion, if it is found desirable, after results
of a cost estimate study required by the
bill are evaluated.
The increased flexibility of the grant
program provided by H.R. 16076 and the
incentive grants for projects in approved
river basin plans should effectively stim-
ulate more State and local participation.
I feel this is an important step forward.
The incentive grant formula is designed
to be equitable to projects both in and
out of an approved basin plan. It is
geared to induce rapid development of
new plans in a manner which will not
slow down old programs.
Since water pollution has become such
a harsh enemy to our natural resources,
we all, perhaps, wish we could pass legis-
lation that could feasibly do more now
—I do—but I believe this bill sets a rea-
sonable course. I hope it is enacted.
Mrs. REID of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I support H.R. 16076, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendment and Clean
Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, because
it is necessary legislation to further
implement our efforts to meet a critical
public problem which is growing in
urgency every year. This legislation
provides for reasonable acceleration
of the current Federal grant program,
includes greater State participation,
encourages river basin planning, and au-
thorizes research as to incentives neces-
sary to reduce industrial, agricultural,
and other types of pollution not related
to municipal waste treatment programs.
I am constrained to point out, however,
that while this bill is definitely a needed
and logical step in the right direction,
it is not—as some might wish to believe—
a Federal panacea for our entire water
pollution problem. This task will con-
tinue to require the fullest cooperation
of States and local governments as well.
There are few problems in America
today as vital as our need for a present
and future supply of clean, pure water.
Not only does water pollution menace
our public health, destroy fish and wild-
life, and ruin natural beauty, it also
adversely affects our manufacturing
processes, reduces property values, and
substantially raises our taxes. It is sur-
prising to many to learn that the average
individual in these United States daily
uses over 60 gallons of water in his
home. We are told, too, that if we were
to prorate the amount of water used in
our behalf by businesses, governments,
and farms, on a per capita basis, it would
amount to approximately 1,850 gallons
a day—and by the year 2000, the rate
will be 3,000 gallons a day for each per-
son. It should be obvious to everyone,
therefore, that as our population con-
tinues to expand, extensive reuse of our
existing water resources in the future
will be the rule rather than the excep-
tion; and we can expect a rising curve
of water treatment costs to maintain
essential quality standards.
As a member of the Committee on
Public Works which has reported H.R.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1173
16076, I feel that this bill will consider-
ably assist in this ever-increasing effort
to end the wasteful and unnecessary
pollution of our Nation's most valuable
natural resource. This bill, in my judg-
ment, is an acceptable compromise of
the several versions considered. Under
this bill, there will be an increase in the
maximum grants from $1.2 million to
$2.4 million for individual projects, and
[p. 24612]
from $4.8 million to $9.6 million for proj-
ects serving a combination of several
municipalities—or 30 percent, whichever
is less. The present Federal contribu-
tion of 30 percent, if the State contrib-
utes 30 percent to all projects in any
one fiscal year, is raised to 40 percent.
Thus, the bill provides for sufficient ac-
celeration in the Federal grant program
and includes a substantial inducement to
the States to participate in the cost of
these programs. This provision will
bring the States more actively into the
program, will hopefully reduce the need
for future Federal funds, and will stimu-
late and encourage local communities to
provide adequate sewage treatment
facilities.
Likewise, if a project is a part of an
approved plan for water pollution con-
trol and abatement in a river basin,
coastal waters, bays, lakes, and so forth,
it is eligible for an incentive grant of 10
percent above the basic 30 percent grant
provided in existing law, with no dollar
limitation. The Federal grant would
then be 40 percent and may even be in-
creased to 50 percent if the State agrees
to contribute 25 percent for all projects
constructed in any fiscal year.
It should be emphasized, however,
that this bill, aside from providing for
basin planning, is still primarily an ex-
pansion of the existing Federal program
of grants for constructions of municipal
sewage treatment plants. It will not
solve pollution problems arising from the
many sources unrelated to municipal
sewage. Thus, to call it a "clean rivers"
bill would be a misnomer. But it does
lay the groundwork for more compre-
hensive future legislation by authorizing
a study of tax and other incentives to
abate industrial pollution, methods to
control agricultural pollution, as well as
Federal grants for research and demon-
stration projects.
I believe, too, that H.R. 16076 is far
more realistic with regard to cost than
the bill already passed by the Senate.
Whereas S. 2947 would authorize $6 bil-
lion for grants through 1972, our com-
mittee's bill proposes $2.4 billion through
1971. This would appear to be more in
line with the ability of States and com-
munities to properly utilize these funds
and also reduces the inflationary effect
at a time when inflation is of widespread
concern. It must be remembered fur-
ther that numerous other Federal pro-
grams offer similar assistance in this
field.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
16076 represents an adept melding of
several compelling arguments on the
extent to which die national water pol-
lution control effort should be acceler-
ated. I believe it presents the most
reasonable course of action that can be
taken at this time.
There should be no need to describe
again the critical water problems which
the country faces today and which, with-
out stepped-up action, will worsen in the
very near future. A portrait of the pol-
lution-caused waste of our water
resources was presented to the Congress
just last year and was the reason for
passage of the Water Quality Act of 1965
The situation is virtually no better today.
This year, the sixth consscutive year of
drought in this section of the country,
brought water use restrictions to this
very building.
In light of the seriousness of the prob-
lem, one of the few critical questions
which can be raised concerning H.R.
16076 is whether this legislation goes far
enough. The $2.450 million which the
bill authorizes for sewage treatment
plant construction over the next 5
years is admittedly not the final solution
to the water pollution problem. It does,
-------
1174
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
however, authorize for fiscal year 1971
an amount more than six times greater
than the authorization for the current
fiscal year. And there is a legitimate
question whether the States will be able
to utilize even the full amounts which
are authorized under H.R. 16076. The
bill provides attractive incentives to en-
courage the States to take advantage of
these funds. The problem is can the
States gear up their pollution control
efforts to even the comparative moderate
pace which is set by this bill.
The cost estimate study which the bill
authorizes will hopefully end the confu-
sion over present estimates of the size
of our pollution problem. When better
data from that study is presented, we
can extend or adjust the authorizations
accordingly. In the meantime, we
should certainly be more than willing to
provide the amounts called for in H.R.
16076, amounts which we know are nec-
essary and which we know stand the best
chance of being put to good use.
I would like to mention that three dif-
ferent municipalities in my district of
Rhode Island have passed formal reso-
lutions urging support of this bill, and
one newspaper, the Observer wrote a
front-page story making the flat state-
ment that the clean rivers pilot program
"could save the Woonasquatucket River"
from extinction.
As the scope of pollution control
broadens, the need for coordination and
planning increases also. The clean
rivers restoration program of H.R. 16076
—the river basin pollution control pro-
visions—permits this coordinated ap-
proach. By providing up to 50 percent
of the cost of municipal sewage treat-
ment construction in these basins, this
bill makes possible the elimination of
municipal pollution from entire rivers.
Basinwide plans, developed jointly by
the States, will be subject to review by
the Department of the Interior, the
Water Resources Council, and the De-
partment of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, with the Congress having the
authority for final approval.
The health aspects of this planning
would seem to come under the purview
of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, although that Department
is not mentioned in section 203 of the
bill. However, in view of the "Interde-
partmental Agreement Concerning Con-
sultation Between Departments of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and the
Interior," dated September 2, 1966, this
additional coordination is covered.
The $228 million in research expendi-
tures which H.R. 16076 authorizes
through fiscal 1969 is worthy of mention
also. This includes more than $56 mil-
lion for badly needed industrial pol-
lution research. It also includes $3
million for studies of estuaries. Our
estuaries, as every coastal State knows,
are in dire need of pollution abatement
if they are to continue as sources of
our shellfish and as recreational areas.
The authorized comprehensive estuarine
study, which will be completed in 3
years, will include recommendations for
a comprehensive national program for
their preservation, study, use, and de-
velopment.
H.R. 16076, then, presents a well-
planned program of continued and
reasonably accelerated water pollution
control. It will permit us to move ahead
with a national clean-up campaign while
providing the facts that will enable us to
evaluate and improve these efforts in the
future.
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, water
pollution control is one of the most im-
portant, but costly, domestic problems in
our Nation today. In recent years, the
Congress has taken definite steps toward
solving that problem, but we still have
a long way to go.
Before us today is legislation which
offers another major advance toward the
goal. The principal handicap confront-
ing the cities and towns charged with
contributing to cleaning up our rivers is
the enormous expense of constructing
the necessary sewage treatment plants.
The total cost for restoring cleanliness
to the rivers of the United States has
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1175
been estimated as high as $100 billion.
No one should be misled into believ-
ing, therefore, that the title of the "Clean
Rivers Restoration Program" in this
pending bill means the problem is being
suddenly eliminated. The title spells out
the objective rather than assuring its
attainment in one big flourish. In that
regard I believe we are here on the right
track.
As to the amount of money authorized
by this bill, although it is less than that
sought by the Senate-passsd bill, S. 2947,
the figures herein appear more realistic
under existing conditions. It is con-
ceivable, of course, that as more and
more States follow the lead of my home
State of Massachusetts in taking advan-
tage of the incentive provisions of this
and previous legislation, the authoriza-
tions for some of the future years may
justifiably be revised upward.
Let me for a moment refer back to the
situation in Massachusetts. Through
the initiative of Governor Volpe and a
select legislative committee headed by
Senator Ward of Fitchburg, a compre-
hensive bipartisan study was made into
the pollution control needs in the Com-
monwealth—inspired by the provisions
of the Water Quality Act of 1935 and
the prospect offered by the proposed
clean rivers program. As a result, the
Massachusetts Legislature this year
voted to bond $150 million for use in pro-
viding the State's share and easing the
burden of the individual communities—
and thereby entitle Massachusetts to a
larger allocation of Federal funds.
I do not believe that any State has
thus far done more to meet the great
cost factor for construction of sewage
treatment plants, which the bill before
[p.24613]
us so materially helps. In fact, the Fed-
eral construction grant authorization
for pollution control purposes in the cur-
rent 1967 fiscal year is only $150 million
for the entire country—giving some idea
of the Bay State's determination, aided
by a bond for that amount, to lick its
own river pollution problem.
Massachusetts and other New England
States are out in front in another respect
related to cleaning up our area's rivers.
The Governors of the six New England
States were the first to request formation
of a river basins commission. One year
ago this coming October 15, the Federal
Water Resources Council approved crea-
tion of the New England River Basins
Commission as the first such organiza-
tion so sanctioned. I was pleased to be
advised recently that the signing of the
Presidential order to formalize this com-
mission is imminent.
The clean rivers restoration program
we are now considering, it is good to
note, provides for incentive grants for
up to 50 percent Federal participation
for river basin plans to achieve proper
water quality control. In this regard
the New England River Basins Commis-
sion should be in the forefront in devel-
oping such a plan, particularly insofar
as the Merrimack River Basin is con-
cerned. The Massachusetts portion of
this basin is primarily in my congres-
sional district, so I naturally am hopeful
that this phase of the program before us
will lead to early launching of a basin
project for the Merrimack River.
Although this bill does not go as far
as I would like to see in respect to in-
centives for industrial construction of
sewage treatment plants, it does provide
for a study by the Secretary of the In-
terior looking toward appropriate future
legislation. We will not have truly
"clean rivers" until treatment of indus-
trial sewage not tied in to municipal
sewer systems is also assured. Toward
that end I have submitted a bill to give
industries income tax credit for the ex-
penses of installing their own treatment
plants. I hope some such legislation will
be enacted to help provide the missing
S3gment of the clean rivers restoration
program.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the com-
mittee has here produced a basically
sound bill, and I urge its approval and
early resolving of its differences and
those of the Senate-passed measure so
-------
1176
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that we can get on with this vital
program.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in favor of H.R. 16076 to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
This legislation will provide for the
development of basin pollution control
and abatement plans through the estab-
lishment of additional incentives; and
by increasing grants under the existing
program for waste treatment.
The bill will accomplish this by pro-
viding $2.45 billion for sewage treatment
plants through June 30, 1971; double the
present dollar limitations on grants for
smaller projects from $1.2 to $2.4 mil-
lion, and for projects ssrving two or
more communities from $4.8 to $9.6 mil-
lion; add an additional 10 percent to the
present 30 percent Federal grant, mak-
ing a total of 40 percent if the States
contribute 30 percent.
This legislation also will establish a
new concept of incentive grants amount-
ing to 10 percent for the development of
basin plans for water pollution control;
will increase the total Federal grant by
another 10 percent, or up to 50 percent
under the basin plan, if the States
match to the extent of 25 percent of
the total costs; will provide $228 million
for research through June 30, 1969; will
authorize financial help to the States in
preparing basin plans; will provide re-
imbursement for projects starting after
June 30, 1966; and will authorize studies
of cost estimates, additional State per-
sonnel, financial assistance to industry,
research on industrial wastes, and
estuaries.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I want to
compliment Senator EDMUND MUSKIE, of
Maine, and Senator EDWARD M. KEN-
NEDY, of Massachusetts, for their lead-
ership in the Senate in pushing this
legislation through Congress; and the
League of Women Voters, for their long
and active interest in this very impor-
tant legislation. I would also like to
commend State Senator Joseph D. Ward,
of Fitchburg, Mass., for his leadership
in the Massachusetts Legislature, which
recently enacted a clean water act de-
signed to give financial assistance to
Massachusetts communities as a supple-
ment to Federal assistance under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
an effort to combat pollution on Massa-
chusetts streams; and to State Represen-
tative Roger L. Bernashe, of Chicopse,
who is chairman of the Massachusetts
Legislative Committee on Water Supply
and Water Resources, for his efforts
in battling against the further pollution
of Massachusetts rivers.
On September 6 last I joined Senator
KENNEDY, Congressman SILVIO CONTE,
and Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall
in an inspection of the Connecticut
River. The Secretary had been invited
by Senator KENNEDY to tour the major
rivers in Massachusetts and to see first
hand the need for further Federal finan-
cial assistance in the construction of
sawage treatment plants so that com-
munities can help clean up pollution on
the Connecticut, the Blackstone, the
Merrimack, and the Charles Rivers in
our Commonwealth.
Mr. Chairman, the double threat in-
herent in water pollution, that to public
health and that to the historic natural
charm and beauty of our country, should
prompt us to act quickly and wisely, be-
fore our rivers are fouled beyond feasible
recall, or to a point where expenses of
such reclamation will be gigantic. In
view of such an encroachment of indus-
trial waste and public sewage on the
beauty of our richly endowed Connecti-
cut River, I introduced a bill in the
House a short time ago to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to study the
feasibility and desirability of a Connect-
icut River National Recreation Area.
This study included provisions for the
cleansing of the water itself. H.R. 16076
is similarly designed to cope with this
growing danger of stagnation and ugli-
ness on our national waterways.
This far-reaching and imaginative bill
is the latest and most comprehensive
in a ssries of pollution control laws of
ever-increasing scope. It complements
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1177
logically the original Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, and such related
measures as the Water Quality Act of
1985. This act also strengthens other
existing laws, including the Oil Pollution
Act of 1924. By removing the upper
ceiling restrictions on Federal grants for
sewage treatment plants by providing a
30-percent grant regardless of the total
cost of the project, this bill entices in-
creased activity, by State and local
governments, in pollution elimination
programs. Also, further encouragement
is supplied by a bonus of 10 percent of
the total project cost to be awarded to
communities developing comprehensive
metropolitan plans.
This supplement would bolster
tremendously the efforts of the 26 pollu-
tion-plagued Massachusetts communi-
ties along the Connecticut River that are
now striving to hold back the ominous
buildup of filth and refuse in their river.
Such grants would be of significant aid
in defraying the estimated $20 million it
will cost these cities and towns to con-
struct adequate facilities. Without this
aid, many of these communities would
lack the resources to undertake such
projects themselves.
In addition to all these highly bene-
ficial services which this act authorizes,
it also stipulates that scientific research
and experimentation take place. It is
evident that if we are to ever finally win
the war against water pollution, we must
better understand its various forms and
the precis? ways in which it affects our
rivers. Specifically, this legislation calls
for detailed study of the pollution prob-
lem in estuaries and estuarine zones of
the United States, and a study by the
Secretary of the Interior of the final big
picture impact and costs of pollution
control and abatement. In respect to
efficient implementation of all these en-
deavors, this bill would cause a study
concerning the need for additional
trained State and local personnel to
carry out the program pursuant to this
act.
Mr. Chairman, for all thess important
and pertinent reasons, I urge the adop-
tion of this forward-looking piece of
legislation in order that clean, health-
ful, and beautiful waterways be restored
to the bounty of national resources.
Mr-. CONTE, Mr. Chairman, it is a
privilege for me to identify myself and
my district with the work that is being
done by this Congress in the field of
water pollution abatement and control
and to acknowledge the debt of grati-
tude owed the Public Works Committee
for the attack that has been launched
at its urging for clean water, which will
be continued in this legislation.
We have only begun to fight this prob-
lem, but the efforts of the able members
or this committee and their counterparts
in the other body—the "Mr. Cleans" of
the Congress as described by the Boston
Herald—have awakened the awareness
of our people across the country and
made possible the first, difficult steps in
the long journey toward restoration of
our clean waters.
[p. 24614]
The spotlight of public attention has
been glaringly focused on continuing and
ever-increasing pollution of our water
resources in recent months. Studies,
articles, proposals, and recommendations
have been numerous, indeed. While
there remains little left to be said with
regard to the precious iiess of our natural
water resources or the critical threat to
thosa resources from pollution—uncon-
trolled and unabated—I believe a recent
article, titled "Our Dying Waters: The
Story of a National Disgrace," very aptly
speaks the mind of most of us.
With regard to this country's water re-
sources, our heritage of clean water, the
article's author, John Bird, says:
We Americans were privileged to start our
national life on a virtually unused, unspoiled
continent. The country which became the
United States was vast and beautiful, a land-
scape of mountains, valleys and plains, all
drained by one of the world's most generous
systems of waters crystal-clear mountain
brooks, meandering lowland creeks, great
rolling rivers, massive fresh-water lakes and
salty bays and estuaries. Here was a primary
-------
1178
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
source of life, wealth and enjoyment beyond
measure, it seemed to our forefathers—
enough good water to meet a nation's needs
for all time to come.
The author continues, addressing him-
self forcefully to the despoliation of
these resources—the manmade threats
to our supply of clean water:
Within a few generations we have fouled
and degraded our beautiful waters. We have
filled our streams with raw excrement and
garbage laden with disease. We have stained
them with oil, coal dust, tar, dyes and chem-
ical "liquors" discharged by industries. We
have burned them with powerful acids which
destroy all aquatic life except a stringy,
loathsome type of algae. We have turned
them gray and murky with silt and sludge,
smothering shellfish and other forms of bot-
tom life. We have used them to dispose of
residues containing long-lasting poisons, some
so powerful that less than one part per billion
in a stream can kill fish. And, as though to
show our contempt for our natural scene, we
have dumped billions of tons of trash and
offal in our once lovely waters: beer cans,
worn-out tires, old mattresses, rusty oil
drums, refuse from hospitals, broken glass,
dead animals, junked automobiles.
Can any one of us turn deaf ears to
this indictment? I cannot shut my eyes
to the warning signs posted the length
of Rock Creek, which I pass each day on
my way to and from my office, crypti-
cally warning: "No Wading or Swim-
ming. Polluted Water." Visitors to
Mount Vernon, walking down to the boat
landing on the Potomac River, a matter
of a few hundred yards from the home
of our first President, are greeted by a
sign advising: "Do Not Come Into Con-
tact With Polluted Water."
Massachusetts' First Congressional
District is not immune.
My hometown newspaper, the Berk-
shire Eagle of Pittsfield, commenting ed-
itorially on two bills I introduced in
February of this year in my fight against
water pollution, described three rivers in
my district as "horrible examples" of
polluted waters.
Flowing across the easternmost area
of the First District is New England's
longest river, the Connecticut, singled
out by the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration for a pollution con-
ference late in 1983, and subsequent
enforcement action.
An increasing number of letters come
into my office to report divided interests
vying for water rights to lakes and res-
ervoirs, of dead game fish in mountain
streams, and low water levels leaving
boating and swimming areas inacces-
sible and unusable, of slack streamflows
and falling water levels concentrating
the pollution.
All of this has taken place in an area
described in writings of the 19th century
as "a landscape that combines every va-
riety of beauty—valleys, small lakes
glittering like sapphires, noble masses of
granite rocks, clear mountain brooks,
and sunset glories."
The time for decisive, far-reaching
action in Massachusetts can be delayed
no longer. I am sure the same can be
said for virtually every State and every
congressional district in the Nation,
whether that action is called for on a
broad scale or in terms of a single
treatment facility.
The action of this body, in approving
H.R. 16076, will be the hallmark of the
future for our water resources and our
ability to allay the threats to those re-
sources through research, development,
engineering, planning, construction, and
management of pollution abatement and
control programs and facilities.
The two pieces of legislation I intro-
duced earlier this year, H.R. 12454 and
H.R. 12455, embodied my views for an
approach to cleaning up our waters.
The first of those bills provided for an
amendment to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended—most sig-
nificantly by the Water Quality Act of
1965—to increase the Federal and State
participation in the local community
projects, thereby relieving the heavy
financial burden imposed by the con-
struction of essential, but costly, sewage
treatment facilities.
The 30-percent Federal grant would
be increased to from 45 to 60 percent of
the project cost, dependent upon match-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1179
ing by the State of the additional Fed-
eral participation.
The second bill, while without the
jurisdiction of the Public Works Com-
mittee, must have the support and en-
couragement of everyone concerned with
meeting the challenges of water pollu-
tion, in order for it to succeed. I refer, of
course, to legislation allowing tax incen-
tives to industry when they install ap-
propriate treatment facilities to treat
their industrial wastes.
Legislation of this tenor is not new in
this Congress. What is new is that, per-
haps for the first time, the impetus can
be felt for action on a legislative measure
of this sort. I pledge my complete co-
operation and support for this phase of
the fight against pollution.
Clean water can no longer be con-
sidered to be a free commodity. It is
not. It is essential to recognize this if
we are to develop abatement programs
equal to the task that must be accom-
plished. It cannot be said that any
particular segment of society should bear
the burden of the billions of dollars that
will be required to clean up our water.
It is not a local, State, or Federal com-
munity problem alone. It is not the
problem of the private sector any more
than it is strictly a government problem.
The revulsion of polluted water is uni-
versal. Water life cannot live in it;
humans cannot drink or play in it;
manufacturers cannot draw on it for
industrial purposes.
The dividends of clean water are, like-
wise, universal. So, then, must be the
responsibility for the costs of cleaning
it—and the incentive for every sector
to incur that cost.
The underlying philosophy of the leg-
islation I have written is obvious. It is
one of incentive; the incentive of in-
volvement for the States and the in-
centive to take action for the private
industries.
Remarks of the Public Works Commit-
tee, in the report on the Water Quality
Act of 1965, were directed to the involve-
ment of the States in what had, hereto-
fore, been a local-Federal communities
relationship:
The committee is hopeful that the States
will assume full partnership in assisting mu-
nicipalities to provide for their necessary
treatment works by sharing the financial bur-
cien which these cities are often unable to
shoulder even with the Federal assistance
otherwise available. This is a most important
and forward-looking step toward the solution
of our vast water pollution problems. For if
there is State participation there will be for
the first time on a nationwide basis a joining
together of the Federal, State, and local com-
munities to solve this problem. The partici-
pation of all will insure a swifter cleanup
cf our Nation's waters and at the same
Ume will lighten the financial burden on all
governments.
Unfortunately, the States have not
responded as was expected to the incen-
tives provided in the legislation, and the
communities, willing to undertake pollu-
tion abatement and control measures,
have, in many instances, simply been
unable to assume the heavy financial
burden involved. The mere handful of
States that have programs of grants to
match Federal funds or to facilitate local
community action is mute testimony to
the need for greater incentives.
I am happy to be able to report that
Massachusetts has joined the ranks of
thosa States with such programs. It not
only has joined those ranks, but has
taken a special position in the vanguard
of State action in this area. On Septem-
ber 6, the Massachusetts Clean Waters
Act became the law of the Common-
wealth. That law has been described as
incorporating "the most advanced think-
ing on water pollution control measures"
and applauded by Secretary of the In-
terior Udall as placing Massachusstts in
the ranks with New York and Wisconsin
in comprehensive water pollution legis-
lation. I am proud of this action in my
State and hope that many other States
will act in a similar fashion very quickly.
The Commonwealth is now authorized to
provide enough money in grants to com-
munities or districts to qualify for the
Federal grants proposed in the legisla-
-------
1180
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion now before this body. We in the
Bay State are ready.
[p. 24615]
Increased incentive measures on the
part of the Federal Government will
require our increased financial commit-
ments to depollution. It has been re-
ported that our towns and cities are now
spending almost $600 million a year on
pollution control systems. The Water
Quality Act of 1965 authorized $150 mil-
lion a year, to be spent on res3arch, de-
velopment, and construction of pollution
treatment methods and facilities. But,
we have a backlog of pollution problems
—a backlog estimated to have a price
tag of more than $40 billion, just to catch
up to the needs of this country today.
Without the increased financial commit-
ment authorized in H.R. 16076, that
backlog will build and build and today's
problems will not be resolved for dec-
ades. One writer has wryly commented:
"We may choke on our own filth by
then."
So long as we have one quarter of our
towns and cities without treatment facil-
ities of any kind—primary, secondary, or
tertiary—for their raw sewage; so long as
more than half of those communities
with treatment plants treat sewage only
at the primary level; so long as the
warning signs of pollution increase daily
in the form of dead water life, lost rec-
reational opportunities and water short-
ages; we must not be diverted from the
program we have undertaken in the
legislation of the past.
The language of H.R. 16076 is directed
squarely at meeting these threats It
represents an ambitious program and an
exciting prospect which will enable this
country to do more than merely hold
back pollution. Its farsighted provi-
sions—grants for research and develop-
ment, grants and loans for treatment
facilities construction, enforcement pow-
ers for water quality standards, to name
just a few—are equal to the challenge
with which we are faced.
We stand at the crossroads of decision.
The road we take from here may be de-
termined solely on a dollars and cents
basis. It is, indeed, a question of billions
of dollars. As such, we must be practical
enough to see the problem in this context
and commit the financial resources to
meet the needs.
Each day that we hesitate and delay,
each day that we continue to divert our
efforts merely around the fringe of the
problem, is a matter of dollars and cents,
too; billions of dollars of lost economic
opportunities and irreplaceable water
resources destroyed.
It is predicted that by 1980, the world's
demands for water will be exactly equal
to the supply available. We are cus-
todians of that supply today. It is not
a fluctuating supply, but virtually con-
stant. We may be better able to utilize
portions of the water resources at our
disposal today, in the future. We may
have dirtied even greater portions of
those resources.
By 1980, the water needs can only be
met if today's water supply is clean—
cleaned by our efforts in the coming
years. If we had concentrated our ef-
forts a decade ago, the fight would still
be an uphill one.
Author Bird has summarized the prob-
lem very succinctly.
The key question still is. "Can we save our
waters9" and as of now the answer, at best,
is only "Maybe "
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of this timely legislation which
is another forward step in the fight for
clean water.
There are four provisions of this bill
to which I would direct my remarks:
First. The new clean rivers restora-
tion program, which gives incentive to
States to prepare and develop pollution
control and abatement programs for
entire river basins;
Second. The expanded research and
development program;
Third. The enlarged authorization for
Federal grants to municipalities for
waste treatment plant construction; and
Fourth. The important, but little-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1181
known provision calling for a study of
the manpower requirements of State and
local pollution control programs.
THE NEW CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION
PROGRAM
Title I of this bill will, for the first
time, give Federal incentives to States to
attack water pollution problems on a
river basin scale. The river basin ap-
proach to water pollution control and
abatement has proved itself in the past
50 years in Germany's heavily indus-
trialized Ruhr Valley. Here, in a 4,300-
square-mile area, one-half as large as
the Potomac River Basin, in which 8
million people and about 40 percent of
West Germany's industrial capacity are
squeezed, a group of organizations, the
Genossenschaften, have designed, built,
and operated an integrated, regional sys-
tem of waste disposal and water supply
facilities.
The results have been spectacular—
the limited water supply of the Ruhr
district adequately supports the growth
of its cities and industries and provides
increasing recreational use of its waters
for boating and swimming.
More recently, in 1961, the Delaware
River Basin Commission was established
to plan and utilize the water resources of
the Delaware River Basin. In 1962, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration launched its Delaware estuary
comprehensive study. The objective of
the study is to develop a water pollu-
tion control program for the Delaware
River's tidal stretch below Trenton, N.J.
A report setting forth alternative water
quality objectives and the costs of at-
taining them was presented to the Dela-
ware River Basin Commission in July.
The commission is now studying the
report.
This comprehensive water pollution
control program may serve as a model
for similar efforts which will be stimu-
lated by title I of the bill we are today
considering.
I am happy to report that the State of
Wisconsin stands ready to take part in
this new river basin program. Chapter
614, Wisconsin laws of 1965, provides that
no more than 12 regions be established
in the State on the basis of factors such
as river basins, watersheds, population,
and economic factors. Each region will
have an eight-man advisory board to
advise on water problems of the region.
And not later than July 1, 1968, the Wis-
consin Department of Resource Devel-
opment must have formulated a plan
and a program "for the prevention and
abatement of water pollution and for
the maintenance and improvement of
water quality" for each region. The
Governor can then submit this plan and
program to the Secretary of the Interior
for approval pursuant to section 202 of
this bill.
Thanks to the efforts of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration,
the State, and local governments, we
already have in the Milwaukee River
Basin an interim action program for
combating pollution. I have urged Wis-
consin Gov. Warren Knowles to appoint
the regional board for the Milwaukee
region immediately so that we may have
the board's help in carrying out the
program.
With this headstart, I would hope that
the Milwaukee River Basin would be
one of the first in the country to have
their river basin antipollution plan ap-
proved by the Secretary of the Interior
and by Congress so that the municipali-
ties in the area, so much in need of
Federal aid for waste treatment plant
construction, would qualify for 50-per-
cent Federal grants as provided for in
this excellent bill.
THE EXPANDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
H.R. 16076 contains an excellent pro-
vision, section 203, for steppsd-up re-
search, development, and demonstration
of new methoas of treatment of both
municipal and industrial wastes.
Under this bill all research, devel-
opment, demonstration, and training
programs, including the program for
-------
1182
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
eliminating wet weather discharges from
combined storm and sanitary sewers,
will receive a $75 million annual author-
ization for 3 years. In fiscal 1966, pro-
grams covered by this new authorization
received only about $46 million to carry
out their many responsibilities.
Only last June, the Research and
Technical Programs Subcommittee, of
which I am chairman, in House Report
No. 1664 made clear the need for a vastly
greater authorization for the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion's advanced waste treatment pro-
gram. This program, which has been
operating on a meager $1 million annu-
ally since 1960, has been able to turn
municipal sewage into water fit for
drinking at a cost which promises to be
reasonable. At Lebanon, Ohio a small
75,000-gallon-per-day test plant is per-
forming this feat for 40 to 50 cents per
1,000 gallons. This year at $1 million,
5-million-gallon-per-day field evalua-
tion plant—capable of processing the
sewage of a city of 35,000 people—is
planned for construction.
A recent feasibility analysis of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration indicates that a 100-million-
gallon-per-day plant, costing $33 million
to serve the New York City area could
produce potable water at an entirely
reasonable cost of 16 cents per 1,000 gal-
lons. Once the feasibility of these new
methods is demonstrated, the new waste
[p.24616]
treatment plants which will be con-
structed as a result of the enlarged Fed-
eral construction grant program can
incorporate these breakthroughs in
waste treatment technology. I would
hope that the $75 million annual authori-
zation provided for in this bill would
greatly hasten the day of this demon-
stration.
THE ENLARGED FEDERAL WASTE TREATMENT
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Section 205 of H.R. 16076 provides for
$2.4 million over a 5-year period, fiscal
1967 through fiscal 1971 inclusive, for
Federal grants to municipalities for con-
struction of waste treatment facilities.
This is an average annual authorization
of just under $500 million. By compari-
son, S. 2947, the Muskie bill which has
passed the Senate, would authorize $6
billion of expenditures over a 6-year
period—an average of $1 billion annually.
Six billion dollars is 30 percent, the
present Federal share, of the $20 bil-
lion of construction which the Environ-
mental Pollution Panel of the President's
Science Advisory Committee has esti-
mated would be required to provide
secondary treatment of wastes for 80
percent of the U.S. population by 1975.
An expenditure of this magnitude is
necessary if the Federal Government is
to do its share in cleaning up the Na-
tion's rivers and streams. And is it
really such an enormous expenditure?
It pales, for example, beside the $5 bil-
lion annually we are spending on our
civilian space program. The Muskie bill
authorizes spending over 72 months to
restore the Nation's waters the same
amount which we spend in only 14
months to explore outer space.
Judged from another perspective the
authorization would be an average of $5
a year or 42 cents a month per citizen
as the Federal contribution to treat our
municipal sewage wastes—slightly in
excess of the cost of a pack of cigarettes,
a bottle of beer, or a gallon of gas.
I have recently taken part in a hear-
ing of the House Natural Resources and
Power Subcommittee on Water Pollution
in the Milwaukee area. At the hearing
we explored in detail the sources of pol-
lution in the Milwaukee River Basin
area. The problems of this one river
basin typify the water pollution prob-
lems of other river basins throughout
the country.
Here are the pertinent facts: 13 of
14 waste treatment plants discharging
wastes into the Milwaukee River are
today inadequate, even though all now
offer secondary treatment. The one
plant which passes muster will open at
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1183
West Bend, Wis., next spring. It was
financed in part by a 30-percent Federal
grant.
Of the 13 inadequate plants, 8 were
less than 90-percent efficient in removal
of biochemical oxygen demand—BOD,—
and 11 do not disinfect their effluent.
No one knows the cost of bringing
these plants up to acceptable standards.
If this legislation is passed with an au-
thorization which will do the job, it is
hoped that within 6 months these mu-
nicipalities will make application for
Federal assistance to make the necessary
improvements.
Without this $6 billion authorization,
there is little incentive for these munici-
palities to plan new construction. Fed-
eral antipollution money is so scarce in
Wisconsin, as elsewhere, that a munici-
pality has to wait in line for years to
receive any.
Metropolitan Milwaukee has long been
a leader in municipal sewage treatment.
In the 1920's it pioneered the activated
sludge secondary treatment process. It
alone of all U.S. cities dries excess sludge
and sells it directly as organic fertilizer
—Milorganite.
As you might imagine from its past
record, the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission is abreast of the
times. Its 200-million-gallon-per-day
Jones Island plant provides 95-percent
effective BOD-, removal and removes 80
percent of the phosphorous in the sew-
age it processes. It has achieved this
high efficiency largely without Federal
aid because the Federal program has
been so small and has had stringent dol-
lar limitations on the maximum amounts
of Federal grants for any one waste
treatment project. Since the Federal
waste treatment construction grant pro-
gram began in 1956, the Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission has spent $72 5
million for construction eligible for Fed-
eral grants and received only $1.5 mil-
lion in Federal aid.
It now has programmed $37,750,000 of
improvements through December 31,
1975, which under this bill would be
eligible for at least $15,100,000 or 40 per-
cent Federal waste treatment plant
construction aid. These improvements
include the addition of $15 million of
secondary treatment facilities at the
commission's new 130 million-gallon-
per-day South Shore treatment plant
which will begin primary treatment
operation next July.
If the Metropolitan Sewerage Com-
mission is to receive the money to which
it will be entitled under this bill, and, in
addition, the needs of communities in
the Milwaukee River Basin and all of
Wisconsin are to be satisfied, it will be
necessary to authorize $6 billion over the
next 6 years as called for in the Muskie
bill. Wisconsin's share of this authori-
zation would average $20 million per
year.
At the recent Milwaukee water pollu-
tion hearings of the Natural Resources
and Power Subcommittee, Mr. Theodore
F. Wisniewski, who is in charge of Wis-
consin's waste treatment facilities grant
program, testified that this year's au-
thorization of $150 million will enable
only five new projects to be begun in all
of Wisconsin. These projects will re-
ceive approximately $2 million in Fed-
eral grants.
Today 60 Wisconsin communities have
made application for over $7 million in
Federal grants-m-aid. All would be
ready to break ground by next spring
at the latest were Federal funds avail-
able. This bill, with its $150 million
authorization for fiscal year 1967, means
that 55 Wisconsin communities will be
forced to build without Federal funds or
to delay construction for at least a year.
And these figures do not reflect the
even more numerous communities which
need new waste treatment plants but
have not made application. For exam-
ple, not one of the 13 municipalities
discharging inadequately treated wastes
into the Milwaukee River has submitted
an application for Federal aid and is
included in this list.
The Wisconsin backlog is enormous.
The shortage of Federal money has an
-------
1184
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
even more critical effect on the pace of
waste treatment plant construction in
Wisconsin now that the State has passed
its excellent new Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. Secretary Udall recently called
this act the finest piece of legislation yet
enacted in the national fight to preserve
clean water.
The act provides for State assistance
to localities of one-third of their total
costs—site, construction, and financing
—of building waste treatment facilities.
It will pay a full one-third share of
$300 million of the total costs of build-
ing treatment plants. But it is doubtful
whether Wisconsin localities will take
advantage of this State aid if Federal
30-percent aid is not also forthcoming.
Thus, the Federal program threatens to
stall the excellent new State program.
Moreover, if this State program quali-
fies under H.R. 16076, it will mean that
the bill's authorization will be even
more inadequate. Dollar limitations will
be removed on individual projects and
the Federal share will be stepped up
from 30 to 40 percent throughout the
State and to 50 percent in approved river
basin areas.
Wisconsin stands ready to pay its one-
third share of $300 million of the total
costs of building waste treatment plants.
H.R. 16076 would pay the Federal 30-
percent share of only $163 million of
construction, and 40 percent of only
$122.5 million of construction.
The Muskie bill, on the other hand,
would pay 30 percent of $400 million of
construction and 40 percent of $300 mil-
lion of construction.
Mr. Chairman, the Wisconsin case
should emphasize the tremendous need
for construction of waste treatment
facilities and the present backlog of
applications. It should, moreover, indi-
cate the need for the $6 million Muskie
bill authorization.
THE STUDY OF THE MANPOWER REQUIRE-
MENTS OF STATE AND LOCAL POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAMS
Section 203 of this bill would direct
the Secretary of the Interior to make
a study of the additional manpower
needs of State and local governments in
order to carry out the provisions of the
bill and other recent water pollution
legislation. The Secretary is also to re-
port on how existing Federal water pol-
lution programs can be used to train
water pollution control technicians for
employment by State and local govern-
ments. The findings of the study are to
bs reported to the President and to
Congress by July 1, 1967.
This study is sorely needed. Water
pollution legislation already passed by
[p. 24617]
this Congress has greatly strained avail-
able manpower resources.
Last session we authorized over $200
million of additional Federal funds for
construction of waste treatment facili-
ties and for research and development.
The bill we are today considering would
raise Federal waste treatment facility
construction grants in 5 years over
sixfold to $950 million—the Muskie bill
would authorize a tenfold increase to
$1.5 billion in 5 years time—and would
increase the research and development
authorization by approximately $30 mil-
lion this fiscal year.
The net result is that the State and
local governments which will do the con-
struction and operate the new waste
treatment plants may find themselves
with the needed money but without the
necessary engineers to do the job. Mr.
Russell Lynch, an astute student of wa-
ter pollution problems and a member of
the new Wisconsin Water Resources
Board, testified at the Milwaukee water
pollution hearings that the shortage of
trained manpower available to State and
local governments is acute.
I should hope that the Secretary's
study will produce imaginative sugges-
tions for programs which the 90th Con-
gress can enact to close the manpower
gap which we have created.
Mr. Chairman, the Public Works Com-
mittee has again done a great service for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1185
this House by creating and reporting this
fine bill. Together with the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965, which was also a fruit
of the committee's labor, H.R. 16076 will
stand as landmark legislation in the con-
tinuing fight for clean water. I urge
the House to enact it.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 16076,
a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, is directed toward solv-
ing the overwhelming problem of
pollution in our society. I am disap-
pointed, however, because I feel that this
legislation does not reach the magnitude
of the problem. The district that it is my
privilege to represent borders on one of
the great rivers of this Nation—a river
with a splendid history of service to this
country, but a river that is now foully
polluted. This legislation provides for
Federal programs in sewage treatment,
basin plans, and incentive grants in re-
search and development. It would help
to alleviate the unhealthy condition
which plagues the Hudson as well as
countless other great rivers of this Na-
tion. The Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act would now provide for the
development of basin pollution control
and abatement through the establish-
ment of additional incentives, and would
provide greater grants for waste treat-
ment. These are certainly steps in the
right direction.
As a member of the Committee on
Science and Astronautics, which con-
ducted hearings on the adequacy of tech-
nology for pollution abatement, and, as
a representative and inhabitant of an
area that is profoundly affected by this
problem, I have been interested in the
techniques and methods for pollution
control and abatement for quite some
time.
Many witnesses appeared before the
Science and Astronautics Committee
subcommittee to present their views and
suggestions on the water pollution prob-
lem. Without exception, they recom-
mended more extensive Federal efforts
in the funding and initiating of abate-
ment and control projects. Clearly, ex-
tensive Federal participation in this field
is more than a necessity.
I sm disappointed with this bill.
While I feel that H R. 16076 is a signif-
icant and valuable contribution, I do not
feel that it is sufficiently extensive. Its
attack on this critical problem is miti-
gated by self-imposed restrictions. It is,
one might say, a watered-down version
of the bill passed unanimously by the
Senate.
The bill provides a total of $2.3 billion
in new authorizations for a 4-year period,
or an average of $575 million annually.
The Senate-passed measure, on the other
hand, would provide a total of $6 billion
for a 6-year period, or, $1 billion annu-
ally. Thus, the Senate-approved pro-
gram furnishes more than twice as much
financial support, and it authorizes the
program for 2 years longer. The prob-
lem of our polluted rivers—and, as the
committee noted, hardly any American
river is free of purification of some
type—was underscored last year when
the drought on the northeastern sea-
board necessitated severe restrictions on
public use of water. Due to this crisis,
people were, among other things, for-
bidden from watering their lawn and
taking showers. The situation became
so critical that an airplane was flown
over New York City with the sign, "Don't
Flush for Everything," attached to its
rear. Yet in New York, for example, had
the waters of the Hudson been fit for
consumption, this restrictive rationing
would not have been necessary.
Mr, Chairman, I believe that the
American public supports a concentrated
attack upon the pollution problem.
Clean water is the concern of Americans
of all incomes, geographical locations,
and types of employment.
Mr. Chairman, H.R 16076 would be
considerably improved if the authoriza-
ions were as great as the Senate-ap-
proved figures.
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Chan man, I rise in support of H.R. 16076,
a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act in order to improve and
-------
1186
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
make more effective certain programs
pursuant to such act. In so doing I first
would like to commend the Honorable
GEORGE FALLON, the chairman of the
Public Works Committee, the Honorable
JOHN BLATNIK, the chairman of the Riv-
ers and Harbors Subcommittee which
drafted this legislation after very com-
prehensive hearings and consideration,
and also the Honorable WILLIAM CRAMER,
the ranking minority member of the
Public Works Committee, for their lead-
ership in bringing to the floor of the
House of Representatives a very compre-
hensive bill which I believe will go a long,
long way toward solving the very com-
plex and damaging problems of water
pollution.
Many areas of the Nation have suf-
fered very serious droughts. This has
brought clearly to our attention the im-
portance of our water resources to the
basic foundation of our economy. It is
not well enough that we develop these
resources through multiple-purpose
projects and other ways if pollution of
our rivers, our streams, and our lakes
steals from us the value of this water.
We have only to look out the window
down at the Potomac River to realize the
price we must pay for pollution.
Hopefully through the efforts of this
bill we will be able to invest in pollution
control and prevention, and investment
which I feel would return great divi-
dends. This is especially true of the
preventive steps which should be taken
before the situation becomes as desperate
as it now has become in many of your
water sites. I should point out that just
a short time ago the President, in dis-
cussing the question of pollution, pointed
out an example of waste resulting from
pollution:
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.
Mr. Speaker, turning to my own State
I feel that we have had a good program
of water pollution control. However,
testimony before the Public Works Com-
mittee clearly shows that we must have
further assistance if we are to solve
completely the problems, which in many
instances are bistate in nature. A good
example of this is Lake Tahoe on the
California-Nevada line. I am very ap-
preciative that the Rivers and Harbors
Subcommittee, under the leadership of
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] held hearings at the lake and
considered firsthand problems which we
are facing there. At these hearings a
number of preventive and corrective
measures were proposed. These are in
the nature of minimum requirements.
While the lake's crystal-clear waters
now exceed drinking water standards,
the threat of degradation is being posed
by rising population, millions of visitors,
and sewage seepage into the lake from
the cesspools and septic tanks that still
provide the principal mode of waste
treatment. Through the development of
a basin plan which is authorized by this
legislation and through the other pro-
grams provided for in this legislation,
we should be able to overcome the pollu-
tion problem, which, if unconquered, will
destroy one of the Nation's most scenic
spots.
Certainly there are other areas
throughout the country which are ex-
periencing similar problems. All are
worthy of consideration and assistance
at the Federal level. Therefore let us
today give our support to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and thereby
show the Federal Government will
continue to accept its responsibility in
the field of pollution control by pro-
viding for the development of basin
pollution control and abatement plans
[p. 24618]
through the establishment of additional
incentives; by increasing grants under
the existing program from waste treat-
ment; and by making certain other pro-
visions.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the
House can take a significant step today
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1187
in the direction of ridding our Nation's
lakes and rivers of the scourge of pollu-
tion by approving H.R. 16076.
In the face of ever-increasing demands
for water, action by the Federal Govern-
ment in this area has long been impera-
tive. The fact that we can now fulfill
our immediate responsibility in passing
meaningful and productive legislation is
gratifying.
By approving the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act the Members of this
body can demonstrate their determina-
tion to work cooperatively with the 50
States of our Nation in a coordinated
program.
In my own State of Wisconsin, for ex-
ample, bordered as it is by two of the
Great Lakes and blessed with thousands
of smaller fresh water lakes and streams,
the pressing need for this legislation has
been obvious for too long. Wisconsin
has, in a very real sense, become virtu-
ally surrounded by filthy and contamin-
ated water. Along our western border
the once magnificent Mississippi River is
now little more than a tragic torrent of
filth. Lakes Michigan and Superior
along our eastern and northern bounda-
ries have lost much of their natural
beauty and recreational value and are
now cesspools of inadequately treated
municipal sewage, industrial wastes, and
shipboard discharges.
Across the vast reaches of our great
north country, lakes once abundant in
game fish and otherwise providing natu-
ral habitat for other wildlife are now
stifled by excessive weeds, murky and
dank water, and undesirable odors.
The unfortunate reality is that my
State of Wisconsin is not alone in this
regard. From across the land the evi-
dence has mounted in a rising
crescendo—in an urgent plea for mean-
ingful corrective legislation.
It goes without saying that while H.R.
16076 will go far toward providing that
corrective action, much will still remain
to be done. Because water pollution is
the result of many complex factors and
cuts across community boundaries indis-
criminately, continued coordinated effort
by all levels of government will be nec-
essary.
Upon the hopeful passage of this bill I
feel confident that succeeding Congresses
will look to the responsible efforts of this
89th Congress as the precedent which
will guide their future actions in the
cause of returning our lakes and rivers
to the people.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to support H.R. 16076, the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Amend-
ments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act
of 1966.
Water pollution is an urgent, ominous,
and persistent threat to our natural re-
sources, to our economic growth, and to
our national well-being. The unusual
unanimity of House support for this bill
shows that the Congress recognizes the
gravity of this threat, and also recog-
nizes that the House Public Works Com-
mittee has presented to us a reasonable
and promising measure.
In addition to the expanded Federal
support for pollution control projects
provided in H.R. 16076, the bill has sev-
eral especially commendable aspects.
First, title I embodies two steps which I
have advocated for some time, and which
were incorporated in a bill (H.R. 12457)
which I introduced on February 2.
These steps are: First, to raise to a
more realistic level the dollar ceiling on
Federal participation in individual proj-
ects, and second, to provide additional
incentives for meaningful State partici-
pation, thus reducing the heavy burdens
on individual communities. While H.R.
16076 does not go as far in these direc-
tions as my bill, it does make significant
progress and should encourage an ex-
panded attack on pollution problems.
The new clean rivers program in
title II is based on the obvious premise
that pollution problems which infect an
entire river basin must be dealt with
basinwide. By setting forth a workable
process for formulation and approval of
basinwide plans, and by providing spe-
cial incentives for such comprehensive
-------
1188
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
efforts, the bill should greatly aid trou-
bled regions like the Potomac River Ba-
sin, where the complex and stubborn
problems of pollution cannot be resolved
by the best efforts of individual cities,
counties, and towns. I trust that the
Governors of the Potomac Basin States
will promptly begin to develop concrete
plans for implementing the act in this
vital, beautiful, and historic region.
Finally, I am very pleased that H.R.
16076 encourages industrial antipollu-
tion initiatives not only through a
strengthened program of cooperative re-
search, but also through investigation of
new tools, such as tax incentives. The
use of tax incentives, an approach which
is gaining growing support in Congress
and throughout the Nation, was recom-
mended in my bill, H.R. 12481, and has
been advocated by many of my col-
leagues. The Secretary of the Interior
is directed under section 211 of the pend-
ing bill to study the tax incentives route
and other means of furthering industrial
leadership in combating pollution. I
look forward to receiving his recom-
mendations, and meanwhile will con-
tinue to press for complementary
consideration of tax law reforms by the
House Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests on this side for time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
The CHARIMAN. There being no
further requests for time, pursuant to
the rule, the Clerk will read the commit-
tee amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute now printed in the bill as an
original bill for the purpose of amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[p. 24619]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. REID OF
NEW YORK
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. REID of New
York- On page 33, line 22, after "coastal
waters", insert "sounds".
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, the amendment I am offering will
make explicit that "sounds," such as
Long Island Sound, are covered by the
definition of "basin" in the instant bill.
If the State of New York or other ap-
propriate States want to take advantage
of the basin approach in a program to
control and abate pollution, Long Island
Sound would be clearly covered and eli-
gible for 50 percent Federal funding pro-
vided the State or States contribute 25
percent of the cost.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REID of New York. I am happy
to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I am glad to accept
the amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. REID of New York. I am happy
to yield to the gentleman from Minne-
sota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, this is
a clarifying amendment and a justifiable
one. As chairman, on behalf of the com-
mittee, I will accept the amendment.
Mr. REID of New York. I thank the
chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HARSHA
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HARSHA: On
page 46, line 7, after the period add the fol-
lowing new language: "The Secretary shall
report the results of such investigation and
study, together with his recommendation, to
the Congress not later than January 30,1968."
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment deals with a very important
aspect of the whole problem of water
pollution control and pollution abate-
ment. This section authorizes the Sec-
retary of the Interior to conduct a full
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1189
and a complete investigation and study
of the methods for providing incentives
designed to assist in the construction of
facilities and works by industry designed
to reduce or abate water pollution, but
the section as it now reads, without the
amendment, does not provide any time
limit for this particular study to be com-
pleted. Because of the urgency ot these
problems and the national interest in it,
I believe it would be much more advis-
able to have a particular time limit
within which the Secretary of Interior
should report to the Congress about this
particular study he would be authorized
by the legislation to make. That is the
purpose of my amendment, and I hope
it is adopted.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I think the gentle-
man's amendment is sound; otherwise
there would be no time limit, no specific
requirement for reporting. This is an
important section. There should be a
time limit stated. I think the time pro-
vided is reasonable, and I support the
amendment.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. I heartily concur
with the statements and sentiments ex-
pressed by both the gentlemen, and the
amendment is accepted by the chairman.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man. Unless the amendment is ap-
proved the study could go on indefinitely
and the purpose of the entire provision
would be rendered ineffectual.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
agreeing to ihe amendment of the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. IRWIN
Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. IRWIN ' On page
46 after line 7 insert the following;
SEC 212 The Secretary of the Interior
shall conduct a full and complete investiga-
tion 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
water craft using such waters, and methods
of abating either in whole or in part such
pollution The Secretary shall submit a re-
port of such investigation to Congress, to-
gether with his recommendations for any
necessary legislation, not later than July 1,
1967 "
Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have
discussed this amendment with the
distinguished gentleman from Minne-
sota [Mr. BLATNIK] and the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER].
It speaks for itself. I believe there is no
objection to it.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. IRWIN I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. The amendment is
acceptable. It serves a very necessary
purpose. We accept it on this side.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. IRWIN. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman cor-
rectly stated the attitude on this side.
We support the smendment. It is
similar to the provision written in the
Senate bill.
Mr. IRWIN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the
Members of the majority and minority
sides for their help in this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Connecticut.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OTTINGER
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr OTTINGER: On
page 28, at line 13 After the word. "Wash-
ington", add "or, in the event the Hudson
-------
1190
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
River Basin is involved, the Governors of at
least New York and New Jersey,"
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
congratulate the committee for the fine
job it has done on this essential problem.
My amendment is a technical one.
The definition of a basin, under section
211, is:
The term "basin" includes, but is not lim-
ited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams,
coastal waters, estuaries, bays, lakes, and por-
tions thereof, as well as the lands drained
thereby.
In the hearings on the Hudson River
bill, H.R. 13508, now enacted into law,
it was made quite clear that the Hudson
River Basin would include not only the
States of New York and New Jersey,
which have a primary interest in the
basin, but as well Massachusetts, Ver-
mont, and Connecticut.
Since only New York and New Jersey
have a substantial interest with respect
to pollution in the Hudson, they should
be allowed to proceed and qualify by
themselves.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OTTINGER. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is put-
ting the amendment on page 28, section
202? Or is he putting it with the defini-
tion of basins in section 211?
Mr. OTTINGER. The amendment is
on page 2&, at line 13, to make it clear
that with respect to the requirement that
50 percent of the Governors of the States
involved in a basin have to agree, with
respect to planning and programs, this
would be the provision.
Mr. CRAMER. How far has the Hud-
son River Basin progressed in relation to
congressionally authorized action? Is
there a compact? Is it in being? Has
it been approved by the Congress?
Mr. OTTINGER. The compact is in
negotiation.
Mr. CRAMER. Congress has not yet
authorized this compact as such between
these States.
Mr. OTTINGER. It has authorized
the negotiation of a compact.
Mr. CRAMER. I would suggest to the
gentleman that the river basins which
are included in section 28—I shall be
glad to be corrected by the majority side,
if they do not agree—have been approved
by Congress for some sort of action or
for compact approval, and have had the
approval of Congress as such. They
were put in there for the purpose of not
requiring them to go back through that
same procedure again as it relates to
water pollution control, and also to give
them a means of functioning with a re-
quirement greater, not less. The gentle-
[p. 24622]
man's amendment would provide less,
rather than more than 50 percent of the
Governors to make such a request relat-
ing to water pollution control. The gen-
tleman's amendment, as I understand it,
would permit less than a majority in this
basin.
Mr. OTTINGER. That is correct, be-
cause in this peculiar situation only the
States of New York and New Jersey
have a substantial interest.
Although there are five States—New
York, New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut,
and Massachusetts—involved in the
Hudson River Basin, New York and New
Jersey account for more than 99 percent
of the area of the basin.
It is the States of New York and New
Jersey that have the real responsibility
for working out the compact that will
determine the future course of this great
basin's development.
Earlier this month, this Congress
passed and sent to the President a Hud-
son River Compact bill, which I authored,
HR. 13508. This bill has now been
Signed and enacted into law (Public Law
89-605). While it deals with much more
than the problem of pollution abate-
ment, one intent of the law is to provide
the mechanism through which the bene-
fits of this very act we are considering
here today will be applied to the Hudson
River Basin. This was the clear and ex-
pressed intent of the Secretary of In-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1191
terior in his endorsement of my bill.
For the RECORD I would like to present
the report of the Secretary of the In-
terior on H.R. 13508:
U S. DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR
OFFICE or THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D C.
HON. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Ins-u-
lar Affair*, Hou&e of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ms. ASPMAL: This responds to your
request fbr the views of this Department on
H.R. 13508, a bill "To direct the Secretary of
Interior to cooperate with the States of New
York and New Jersey on a program to de-
velop, preserve, and restore the resources of
the Hudson River and its shores and to au-
thorize certain necessary steps to be taken to
protect those resources from adverse Federal
actions until the States and Congress shall
have had an opportunity to act on that
program."
We strongly recommend enactment of this
legislation if amended as proposed herein.
The bill points out that the States of New
York and New Jersey are currently working
on a joint program to develop, preserve, and
restore the resources of the Hudson Hiver
and its shores, and authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to cooperate with the Gover-
nors of those States in preparing and propos-
ing a program of legislative action not later
than March 1, 1967. It authorizes the Secre-
tary to represent the United States in nego-
tiations with those States, and to report to
the President and the Congress on the result
of those negotiations, and lists a number of
factors to guide the Secretary in making the
recommendations
Recognizing that these negotiations may be
protracted and that additional time will be
required before the Federal and State Gov-
ernments can take appropriate action, the bill
provides that for a period of three years all
Federal agencies with responsibility for proj-
ects affecting the Hudson River will cooperate
with the Secretary in carrying out their plans
The bill further requires approval by the
Secretary before construction with Federal-
aid funds of highways within one mile of the
river, and before construction of projects
under license from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or the Atomic Energy Commission.
The bill further imposes a three-year mora-
torium on Federal Power Commission licens-
ing for projects on and affecting the river.
The three-year period of delay may be sooner
terminated upon the passage of appropriate
legislation or upon a finding by the President
that the national interest will otherwise be
adversely affected.
The Hudson River today represents a major
problem to the citizens of New York and New
Jersey and illustrates in virulent form a prob-
lem facing practically every major river in
this country. It played a significant and
varied part in the growth and development
of young America and represented a major
highway of commerce in the early colonial
days. It remains today a major factor in the
continuing development of the eastern sea-
board. The Hudson River has suffered as a
result of these and other factors. Industrial
development along its banks presents major
problems, the waters are polluted and blight
has set in.
At times in its past, the Hudson River has
been called one of the most beautiful rivers
in the world But it can no longer be so
termed. There is no reason to permit this
state of affairs to continue but it must be
recognized that it will take money, time and
effort to restore and preserve this river and
Ks shores for the benefit of the citizens of
New York and New Jersey, and, indeed of the
United States. The States of New York and
.-lew Jersey have already expressed interest
in taking steps necessary to improve the con-
dition of the Riverway. Doing this job, how-
ever, will require action by more than those
States alone The Federal Government has
a substantial interest in seeing that the job is
done quickly and properly.
This Department has been aware of many
of the problems presented by the Hudson
River in its present state for some period of
time. We have informally discussed these
problems with representatives of the State
governments, local bodies, and interested pri-
vate persons. Most are in substantial agree-
ment that the time has come to take steps to
improve the present situation, although there
still exists a wide division of opinion as to the
most appropriate way in which to move.
The Hudson River Valley Commission ap-
pointed to study the problem for New York
State after the introduction of Federal legisla-
tive proposals in 1965 completed its Summary
Report in February of this year It recom-
mended the establishment of a permanent
interstate commission by Federal-State com-
pact to guide the planning and development
of the Hudson River Valley. The Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation of this Department has
been working on a study on the same subject.
Its preliminary findings have been submitted
to the President's Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty, and it is anticipated that the
completed Study Report will soon be pub-
lished in final form The program which this
bill contemplates is consistent with the find-
ings and recommendations of these two study
efforts at their present state of development.
H R. 13508 approaches the problem in two
ways- (1) by authorizing the Secretary of the
Interior to negotiate and discuss with the
States proper methods of attacking the exist-
ing problems confronting the affected parties,
and (2) by providing a three-year period.
-------
1192
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
during which the Federal Government may
act only in limited fashion.
We have given considerable thought and
study to the proper form that a compact
should take in order to accomplish the highly
desirable purposes of this bill It is certainly
too early to know what the final version of
such a compact should be, but it is not ioo
early to see, in broad outline, that some ob-
jectives must be met, if the compact is to
provide an adequate solution to an admittedly
perplexing situation. Such a compact must,
we feel, provide for the establishment of an
overall comprehensive plan for the develop-
ment and preservation of the Hudson River-
way and of the land resources of the basin
that affect it. Moreover, the compact must
provide meaningful standards for such a plan
and must vest whatever agency is charged
with the responsibility for developing and
maintaining this plan with all authority nec-
essary to assure that the plan is not impaired
and is carried out in the best possible manner.
We cannot accept less, for to do so would be
to condemn such an agency to the role of a
passive onlooker
. . . We feel that its enactment would serve
an extremely useful purpose, permitting the
development of a compact to protect the irre-
placeable resources of the Hudson River and
to preserve them for future generations All
too clearly we see around us evidences of our
abuse of our natural resources and national
heritage. Clearly, it should not be permitted
to continue and equally clearly the present
bill provides a vehicle for arresting this proc-
ess. It is for this reason that we endorse 'ihis
bill and strongly recommend its immediate
consideration and enactment.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that
it concurs in favoring the legislation, if
amended as proposed herein, and that enact-
ment of H R. 13508, so amended, would
be consistent with the Administration's
objectives.
Sincerely yours,
STEWART L UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
It is clear that the amendment I am
proposing will make it possible to carry
out the intent of Congress in this meas-
ure we are now considering.
How utterly ridiculous it would be if
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Ver-
mont between them were to launch on a
river basin project for a basin in which
they collectively had less than 1-percent
interest. Certainly these States have an
interest, but 99 percent of the interest is
with New York and New Jersey.
I believe these two States should be
allowed to proceed provided they agree
on a program.
Mr. CRAMER. Suppose the other
three Governors disagree. It would do
some harm then, would it not?
Mr. OTTINGER. They have really
only a minimal interest in the river.
And practically no effect insofar as
pollution is concerned. I think in this
situation the States of New York and
New Jersey, if they agree on a program,
should
Mr. CRAMER. Does not the gentle-
man feel, if this authority is desired, the
States now in the process of negotiating
a compact should put that term in the
compact instead of getting Congress into
the middle of the act and into the middle
of the five Governors and let them sub-
mit it to the respective States if they
want to include them if the legislatures
will go along with it. But I do not think
that we should try to dictate to them
before they have submitted such a plan,
that only two Governors can go ahead
and do this with their approval.
Mr. OTTINGER. No. In this case
the States of New York and New Jersey
[p. 24623]
have more than 99 percent of the river
basin and there would not really be much
of an interest on the part of the States of
Massachusetts, Vermont, or Connecticut.
As you know, compacts take a long time
to negotiate. They can be very compli-
cated. The Delaware compact took 7
years. We hope we would not have to
wait 7 years before we started on the job
of cleaning up the pollution until a com-
pact is fully negotiated. I believe that
the States principally concerned—New
York and New Jersey—should be al-
lowed to proceed.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment
of the gentleman from New York be re-
ported again.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1193
The Clerk re-read the amendment of-
fered by Mr. OTTINGER.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to pro-
long the discussion, but it does seem to
me that it is not proper, particularly at
this late hour, to come in with a pro-
posal of this nature that involves a basin
that has not yet been submitted to the
Congress for any consideration whatso-
ever, be it compact approval or approval
of a specific flood control type of pro-
gram. Therefore, all the basins that are
included in this section are there for the
explicit purpose of adding to the respon-
sibilities, and the number of Governors
that must be included above the 50 per-
cent general rule was put in section 202.
The amendment of the gentleman dic-
tates that we will decrease that to two
out of five. I realize what the problem is,
but I think he has a solution to his prob-
lem. No. 1, in dealing with the States
in their negotiations for the compact in
the first place, they can then come to
Congress when the compact is formed
and determine whether two Governors
should do it. That should be the proper
place to do it and not try to prejudge
something that we do not know anything
about on the record, which is the form
of this amendment.
I will be glad to yield to the gentleman
from New York if anything I have said
has been a misstatement.
Mr. OTTINGER. The problem did not
come to light until the Hudson River
legislation was considered and this de-
termination was made by the Depart-
ment of the Interior as I pointed out
earlier. The remarks of the President
when he signed the Hudson River Com-
pact bill on September 26 reveal a con-
siderable understanding of the problem.
I would like to present these for the
RECORD:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON SIGNING H R
13508, HUDSON RIVER BASIN COMPACT BILL,
SEPTEMBER 26, 1966
Three weeks ago, in "West Virginia, I said
that mankind is in a race with catastrophe.
I was not speaking of war, or plague, or
famine I was speaking of a global water
shortage that even now is making itsell felt
Since the birth of Christ, man's population
has increased 13 fold Yet the amount of
water available to us has remained the same
But let me qualify that last statement. The
amount of water available to us has remained
the same but the amount of water we can use
is diminishing at an alarming rate
Nature isn't doing this We are By our
carelessness, by our neglect, and by our blind
rush of progress, we are fouling one of the
most precious resources we possess, our
rivers
We could hardly find a better example than
the Hudson River For this river, rich in his-
tory and folklore, and once rich in natural
beauty, has suffered a century of abuse and
neglect Two billion gallons of sewage are
dumped into it every day, refuse and decay
line its shores, blight has barred the people
from enjoying its heritage
Early in our history, men lived with this
river For 200 years it flowed clean and beau-
tiful, providing transportation, food, recrea-
tion and inspiration
But we cut ourselves off from this birth-
right Railroads were built on both banks.
Piers and factories littered the shoreline.
Municipal and industrial wastes have louled
the water. Towns have turned inward, shun-
ning the river, too often using it as a dump-
ing ground for abandoned cars and other
debris of our civilization.
Well this day—September 26th—marks a
turning point Because this Congress and this
Administration believe that technology should
serve man, rather than intimidate him, we
are signing a bill that will begin the task of
purifying the waters of the Hudson.
This bill makes possible a truly cooperative
approach to the job of making the Hudson a
source of pleasure and beauty
It marks the beginning of major efforts to
clean up the river: to provide pleasant
beaches along its shores, which can offer
relief from the pressures of uiban living for
millions of Americans.
Neither Federal nor State action alone
would be adequate to this task. It will re-
quire the best efforts of all of us—including
the towns and industries along the shores
I believe we are up to the challenge. This
bill gives us the tools to meet it.
I believe it begins a new day for one of
America's great rivers I hope it points the
way for all our rivers
There is no mischief involved here,
but it is a question of having two States
that have an overwhelming predomi-
nance of interest in the river able to deal
under this statute.
Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman was
-------
1194
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
attempting to propose a majority should
approve it but of that majority two, New
York and New Jersey, should be in-
cluded, I would not have any objection
to it. However, the way the gentleman's
amendment is drafted, it has to be New
York and Jersey, period, that can do it,
without any other State. If the gentle-
man will accept an amendment to that,
all right.
Mr. OTTINGER. All right. If I can
have unanimous consent, I will strike out
the words "at least" and that will con-
form the legislation to the gentleman's
recommendation.
Mr. CRAMER. It is my opinion, I will
say to the gentleman, that that will not
do the job "of a majority, including the
Governors of New York and New
Jersey."
Mr. OTTINGER. That is all right.
Mr. CRAMER. And I will offer that
wording as a substitute.
Mr. OTTINGER. I will accept the
substitute.
Mr. BLATNIK. The substitute as
amended is acceptable to us on this side.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CRAMER
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER to the
amendment offered by Mr. OTTINCER: After
the word "involved" strike out the words
"the Governors of at least", and insert "a
majority of the Governors, including the
Governors of"
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. CRAMER], to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. OTTINGEB].
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended.
The amendment as amended was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the Committee amendment as amended.
The Committee amendment as
amended was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. HANSEN of Iowa, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under considera-
tion the bill (H.R. 16076) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
order to improve and make more effec-
tive certain programs pursuant to such
act, pursuant to House Resolution 1026,
he reported the bill back to the House
with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 312, nays 0, not voting 119,
as follows:
*****
[p. 24624]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BLATNIK
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BLATNIK: Strike
out all after the enacting clause of the bill
S. 2947 and insert in lieu thereof the provi-
sions of H.R. 16076 as passed by the House.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
A similar House bill was laid on the
table.
[p. 24629]
•tfU'S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1974 O-469-51A (Vol. 2)
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V. Library f •
230 South Dearborn Street ^'
Chicago, Illinois 60604 x" ... «...
?, Litrary
S-r.'^', 'v\*''i-r«i»
-------
iii,.
------- |