THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
L
on _ no
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
I
LU
o
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
55
V
\
UJ
CD
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-rf^.-r.-v.-- ^ Protectl8n
ronmental Prot
Chicago
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price $27.25 per 7-part set. Sold in sets only.
Stock Number 5500-0068
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that once
the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can generate.
Environmentally, the fire has been lit.
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public concern-
ing the environment, we are experiencing a new American Revolu-
tion, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began with the
industrial revolution is over and things will never be quite the same
again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudgingly at times, but
inexorably into an age when social, spiritual and aesthetic values
will be prized more than production and consumption. We have
reached a point where we must balance civilization and nature
through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new ethic.
It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due regard is
given to the environmental consequences of actions by public and
private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompasses
basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing standards;
monitoring; and making delicate risks—benefit decisions aimed at
creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a shield
behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The greatest dis-
service the Environmental Protection Agency could do to American
industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment would suf-
fer, public trust would diminish and instead of free enterprise,
environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise and
well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent to
regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as bsing for the "public
convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism make it
essential not only that today's decisions bs wise and well-founded
but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not faith, is
de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings, the
citizen should have access to the information available to the agency.
EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information,
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any interested party. With
this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal Authority was produced
not only for internal operations of EPA, but as a service to the public,
as we strive together to lead the way, through the law, to preserving
the earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS.,
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental units
with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were cited
in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, requested
that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a re-
search tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has baen 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, Wm. Lee Rawls, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy
Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, and John D. Whittaker, Peter J. McKenna,
Linda L. Payne, John M. Himmelberg, and Dana W. Smith, a beauti-
ful staff who gave unlimited effort; and to many others, behind the
scenes who rendered varied assistance.
LANE WARD, J.D.,
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the legal
authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
operates. These documents are for the general usa 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 matarials contrary to
their intended purpose. Moreover, it should be noted that portions
of the Congressional Record from the 92nd Congress were extracted
from the "unofficial" daily version and are subject to subsequent
modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legisla-
tive history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.
To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal Compilation
is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
WATER
The chapter labeled "Water" and color coded blue contains the
legal authority of the Agency as it applies to water pollution abate-
ment. It is well to note that any law which is applicable to more than
one chapter of the compilation will appear in each of the chapters;
however, its legislative history will be cross referenced into the
"General" chapter where it is printed in full.
SUBCHAPTERS:
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compila-
tion by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative His-
tory begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Vll
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
Thiisly, 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 Rsport,
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
et seq. (1970).
1.3 Pollution of the Sea by Oil, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.
(1966).
1.4 Advances of Public Moneys, Pro-
hibition Against, as revised, 31
U.S.C. §529 (1946).
1.5 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or Services
for Government Departments; App
Application to Government Sales
and Contracts to Sell and to Gov-
ernment Corporations, as amended,
41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.6 Courts of Appeals, Certiorari;
Appeal; Certified Questions, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948).
1.7 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40
U.S.C. §276a-275a-5 (1964).
1.8 Per Diem, Travel and Transporta-
tion Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving
Without Pay, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
§5703 (1966).
1.9 1909 Boundry Waters Treaty Be-
tween Canada and the United
States, and the Water Utilization
Treaty of 1944 Between Mexico and
the United States, 36 Stat. 2448
(1909), 59 Stat. 1219 (1944).
E.O. 11574 sets out EPA's function under
this Act.
Transferred to EPA in Reorg. Plan No. 3
of 1970.
Implements the Convention of
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1155(g) (3) (A).
Referred to in Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in §1155 (g) (3) (A).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1157 (g) (2).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1158(g).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1159 (a) (2) (B),
1160 (c) (4), (i).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1160 (d) (2).
-------
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 Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h) (1970).
1.24 Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
1.25 Airport and Airway Development
Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f),1716(c)(4),
(e) (1970).
1.26 Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
1.27 Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§661-
666c (1965).
The Act at §109 (h) requires the Secre-
tary of Transportation to consult with
the appropriate agency dealing with
water pollution, in this case, the Admin-
istrator of EPA, before promulgating
guidelines for any proposed project on
any federal aid system.
The section cited in the Act refers di-
rectly to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the Federal certifying
authority requirement filing to the Sec-
retary of the Interior in the case of
water pollution, both functions being
transferred through Reorg. Plan
Direct reference made to water pollution
and the appropriate agency to deal with
same in the Act.
The sections of the Act provide a tax re-
lief on industrial development bonds for
sewage or solid waste disposal facility
and water pollution control facilities, at
the section cited.
E.O. 11574, Administration of Refuse Act
Permit Program.
Executive Orders
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to more
than one area of the pollution chapters.
Regulations
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2, 'etc.).
Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which the Agency
has direct contact.
Guidelines and Reports
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.). In
this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of EPA, pub-
lished guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than EPA's and
inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING:
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distribu-
tion and made available through the U.S. Government Printing Office
in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal Compilation.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
C. WATER
VOLUME I
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Page
1.1 River and Harbor Act of 1899, U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411
(1899) . . 3
l.la River and Harbor Act of 1886, August 5,1886, P.L. 49-929,
§§2, 3, 24 Stat. 329. 6
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1448, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 7
(2) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1565, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 8
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1391,
49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 9
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 17 (1886):
(a) May 6: Amended and passed House, pp.
4243-4247; . . 9
(b) July 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7035,
7037; , 14
(c) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by Senate,
p. 7906; 15
(d) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by House,
p. 7934. . 15
Lib New York Harbor Act of 1888, June 29, 1888, P.L. 50-469,
§1, 25 Stat. 209. . 15
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 224,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 16
(2) House Committee on Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1963,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 16
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 19 (1888):
(a) March 21: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
p. 2300; 16
(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4889-4890; 17
(c) June 14: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 5239. 19
l.lc River and Harbor Act of 1890, September 19, 1890, P.L.
51-907, §6 26, Stat. 453. 19
- (1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1488, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890). 20
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1378,
51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890). 21
(3) Committee of Conference, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 21 (1890), p. 9558. 21
xiii
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 21 (1890):
(a) May 28: Passed House, p. 5412; . 23
(b) Aug. 15, 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
8607, 8684-8685; . ... .... 23
(c) Sept. 6: House agrees to conference report, p.
9822; . . 29
(d) Sept. 8: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
9830. . 29
l.ld River and Harbor Act of 1894, August 18,1894, P.L. 53-299,
§§6, 7, 8, 9, 28 Stat. 363. . . 29
(1) Damage to Harbor Improvements, Letter from the
Acting Secretary of War, House Committee on Rivers
and Harbors, H.R. EX. DOC. No. 123, 53rd Cong., 2d
Sess. (1894). 31
(2) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894). 34
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 519,
53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894). 35
(4) Committee of Conference, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 26, (1894), pp. 8173-8175. . . 35
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894):
(a) May 4: Amended and passed House, p. 4430; 35
(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414; 35
(c) Aug. 6: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
8230; . . .35
(d) Aug. 6: House agrees to conference report, p.
8251. 35
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, 19J1,
P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 1981. 45
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP. No.
91-1668, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 46
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. REP. No.
91-1430, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 47
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1794; 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 49
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 10: Passed House, p. 40926; 50
(b) Dec. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 41317,
41322-41323, 41330; 50
(c) Dec. 22: House agrees to conference report, p.
43391; 52
(d) Dec. 28: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
43706, 43709. 53
1.2 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
§1151etscq. (1970). ' 55
1.2a The Water Pollution Control Act, June 30, 1948, P.L.
80-845, 62 Stat. 1155. 132
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 462,
80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). 141
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1829, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 151
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2399, 80th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 172
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 93 (1947), July 16: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 9032; 9034-9035; 175
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 14: Amended and passed
House, pp. 8192; 8195-8203; 176
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 15: Senate disagrees to
House amendments and demands conference, pp.
8295-8296; 196
(d) Vol. 94 (1948), June 16: House agrees to confer-
ence, p. 8458; . 196
(e) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: House agrees to confer-
ence report, p. 8864; . 196
(f) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: Conference report sub-
mitted in Senate, p. 8772; 198
(g) Vol. 94 (1948), June 19: Senate agrees to confer-
ence report, pp. 9002-9003. 199
1.2b Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, May 24, 1950, 15 Fed.
Reg. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267. . 200
1.2c Water Pollution Control Act Extension, July 17, 1952, P.L.
82-579, 66 Stat. 755. 200
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1990, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 201
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 2092,
82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 205
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 98 (1952):
(a) June 12: Passed House, pp. 6364-6365; 211
(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317. 213
1.2d Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, July 9, 1956, P.L.
84-660, 70 Stat. 498. 213
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 543,
84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 227
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1446, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 250
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2479, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1956). . 272
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), June 17: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 8623, 8627; 292
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), June 13: Amended and passed
House; House insists on its amendments and
asks for conference, pp. 10278, 10281; 293
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), June 14: Senate disagrees to
House amendments and agrees to conference, pp.
10323, 10327; 293
(d) Vol.102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in House and agreed to, pp. 11149, 11154; 295
(e) Vol.102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in Senate, and agreed to, pp. 11075-11076. 296
1.2e Alaska's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
25, 1959, P.L. 86-70, §28 (a), (b), 73 Stat. 148. 297
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 369, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). 297
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 331, 86th Cong., 1st Ssss. (1959). 300
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed House, p.
9478; 302
(b) June 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 9676; 302
(c) June 11: House concurs in Senate amendments,
with amendment, p. 10570; 302
(d) June 12: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 10594. 302
1.2f Hawaii's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
12, 1960, P.L. 86-624, §23 (a), 74 Stat. 417. 302
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 303
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 305
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960):
(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10355; . 307
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14684; 307
(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 15009. 307
1.2g The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 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, 1965, P.L.
89-234, 79 Stat. 903. 533
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
215. 89th Cong, 1st Sess. (1965). 544
VOLUME II
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 10,
89th Cong, 1st Sess. (1965). 579
(3) Committee of Conference, 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 1966, November 3,
1966, P.L. 89-753, 80 Stat. 1246. 812
(1) House Committee on Public Works, HR. 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 (1966):
(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; 1984
(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-
tion Control 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. 13639-
13640; 2158
(b) Aug. 19: Considered and passed Senate, p. 19991. 2158
1.4 Advances of Pub;.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).l 2159
(2) Se-i-ite 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 114a-1.14c(2) (b)" for legislative history)
1.6 Courts of Appeals, Certiorari; Appeal; Certified Questions, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948). 2167
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1157 (g) (2) ]
1.6a An Act to Codify, Revise and Amend the Laws Relating to
i Document in Dept. of Interior Library, but in nonreproducible condition.
2 Report unpublished.
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
the Judiciary, March 3, 1911, P.L. 61-475, §§239, 240, 36
Stat. 1157. 2168
1.6b Act to Amend the Judicial Code and to Further Define
the Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeal and of the
Supreme Court and for Other Purposes, February 13,1925,
P.L. 68-415, §1, 43 Stat. 93S-939. 2168
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 362,
68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924). 2174
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1075, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. (1925). 2178
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 66 (1925):
(a) Feb. 2: Amended and passed House, p. 2880; 2188
(b) Feb. 3: Amended and passed Senate, p. 2928; 2188
(c) Feb. 4: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 3005. 2189
1.6c An Act in Reference to Writs of Error, January 31, 1928,
P.L. 70-10, §1, 45 Stat. 54. 2191
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
370, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (1928). 2191
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 69 (1928) :
(a) Jan. 14: Passed Senate, p. 1486; 2192
(b) Jan. 25: Passed House, p. 2040. 2192
1.6d 1934 Amendments to 1893 Act, June 7, 1934, P.L. 73-298,
48 Stat. 926. . . 2192
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 917,
73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2193
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1748, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2194
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) May 10: Passed Senate, p. 8479; 2196
(b) June 5: Passed House, p. 10537. 2197
1.7 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5 (1964). 2198
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1158 (g) ]
(See, "General 1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history)
1.8 Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as amended, 5
U.S.C. §5703 (1966). 2202
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1159(a) (2) (B), 1160(c) (4), (i)]
(See, "General 1.15a-1.15d(3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.9 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty Between Canada and the United
States and the Water Utilization Treaty of 1944 Between Mexico
and the United States, 36 Stat. 2448 (1909), 59 Stat. 1219 (1944). 2203
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1160 (d) (2) ]
1.9a Congressional Record, Vol. 91 (1945), April 18: Senate
advises and consents to treaty and supplementary proto-
col, pp. 3480-3492. 2247
1.10 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as amended,
18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). 2273
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1160 (f) (2), (k) (1); 1163 (g) (3)]
(See, "General 1.16a-1.16a(3) (c)" for legislative history)
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
1.11 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,
Article XXIV, 15 U.S.T. 1612, 1613 (1958). 2274
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (a) (9)]
Ilia Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (I960), 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. (1938). 2623
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) Sept. 16: Amended and passed House, pp. 26929-
26930; 2624
(b) Oct. 11: Passed Senate, p. 30832. . 2624
1.16 Higher Education General Provisions, Definitions, as amended,
20 U.S.C. §1141 (1970). 2625
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1169(1) (B) ]
1.16a Higher Education Act of 1965, November 8, 1965, P.L.
89-329, Title XII, §801, 79 Stat. 1269. 2627
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 621, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2628
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 673, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2629
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1178, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2630
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965) :
(a) Aug. 26: Debated, amended and passed House,
p. 21925; 2632
(b) Sept. 2: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
pp. 22714-22717; 2633
(c) Oct. 20: House agrees to conference report, p.
27678; 2633
(d) Oct. 20: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27595-27596. 2633
1.16b Higher Education Amendments of 1968, October 16, 1968,
P.L. 90-575, Title II, §§251, 293, 294, 82 Stat. 1042,1043, 1050,
1051. 2633
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 1387, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2636
(2) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 1649, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2644
(3) Committee of Conference, HR. REP. No. 1919, 90th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2647
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) July 15: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21272; 2651
(b) July 25: Amended and passed House, p 23374; 2651
(c) Sept. 26: House agrees to conference report, pp.
28329, 28336-28337, 28339; 2651
(d) Oct. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
28975, 28982, 28983, 28985. 2651
1.16c Higher Education Act Amendments of 1970, April 13,1970,
P.L. 91-230, Title VIII, §806 (b), 84 Stat. 192. 2651
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor H.R. REP.
No. 91-114, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2652
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 91-634, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2653
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-937, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2654
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol.115 (1969), April 23: Considered and passed
House, p. 10098; 2655
-------
CONTENTS xxv
Page
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 19: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 4141; 2655
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), April 1: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, p. 9999; 2655
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: House agreed to con-
ference report, p. 10623. 2655
1.17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et
seq. (1970). 2656
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1165a(a), (b)]
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a (4) (e)" for legislative history)
1.18 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243, 246
(1970). 2663
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ae(3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.19 The Water Resource Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1962,
etseq. (1971). . 2681
1.19a Water Resources Planning Act, July 22, 1965, P.L. 89-80,
79 Stat. 244. 2705
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 169, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2709
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 68, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2736
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 603, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2748
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 25: Passed Senate, pp. 3621, 3626; 2764
(b) March 31: Amended and passed House, pp. 6406,
6412; 2766
(c) April 9: Senate request conference, p. 7676; 2766
(d) April 13: House appoints conferees, pp. 7926; 2766
(e) July 13: House agrees to conference report, pp.
16540, 16553-16554; 2767
(f) July 14: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
16733-16735. 2769
1.19b Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, December 31, 1970, P.L.
91-611, Title II, §§209, 221, 84 Stat. 1829, 1831. 2773
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2774
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
1422, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2777
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1782, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2778
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Amended and passed House, p. 40148; 2780
(b) Dec. 19: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40593-
40599, 40613, 40619-40620; 2782
(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report, pp.
42509-42510, 42513-42514; 2782
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
42724, 42727, 42728. 2786
1.19c Water Resources Planning Act Amendments of 1971, June
17, 1971, P.L. 92-27, 85 Stat. 77. 2787
-------
xxvi CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 92-197, 92d Cong, 1st Sess. (1971). 2787
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 92-139, 92d Cong, 1st Sess. (1971). 2791
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp.
H3981-H3982; 2795
(b) June 7: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S8377-S8378. 2796
1.20 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1985, as amended,
40 App. U.S.C. §§212, 214 (1971). 2798
1.20a Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, March
9, 1965, P.L. 89-4, §§212, 214, 79 Stat. 16, 17. 2800
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 13,
89th Cong, 1st Sess. (1965). 2802
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
51, 89th Cong, 1st Sess. (1965). 2807
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 1715;* 2809
(b) March 3: Passed House, p. 4030.* 2809
1.20b 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 2, May 10, 1966, 80 Stat.
1608. 2809
1.20c To Revise and Extend the Appalachian Regional De-
velopment Act of 1965, and to Amend the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965, October 11, 1967,
P.L. 90-103, Title I, §§114,116, 81 Stat. 262, 263. 2812
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 159,
90th Cong, 1st Sess. (1967). 2814
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
548, 90th Cong, 1st Sess. (1967). 2820
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 706, 90th
Cong, 1st Sess. (1967). 2829
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 26, 27: Debated, amended and passed Sen-
ate, p. 10964; ' 2831
(b) Sept. 13, 14: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 25286, 25288-25290, 25316-25317, 25578-
25579, 25618-25620; 2832
(c) Sept. 28: House agrees to conference report, p.
27183; . 2832
(d) Sept. 29: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27327-27328. 2832
1.20d 1969 Amendments to the Appalachian Regional Develop-
ment Act, November 25, 1969, PL. 91-123, Title I, §107,
83 Stat. 215. 2833
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-336, 91st Cong, 1st Sess. (1969). 2834
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
291, 91st Cong, 1st Sess. (1969). 2835
* Denotes pertinent section is not discussed—page number provided only as complete
legislative history.
-------
CONTENTS xxvii
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-614, 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 2837
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) July 8: Passed Senate, p. 18556;* 2838
(b) July 15: Amended and passed House, p. 19607;* 2838
(c) Nov. 5: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
33031;* 2838
(d) Nov. 19: House agrees to conference report, p.
34890.* 2838
1.20e Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of
1970, May 21, 1970, P.L. 91-258, Title I, §52(b) (5), 84 Stat.
235. 2838
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, HR. REP. No. 91-601, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969). 2839
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 91-565,
91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). • 2840
(3) Senate Finance Committee, S. REP. No. 91-706, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2840
(4) Committee of Conference, H R. 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. 15138;* 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 trie 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. 4560-4561; 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 15: Passed House, pp. 7086-
7087; 2938
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 10: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 7693; 2940
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 11: House concurs in Senate
amendments, p. 7889. 2940
-------
CONTENTS xxix
Page
1.27f To Amend the Act of March 10, 1934, as amended, August
12,1958, P.L. 85-624, §2, 72 Stat. 563. 2940
VOLUME VI
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 2183, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 2947
(2) Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, S. REP. No. 1981, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 2958
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) :
(a) July 21: Passed House, pp. 1440-1442; 2979
(b) July 31: Passed Senate, p. 15713. 2979
1.27g Federal Water Project Recreation Act, July 9, 1965, P.L.
89-72, §6(b), 79 Stat. 216. 2979
(1) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 149, 89th Cong., 1st Ssss. (1985). 2980
(2) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 254, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2983
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 538, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2984
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) April 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7891; 2985
(b) May 18: Amended and passed House, p. 10881; 2985
(c) June 23: House agrees to conference report, p.
14464; 2985
(d) June 25: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
14814.* . . 2985
1.28 Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.
§3136(1965). 2986
1.28a Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965,
August 26, 1965, P.L. 89-138, §106, 79 Stat. 554. 2986
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 193,
89th Cong., 1st Sess, (1965).* 2987
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
539, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) .* 2988
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
p. 12183;* 2988
(b) Aug. 12: Debated, amended, and passed House,
pp. 20250-20251; . 2988
(c) Aug. 16: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 20571.* 2988
1.28b Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, 80 Stat. 1608. 2989
(1) Message from the President of the United States, H.R.
DOC. No. 388, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2991
1.29 River and Harbor Act of 1910, 33 U.S.C. §421. 2994
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371 (b) ]
1.29a River and Harbor Act of 1910, June 23, 1910, P.L. 61-245,
36 Stat. 593. 2995
-------
xxx CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 1120, 61st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1910). 2996
(2) Committee on Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1613, 61st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1910) .* 3003
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 45 (1910):
(a) May 2: Amended and passed House, p. 5672;* 3003
(b) May 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 6119;* 3003
(c) June 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
8219;* 3003
(d) June 17: House agrees to conference report, p.
8439.* . 3003
1.30 Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§441-
451 (1958) 3003
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371.]
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
l.SOb River and Harbor Act of 1894, August 18, 1894, P.L.
53-299, §§3, 5, 28 Stat. 360 3018
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R.
REP. No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894) .* 3023
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 519,
53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894).* 3023
(3) Committee of Conference, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894), pp. 8173-8175.* 3023
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894):
(a) May 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4376,4430; . .. . . 3023
(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414;* 3024
(c) Aug. 6: Senate agreed to conference report, p.
8230;* 3024
(d) Aug. 6: House agreed to conference report, p.
8251.* . 3024
1.30c 1908 Amendments to 1894 Act, May 28, 1908, P.L. 60-
152, §8, 35 Stat. 426. 3024
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 1672, 60th Cong., 1st Bess.
(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 passed Senate, pp.
6963-6972.* 3034
1.30d 1909 Amendments to 1908 Act, February 16, 1909, P.L.
60-231, 35 Stat. 623. 3034
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 2102, 60th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1909). . . 3035
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 43 (1909):
(a) Feb. 10: Amended and passed House, p. 2149;* 3036
(b) Feb. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 2195-2196.* 3036
l.SOe Repealing Certain Obsolete Provisions of Law Relating
to the Naval Service, June 29, 1949, P.L. 81-144, 63 Stat.
300. . 3036
[No Relevant Discussion]
l.SOf 1952 Amendments to the New York Harbor Act of 1888,
July 12, 1952, P.L. 82-526, 66 Stat. 596. 3036
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
2260, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 3037
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
2088, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 3039
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 98 (1952):
(a) June 25: Passed House, p. 8079;* 3040
(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317.* 3040
1.30g 1958 Amendments to Act of 1888, August 28, 1958, P.L.
85-802, §1, 72 Stat. 970. 3040
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
2233, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 3042
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
2383, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 3050
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958):
(a) Aug. 4: Amended and parsed House, pp. 16021-
16022.* 3052
(b) Aug. 18: Passed Senate, p. 18033.* 3052
1.31 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended,
16 U.S.C. §1005 (1972). 3052
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 Sers. (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 Sess. (1972).* 3071
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) April 11: Considered and Passed House;* 3071
(b) July 26: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, S11935-S11937; . 3071
(c) Aug. 14: House concurred in Senate amend-
ments.* , 3077
1.33 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.
(1972). 3077
1.33a Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of
1966, Amendments, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-583,
§307 (3) (f), 86 Stat. 1286. . 3087
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
753, 92d Cong., 2d Sees. (1972). 3099
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-1049, 92d Cong., 2d Se=s.
(1972). . . 3104
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1544,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 3111
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) April 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S6654-S6673; . . 3112
(b) Aug. 2: Considered and passed, House, amended,
in lieu of H.R. 14146;* 3142
(c) Oct. 12: House and Senate agreed to conference
report.* 3142
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2.1 E.O. 11490, Assigning of Emergency Preparedness Functions to
Federal Agencies and Departments, October 30, 1969, 34 Fed.
Reg. 17567. 3145
2.2 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970, 35 Fed.
Reg. 2573. 3197
2.3 E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality, March 5, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247. 3203
2.4 E.O. 11548, Delegating Functions of the President Under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, July 20, 1970,
35 Fed. Reg. 11677. 3207
2.5 E.O. 11574, Administration of the Refuse Act Permit Program,
December 23, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 19627. 3211
2.5a Statement by the President on Signing an Executive
Order Providing for the Establishment of a Federal Permit
-------
CONTENTS xxxiii
Page
Program to Regulate the Discharge of Waste into the
Waters of the United States, Weekly Compilation of Presi-
dential Documents, December 23, 1970, p. 1724. 3212
2.5b Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: House dis-
cussion of the Refuse Act Permit Program, pp. 1754-1763. 3213
2.5c Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: 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, 49 C.F.R. §§106.1-105.13
(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.,
2dSess. (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, Ssptember
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
1761
regard, the Minnesota Legislature in 1967
created a Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency to help coordinate Federal-State
programs pertaining to all facets of the
pollution problem.
With the additional assistance that
this legislation will provide, the lake pol-
lution problem can be fully researched
and brought under control. This is an
important victory for conservationists
throughout the Nation, and a hopeful
step for those of us who love Minnesota's
beautiful lakes.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
this is a particularly important piece of
water pollution control legislation for
several reasons, one of which is that it
sets up preventive measures as well as
remedial ones. The oil pollution control
section establishes the machinery for
reducing or eliminating the pollution of
our rivers, harbors, and lakes by oil
and other dangerous substances, but it
also establishes the procedures for pre-
venting pollution from major spills of
oil and matter through a rapid cleanup
process.
The vessel sewage provisions are in
most respects a preventive measure. In
many of our waters this is not yet a
major problem, but with the rapidly in-
creasing boat population it is certain
to become a real problem, and the re-
quirements in the bill for research to find
ways to control it as well as the regula-
tory controls themselves afford a real
opportunity to prevent a S3rious buildup
in this area.
The expanded training program holds
promise of increasing the number of
competent people to operate the vast
numbers of treatment disposal plants
that are and will be required if we are
to successfully clean up the waters of the
States.
The bill contains other essential pro-
visions, including the extension of exist-
ing grant programs. But perhaps the
most significant to my own area are the
provisions of the Federal cooperation
section and the special section devoted
to cleanup in the Great Lakes. This has
been a matter of primary concern to me
for several years and I have worked
diligently to find new methods by which
Federal agencies could eliminate the
pollution in their own activities. In this
bill we give the force of law to a previous
Executive order requiring Federal agen-
cies to reduce or eliminate pollution to
the maximum extent possible within
existing appropriations The require-
ment that Federal agencies have assur-
ance that activities they license will not
lower water quality standards is also an
important move forward.
The pollution of the Great Lakes from
all sources will have to be brought to
a halt in as short a time as possible. We
are making progress in this direction,
but we are obviously not making it fast
enough. I have recently ssrved ss chair-
man at a meeting with the Corps of
Engineers and the Interior Department
officials to review the results of a study
to find alternative methods of disposing
of dredging materials, as I have served
as organizer and chairman of several
meetings in the past. There are alterna-
tive methods. They are expensive and
they will require maximum cooperation
on the part of the Government at all
levels, but we must strive to put them
into operation as promptly as possible.
I wholeheartedly support th;s legis-
lation, as I have supported every water
pollution control bill that has been con-
sideied by our committee since I came to
the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute, as amended.
The committee substitute 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 SMITH of Iowa, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consider-
ation the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
-------
1762
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
amended, and for other purposes, pur-
suant to Houss Resolution 340, he re-
ported 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.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment to the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute? If
not, 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. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 392, nays 1, not voting 39,
as follows:
[p. 9292]
1.2k(4)(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 7, 8: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. 28947, 28953-29008, 29046-29065, 29089-29102
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 1969
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pur-
suant to the previous order, the Chair
lays before the Senate Calendar 346, S. 7,
which will be stated by title.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A
bill (S. 7) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the bill.
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill which had been reported from the
Committee on Public Works with an
amendment to strike out all after the
enacting clause and insert:
*****
[p. 28947]
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, dur-
ing the consideration of S. 7, I ask
unanimous consent that the necessary
[p. 28953]
members of the staff of the Committee
on Public Works be permitted to have
the privilege of the floor for the purpose
of assistance to and consultation with the
members of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLOTT subsequently said: Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that
during the consideration of S. 7 or
amendments thereto, or S. 1075, two mi-
nority members of the staff of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs
may be permitted on the floor of the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded 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, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. What is the pend-
ing business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
pending business is S. 7. The question is
on agreeing to the committee amend-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1763
ment in the nature of a substitute.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today
the Senate begins consideration of a
major water pollution control measure
which provides for specific approaches to
deal with particular kinds of water pol-
lution problems.
S. 7, if enacted, will authorize the Fed-
eral Government to clean up disastrous
oil spills which seriously jeopardize the
Nation's waters and beaches.
This legislation requires Federal li-
censees and permittees to comply with
water quality standards as a precondi-
tion of the license or permit.
Vessel sewage which fouls many of the
Nation's mannas, harbors, and ports will
be subject to new methods of control.
The bill authorizes the designation
and cleanup of hazardous substances
which present a substantial endanger-
ment to health and welfare when dis-
charged into the Nation's waters.
Authorizations for continued research
and new authority to deal with eutroph-
ication—the natural process of aging
of lakes—and acid mine drainage are
also important provisions of the bill.
Title II of S. 7 provides for meaning-
ful consideration of the environmental
policies set by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and
the Solid Waste Disposal Act in all fed-
erally supported public works activities
Other provisions of title II are intended
to bring those environmental policies
into all other programs of the Federal
Government.
Title III provides for the acquisition of
land for use of the U.S. Senate. This
title will be discussed by the junior Sen-
ator from North Carolina (Mr JORDAN) ,
chairman of the Subcommittee on
Buildings and Grounds.
For the past 6 years, Congress has rec-
ognized that the success of our effort to
clean up the Nation's waters depends on
an urgent commitment of organization,
planning, engineering skill, and funds.
We have acknowledged the need for
clean water in the broadest sense. But
the demand for clean water is so great
and is growing so rapidly that we cannot
afford to overlook any opportunity to
increase the available supply of water, or
to prevent and control sources of pollu-
tion which threaten the existing supply.
This legislation will provide new tools to
accomplish these tasks.
The provisions of S. 7 are not entirely
new. While the committee has refined
the language, the basic provisions of this
bill are similar to those to which the
Senate gave unanimous agreement in S.
3206 last year and m S. 2780 in 1987.
Several of the features of the bill
either will be discussed by other mem-
bers of the committee, or are analyzed
in detail in the report. I would like to
concentrate my remarks on three prin-
cipal provisions of title I and on title II
in its entirety.
The part of title I which establishes
oil pollution liability for vessels and on-
and off-shore facilities has received a
great deal of attention and consideration
from the subcommittee and the full com-
mittee.
As introduced, S. 7 provided that lia-
bility on veisels and onshore and off-
shore facilities would be based on a
test of negligence with the burden of
proof on the owner or operator of the
vessel or onshore or offshore facility to
show that a discharge of oil was not
negligent.
Expert testimony to the committee in-
dicated that while the cost of cleanup
of a barrel of oil might average $75, the
possibility of any single vessel or facility
discharging its entire capacity was re-
mote even in a catastrophic disaster.
The figures recommended by the com-
mittee, $125 per gross ton for vessels and
non-production facilities and $8 million
for drilling or production facilities,
would be adequate in the judgment of
the committee, to finance the cleanup
cost of the largest oil spills on record.
The type of liability to be imposed pre-
sented the committee with troublesome
-------
1764
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
questions. Lengthy testimony was pre-
sented in the 13 days of hearings held by
the subcommittee and extensive discus-
sion took place in executive ssssion con-
cerning the factors which should be
considered in determining the type of
liability. Among those factors were:
First, the effect of a rigid liability on
maritime commerce; second, the availa-
bility of insurance for the owner of the
vessel or the shipper of oil; and, third,
the impact of different types of liability
on the U.S. Government and the people
of the United States.
Heretofore, maritime liability has con-
cerned the vessel, its cargo, and its em-
ployees. Insurance covers the hull, the
cargo, personal injury, and death, and
has been designed to protect people who
either work for, use, own, or operate a
vessel. Were these risks comparable to
those associated with oil pollution, the
imposition of negligent liability would
not be questioned. However, the dis-
charge of oil often affects the general
public, persons, and property wholly un-
related to the vessel, who have no control
over it, and who have no interest in it.
It can be argued that the public inter-
est would be completely protected only
by absolute and unlimited liability; neg-
ligence and limited liability would pro-
tect only private interests. If Congress
imposed negligence liability, it followed
that there should be no limits on such
liability.
The representatives of the insurance
industry and the oil industry testified
that they could not imagine a circum-
stance where a discharge of oil could
occur without negligence. In fact, the
witness for the British Maritime Insur-
ance Brokers stated in a letter dated
August 1, 1969:
Presumable (sic) this means negligence of
the shipowners servant as I read the words
and surely it is realized that almost every
marine casualty is caused by negligence.
Therefore, it appeared to the com-
mittee that negligence liability with a
reverse burden of proof and absolute
liability are similar in practical applica-
tion. One practical advantage to abso-
lute liability is the avoidance of litigation
on the question of responsibility.
Parenthetically, it is important to note
that this section deals only with the costs
of the cleanup of discharges. The bill in
no way affects the rights of third parties
against the party alleged responsible for
the discharge.
After deciding to recommend un-
limited negligence liability and limited
absolute liability, the committee then
determined that some exceptions to
absolute liability were justified. The
committee decided that an owner or
operator of a vessel or facility should
not be held liable if he could prove that
a discharge was caused solely by an act
of war.
The committee also decided that an
owner or operator should be exempt
from liability if he could prove that the
discharge was caused solely by an act of
God about which he could have no fore-
knowledge, could make no plans to
avoid, or could not predict. Under this
exception, only discharges resulting
from grave natural disasters, which
could not be anticipated in the design,
location or operation of the facility or
vessel in light of historic, geologic, or
climatic circumstances or phenomena,
would be outside the scope of the owner's
or operator's responsibility.
It was brought to the attention of the
committee that there have been circum-
stances in which a negligent act of Gov-
ernment was the cause of a discharge of
oil. The committee decided that an
owner or operator should not be held
liable if he could prove that such act of
U.S. Government negligence was the sole
cause of discharge.
Finally, the committee included a dis-
charge which occurs solely due to an act
of a third party.
The committee decided that while the
owner or operator should not be liable
if he could prove that a discharge was
[p. 28954]
caused by one of thess acts, it was also
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1765
necessary that such exceptions be al-
lowed only when the owner or operator
proved the discharge to be solely the
result of one of the exceptions. Any
culpability on the part of the owner or
operator would vitiate the exception.
The committee recognized that no
discharge of oil from a vessel, affecting
the coastal waters of the United States,
has approached the liabilities imposed
by this bill. However, the risk of such
spills and the possibility of major cata-
strophic discharges from onshore or off-
shore facilities or from oil-drilling oper-
ations must be considered.
During hearings in Washington and
throughout the country, representatives
of local governments, industrial con-
cerns, community and conservation
groups, and the public have questioned
repeatedly the justification for requiring
compliance with water quality standards
in their activities when Federal agencies
are not subject to a similar requirement.
If the Nation is to have an effective
water pollution control program or any
effective environmental control program
whatever, Federal agencies must con-
sider the environmental aspects of their
programs as a matter of first priority.
Recognizing that point, Mr. President,
this committee, under the leadership of
the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. BOGGS) has pressed for years
for an upgrading of the performance of
the Federal Government in the field of
pollution control and environmental
improvement.
S. 7, as reported, provides an orderly
mechanism for insuring that all Federal
activities will comply with the philoso-
phy and intent of the Nation's water
quality program. This section calls for
Federal agencies to control their own
wastes and to require control by Federal
licensees and permittees. This task will
be neither easy nor inexpensive. Never-
theless, the committee expects that it
will be accomplished.
The existing water quality standards
program envisions preventive policies
rather than abatement procedures as
the best method of pollution control.
This provision of S. 7 applies that policy.
It does not impose an unjust burden on
any applicant for a Federal license or
permit, since the committee assumes
that Federal licensees and permittees,
like any other organization or individual
that intends to use the waters of the
United States, will anticipate pollution
control in the construction or the modi-
fication of any facility.
The committee expects that communi-
cation between the applicant and the
appropriate pollution control agency
relative to the planning of any facility
which will affect water quality will take
place at the earliest possible time. Site
location is an essential aspect of the
effective implementation of the Nation's
water quality program. There are some
sites where no such facility should be
constructed because pollution control
technology is not adequate to assure the
maintenance and the enhancement of
water quality. Those who make deci-
sions concerning site locations should be
aware of this fact and deal with it before
making any investment in new facilities.
Waste from watercraft is one of the
many sources of pollution that has an
impact on the water quality of our Na-
tion. This pollution is most severe in
bays, lakes, harbors, and marinas where
the concentration of vessels is heaviest
and where there is minimum natural
dilution of contaminants. The increas-
ing use of our waterways will further
compound these problems. This new
section provides for the economic and
practical control of discharges of raw or
inadequately treated sewage from ves-
sels into the navigable waters of the
United States at the earliest possible
date.
The committee recognized that many
States have moved to control inade-
quately treated or untreated discharges
of waste from vessels and praises the
efforts of those States. However, con-
flicting regulations and standards for
marine sanitation devices present a
hardship to recreational boaters who
-------
1766
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
move between States and present poten-
tially serious restrictions on the inter-
state movement of commercial vessels.
In order to avoid these difficulties, the
committee has provided for Federal pre-
emption of the authority to regulate the
design, use, manufacture, and installa-
tion of marine sanitation devices. No
State shall have authority to require
any device of any kind on any vessel
subject to the provisions of this section
after the effective date of the standards
and regulations.
The committee is nonetheless aware
of the necessity to relate any sewage
treatment control measure to existing
water quality programs. Consistent
with this philosophy, the committee has
provided authority for the States to pro-
hibit entirely the discharge of any sew-
age from vessels without regard to the
regulations set by this act if an approved
plan for the implementation of water
quality standards requires such restric-
tive measures.
This exception is not intended to be
broadly construed. A State cannot pro-
hibit vessel waste discharges for all its
rivers, lakes, and coastal waters unless
the State has adopted standards which
establish uses for all of those waters
consistent with an absolute prohibition.
The committee intends that any State
prohibition apply only to areas desig-
nated for the protection of public drink-
ing-water supplies, shellfish beds, and
areas designated for body-contact rec-
reation.
The committee expects that the States
will provide alternative facilities for dis-
posal of sewage from vessels wherever
necessary.
This provision is substantially the
same as that passed by the Senate and
the House in 1988 and evaluated in the
report language found in Senate Report
No. 1371 of the 90th Congress which
accompanied S. 2525.
The provision for acid mine drainage
which was included in S. 2760 in 1967 as
two sections has been combined into one
section authorizing $15 million for both
research and demonstration programs
and is substantially the same as provi-
sions passed in 1967.
The clean lakes provision, originally
sponsored by Senators WALTER MONDALE
and QUENTIN BTJRDICK, has been ex-
panded to authorize the development of
necessary research facilities but is oth-
erwise identical to the legislation which
passed the Senate unanimously in 1987.
The committee was also confronted
with the dilemma of how to deal with
the problem of the discharge of hazard-
ous substances—other than oil—which
present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health and
welfare, but for which there is no clear
Federal cleanup authority. The record
on this subject was inadequate. Infor-
mation indicated only that such dis-
charges do occur and that the damage
caused by such discharges of oil and
other materials is often extensive. The
list of discharges of oil and other mate-
rials since January of this year, on page
59 of the report, records several dis-
charges of hazardous substances.
S. 7, as reported, authorizes the Presi-
dent to designate as hazardous any sub-
stance, the discharge of which in any
quantity presents an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to public health
or welfare, and to require notice of the
discharge of any such substance after
such designation. The Federal Govern-
ment is authorized to clean up those dis-
charges where practical. The committee
recognized that many of the substances
which will be designated are water-
soluble or for other reasons cannot be
cleaned up effectively. This section will
primarily serve to notify downstream
water useis of a dangerous discharge.
The committee expects a report from
the President by November of 1970
which will discuss the types and amounts
of liability which should be imposed to
recover the cost of cleaning up hazard-
ous substances. The findings of that
will be the subject of future legislation.
The committee has included in this
legislation a provision offered by Sena-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1767
tor STEPHEN M. YOUNG and identical to
one passed by the House of Representa-
tives. It provides relief for the citizens
of the Great Lakes area who are con-
fronted with a rapid deterioration of
their vital water resources.
This section authorizes the Secretary
to grant up to 75 percent of the cost of
projects demonstrating new methods to
control and eliminate pollution in the
Great Lakes drainage basin. There is
no question that this legislation is essen-
tial. The Great Lakes are perhaps the
Nation's most vital inland water re-
source, yet Lake Erie is dying and Lake
Michigan is the subject of serious con-
cern. No Federal dollars will be better
spent than those which produce effective
methods to deal with the critical prob-
lems of the Great Lakes, for not only
will those dollars help remedy an
already critical situation but they will
undoubtedly demonstrate methods which
can be used to prevent the accelerated
eutrophication of other lakes and reser-
voirs which are equally important to
other regions of the country.
The committee has been increasingly
concerned about the availability of
trained technical personnel to operate
sewage treatment plants. As a result of
that concern the committee authorized a
study of manpower and training needs
in the Clean Water Restoration Act of
1966. That study was transmitted to the
[p.28955]
Congress in mid-1967 and was printed as
Senate Document No. 49 on August 31,
1967. On the basis of that report, which
indicated a demand for 18,500 new plant
operators and the need to upgrade the
skills of many existing plant operators,
and on the basis of another report pre-
pared for the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution by the General Ac-
counting Office on the effects of in-
adequately trained personnel on the
operation of federally assisted sewage
treatment plants, the committee was
pleased to receive and include in the
bill a proposal by Senator HUGH SCOTT to
authorize pilot programs for training
plant operators and technicians.
The committee recognizes that a great
deal more than a pilot program will be
required if Federal funds for sewage
treatment plant construction are in-
vested Wisely, but it believes that ex-
perience with a pilot program would
provide a sound base for expanded leg-
islation in the near future.
Title I of S. 7 is as significant as any
water pollution legislation ever re-
ported by the Committee on Public
Works. It provides authority to deal
with a variety of critical yet definable
water pollution problems. Unlike prior
measures which have been reported by
this committee, title I does not develop
a new policy for water pollution control
but rather provides additional tools to
implement the national policy of water
quality enhancement established by the
Water Quality Act of 1955. Effective
control of water pollution cannot be
obtained without these additional pre-
ventive and enhancement measures.
The sources covered by this title require
specific attention.
In recent years, and especially since
1983, Congress has developed a strong
policy for the enhancement of environ-
mental quality. This policy is based on
the knowledge that man and his envi-
ronment are closely interrelated and
that environmental quality is necessary
to the improvement of living standards
for all men—and, indeed, possibly for the
survival of the human race.
The legislation which has formed this
broad policy has been developed through
the efforts of many congressional com-
mittees, including the Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Banking and Currency,
Commerce, Finance, Government Oper-
ations, Interior, Labor and Public Wel-
fare, and Public Works. Participation in
this development has been broad-based
because the problems of environmental
quality transcend artificial divisions of
committee jurisdiction.
-------
1768
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Much of the substantive legislation in
this area has come from the Public
Works Committee and its Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution. The com-
mittee's work has resulted in the Clean
Air Act of 1963, and the 1965 and 1956
amendments; the Air Quality Act of
1967; the Water Quality Act of 1985; the
Clean Water Restoration Act of 196S;
and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of
1965.
Originally drafted to meet specific
pollution problems which demanded
immediate abatement actions, legislation
from the Public Works Committee
evolved to the point where it is based
on the concept of the prevention of
pollution and the enhancement of the
quality of the air, water, and land en-
vironment.
A strong partnership among govern-
mental agencies at the Federal, regional,
and State levels is the basis for this
broad strategy. The States have been
delegated the primary responsibility to
protect and enhance the quality of the
environment within their jurisdictions
and—in cooperation with neighboring
States—within river basins and air
sheds common to those States. Water
and air quality standards are to be
adopted, implemented, and enforced at
the State and regional levels on the basis
of criteria promulgated by the Depart-
ments of the Interior and Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare. The Federal Gov-
ernment has the responsibility to de-
velop these criteria; to act to set or
enforce standards where States do not
fulfill their obligations; to conduct re-
search to improve our understanding of
environmental threats and develop new
means of protection; and to protect the
environment in the conduct of its own
activities.
The opportunity to act first has been
given to the States because the national
policy of environmental enhancement
recognizes the need to involve individ-
ual citizens and communities in any
decisions concerning the environment in
which they live. The best way to put
this policy into practice—to make par-
ticipation in the decisionmaking process
as close to individual citizens as possible,
within the guidelines of the criteria.
The committee has emphasized, how-
ever, that the opportunities for local
control are not open-ended. If the
States and regions fail adequately to
carry out their responsibilities under
these ssts or are unable to do so, the
Congress has expressly authorized the
Federal agencies administering these
programs to assume the responsibilities.
The States cannot succeed in meeting
their obligations without the complete
cooperation of all Federal departments
and agencies. The Federal responsibil-
ity to protect the environment in the
conduct of its programs which are not
subject to State regulation has often
gone unmet. This shortcoming is pres-
ent in every Federal department and
agency and is in direct conflict with the
Nation's environmental policy and the
purposss and provisions of the legisla-
tion which has developed that policy.
It is clear that there is no one answer
to the problem of environmental regula-
tion of the Federal Government's own
activities The committee believes that
it is the responsibility of each standing
committee in Congress to examine care-
fully the activities of thosa departments
and agencies within its jurisdiction and
to insist that the policy of the enhance-
ment of environmental quality is strictly
followed.
The Public Works Committee is com-
mitted to reviewing all legislation and
Federal activity under its jurisdiction
with these duties in mind and expects to
initiate this review during this Congress.
Furthermore, title II of S. 7 explicitly
requires that all federally supported
public works projects and programs be
planned, developed, and administered
with full consideration of their impact
on our air, water, and land and with
strict adherence to the national policy
of environmental enhancement.
More and more public officials and in-
dividual citizens share this concern of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1769
the committee and have recognized the
need for the integration of environ-
mental consideration in all programs
and policies of the Federal Government
We are confronted with problems of ac-
celerating environmental deterioration
on the one hand, and the inadequacies
of our public and private institutions to
deal with these problems on the other.
The Public Works Committee has fo-
cussed on several measures designed to
remedy these inadequacies and has con-
cluded that the problems of manage-
ment are even more urgent than the
problems of organization Therefore, the
committee has proposed in title II an
Office of Environmental Quality in the
Office of the President. This office would
have the management capability to
bring coherence and cons.stency into the
environmental activities of the Federal
Government. The committee has given
careful study to other proposals and has
concluded than an independent environ-
mental staff in the Executive Office of
the President is crucial to the effective
coordination and administration of all
Federal programs in line with the Na-
tion's policy of environmental enhance-
ment.
The Office of Science and Technology
presently supplies the staff for the Pres-
ident's Cabinet Council on Environ-
mental Quality. Unfortunately, the
Office of Science and Technology has
widespread responsibilities, is thinly
staffed, and must look to the depart-
ments and agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment for staff ass.stance. Thus, the
advice and assistance the President re-
ceives concerning the programs and
policies of the Federal agencies comes
from the agencies themselves. No mat-
ter how well intentioned, this arrange-
ment will not produce a critical and
independent review of Federal depart-
ments and agencies.
No Federal department or agency
which is not primarily oriented to en-
vironmental matters can be expsctad to
have either the sufficient expertise or
the proper perspective to evaluate their
own programs satisfactorily by them-
selves. This assumption is the basis for
both section 16 of title I and the provi-
sion establishing the Office of Environ-
mental Quality in title II.
The most difficult task facing the Pres-
ident and the Congress in the area of
environmental quality is the review and
analysis of the administration of the en-
vironmental programs and policies of
the Federal Government, a function
which should be coordinated from the
Office of the President. The committee
strongly feels that the President requires
a competent, independent staff, not
affiliated with any other Federal agency,
to accomplish this purpose.
The Office of Environmental Quality
would provide the independent staff re-
quired by the new Cabinet Level Coun-
cil and would make available to the
President the professional competence
to review and analyze all programs and
policies relating to the air, water, and
land environment The office would also
pro-
[p. 28956]
vide reports on environmental issues to
the appropriate committees of Congress,
the Council, and the public.
The bill reported by the committee
does not tell the President how to orga-
nize his administration to deal with
environmental problems It provides
him with staff for whatever arrange-
ment he determines most appropriate
to his approach to the administration of
the executive branch.
One of the primcipal advantages of
this legislation is the recognition that
progress can be made in enhancing the
quality of the environment only if the
national policy has the full support of
both the President and the Congress
The Office of Environmental Quality
should increass the capacity of the Pres-
ident to support that policy.
Mr. President, I conclude what may
appear to be a lengthy analysis of the
bill, but which, in fact, in the light of its
broad coverage, is a brief analysis of the
bill.
-------
1770
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I would like, at this time, to express
my appreciation to all members of the
committee, but specifically, to the dis-
tinguished Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), chairman of the full
committee, the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the rank-
ing Republican member of the full
committee, and my good friend and
longstanding right hand in this fight
against pollution, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), for the
excellent cooperation which we have
had.
I must say that our experience with
this bill has been one of the most reas-
suring that I have had in my years in the
Senate and in my years of dealing with
this kind of legislation.
We had long hearings, but, more than
that, we had extensive executive ses-
sions beginning in March and continu-
ing through June and July—sessions
which were attended most of the time
by the full membership of the commit-
tee, all of whom participated in the dis-
cussion of problems which surfaced in
an effort to come to grips with them and
solve them soundly, from the legislative
point of view, without regard to partisan
considerations. I do not believe there
is a partisan comma in the bill. It re-
flects the work of members on both
sides of the aisle, and for them I would
like to express my appreciation, through
Senator BOGGS, to all of his colleagues
on the Republican side of the committee.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from Maine,
chairman of the subcommittee and man-
ager of this bill, for his very kind and
generous remarks.
I rise to support S. 7, the Water Qual-
ity Improvement Act of 1969, and to
associate myself with the remarks of
the distinguished Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE), chairman of the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution.
Under his able and thoughtful leader-
ship, we have conducted an exhaustive
investigation into the various aspects of
the water pollution problem and we
have written a bill that I consider as
important as any seeking to enhance
environmental quality that will come
before the Senate for many years.
Before I discuss the merits of this leg-
islation and try to further clarify some
points that may be of interest, I wish to
thank the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) and the other members of the
subcommittee for their efforts on behalf
of the bill. I also wish to thank espe-
cially the distinguished chairman of the
full committee, Senator RANDOLPH of
West Virginia, and the distinguished
ranking minority member, Senator
COOPER of Kentucky. They both have
been great to work with, and they each
have contributed so much in the con-
sideration and writing of this proposed
legislation.
It has been a great privilege to work
on this committee and serve with the
distinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee, who is recognized as an able
leader in this field. As he has stated
so eloquently, there has been completely
bipartisan approach in the consideration
of the provisions of this bill. This bi-
partisan cooperation began with the in-
troduction of the bill, and went through
the hearings, the markup, to the bring-
ing of this bill from the committee to the
floor.
We have sought legislation that will
meet a need—a pressing need. And in
this effort', we have received great work
and cooperation from the committee
staff.
The chairman of the subcommittee
has already discussed the need for leg-
islation that will obligate the owner of
a vessel or a drilling facility to clean up
an oil spill. I shall not detain the Senate
by restating his persuasive arguments.
However, I should like to point out that
such legislation is not new to the Sen-
ate. These provisions are an outgrowth
of S. 2760, which passed the Senate in
December 1967. This earlier legislation
imposed unlimited dollar liability for oil
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1771
cleanup costs, with an exception for
acts of God. S. 7 places a dollar limit
on liability, except when negligence is
proven, and exempts acts of God, acts
of war, acts of Government, and acts of
a third party. These were limitations
that were discussed at great length in
committee, and raised repeatedly in
hearings with representatives of the oil
and shipping industries. It was the
committee's belief that such exemptions
have the effect of protecting the public
in nearly every case, while safeguarding
private interests at rare times of great
disaster.
There is one important point I should
like to add in relation to the oil cleanup
liability section of the bill. The em-
phasis in this section is on the word
"cleanup," not "liability." It is the in-
tent of this legislation, and I cannot
stress this point too strongly, that the
polluter should clean up any oil spill
on his own, and that the Government
should not need to act. The Govern-
ment should take action only when the
polluter fails, himself, to take prompt
and effective action. This is a respon-
sible approach, fitting the sense of public
responsibility held by the vast majority
of American businesses.
In Delaware, my home State, I recall
an incident when an oil barge of the
Hess Oil Co. ran aground off Rehoboth,
spilling oil. Hess Oil went in at once
and cleaned up that spill, spending its
time and effort and not throwing the
burden on the Government. That is
what this bill seeks to encourage The
liability standard only will take effect,
I feel certain, in the rare cases of busi-
nesses that lack this public spirit.
That 1967 legislation and a bill that
the Senate passed in July 1968, S. 3206,
dealt with many other aspects of water
pollution also handled in the current
bill. This bill, S. 7, and the previous
legislation, authorizes research and de-
velopment on problems of lake pollution,
demonstration projects for controlling
acid mine drainage, and provisions in-
suring cooperation among all Federal
agencies in maintaining water quality
standards.
Last year's legislation contained a
provision authorizing a national stand-
ard for devices to treat sewage from
vessels. A similar provision appears in
S. 7. I should point out that the new
legislation adds wording that gives to
each State the right to bar vessel dis-
charge where necessary to protect that
State's waters for such purposes as
drinking, recreation, shellfish produc-
tion. This is a right the States should
have. This means that if water quality
at a specific location would be degraded
below applicable water quality stand-
ards by a discharge, treated or other-
wise, the State may prohibit the
discharge in that area to protect the
lake, marina, oyster bed, or municipal
water intake location.
Some boatowners have argued that
States would act capriciously, and estab-
lish a variety of restrictive standards
in their waters. This cannot happen.
There would be only two standards: A
discharge standard and a no-discharge
standard. When an automobile driver
crosses State lines on a trip, he is re-
quired to know a new set of laws. Why
is it any more of a burden for a
boatowner to know where there is a
discharge and where there is a no-dis-
charge policy in another State he intends
to visit?
It should be emphasized further that
the language permits a discharge pro-
hibition only when "applicable water
quality standards require such prohibi-
tion." Thus, if a State acts capriciously,
the boatowners may go to court to halt
such unreasonable action by the States.
This provision has created some con-
troversy among boatowners They
argue the provision gives States the
rights to bar discharges in some loca-
tions, an unnecessary restriction on
boatowners.
We have discussed this at great length.
Following the filing of the report on this
bill, I received a letter from an execu-
tive who had forcefully brought to com-
-------
1772
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mittee members his objections to the S.
7 discharge language. The letter says:
I also believe that if the administrators
will follow the intention and guidance of the
Committee, as I understand it in the Report,
and if common sense and practicality pre-
vails, the owners and operators of both rec-
reational and small commercial vessels will
be able to live with the situation and will be
glad to cooperate toward the objective that
we all have, namely, cleaner waters for the
use and enjoyment of everyone in our great
country.
I discuss these several points and their
legislative history to demonstrate that
[p.28957]
the pending legislation holds a direct
inheritance from legislation previously
adopted by this body.
The distinguished Senator from Maine
has discussed many of the new provi-
sions, such as the authorizaton of a
study on cleanup of other hazardous
substances, plus a most essential provi-
sion establishing in the White House an
Office of Environmental Quality. I en-
dorse these portions of the bill, as I do
the entire measure, but, in addition,
there is one further provision of the
bill I wish to mention briefly. This is
section 16 (g), dealing with manpower
training, suggested to the committee by
the distinguished minority leader, Sen-
ator SCOTT. The cost to implement this
provision is small: $5 million during this
fiscal year, $7.5 million in fiscal 1971.
But the rewards should be great. The
paragraph authorizes pilot projects to
train technicians to operate sewage
treatment plants. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration esti-
mates that these funds will finance the
training of 9,000 technicians, toward fill-
ing a national shortage of 30,000 such
technicians. This will offer to the Na-
tion greater assurance that the waste
treatment plants we are building under
the Clean Water Restoration Act of
1966 will not stand idle or inefficiently
utilized. As we look ahead toward the
enhancement of our environment, this
training section should have an impact
for good far beyond its cost.
For the reasons that I have enumer-
ated, I am happy to support this legis-
lation. I urge my colleagues to give it
orderly consideration, and I hope they
will support it. It is most essential leg-
islation.
I again, in conclusion, wish to thank
the distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee, the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) , for his outstanding leadership
and ability, and for the great privilege
it has been to work him him and the
other members of the committee on this
legislation.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield? ?
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend
from Delaware, and I appreciate his
comments. I shall yield in a moment to
the distinguished Senator from Virgina
(Mr. SPONG). Before I do, however, I
should like to say, in response to some-
thing the distinguished Senator from
Delaware has said, that I neglected to
give appropriate credit to the distin-
guished Senator from Kansas (Mr.
DOLE) for the provision in the bill deal-
ing with hazardous substances. He took
a special interest in that matter, and
developed the amendment and pre-
sented it to the committee, and I should
like to give him full credit for that pro-
vision.
Mr. BOGGS. I join with the distin-
guished chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator
from Virginia.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the bill
before the Senate represents a forward-
looking response to the national concern
over the deteriorating condition of our
water resources.
The measure is the product of most
careful consideration by the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution, and
its parent Committee on Public Works.
We are indebted to the leadership of the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) during the development of
this important and far-reaching legisla-
tion. We also are grateful for the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1773
tributions made by Senators BOGGS,
COOPER, and BAKER.
Because I represent a coastal State, I
am particularly interested in those pro-
visions of the bill which deal with oil
pollution, thermal pollution, and the
discharge of wastes from vessels.
After lengthy deliberations, the com-
mittee decided to recommend absolute
liability upon vessel owners or operators
for the cleanup costs of oil spills Lia-
bility would be limited to $125 per gross
ton of the offending vessel or $14 million,
whichever is lesser. This concept places
the risk on the responsible party, not
innocent third parties and the general
public. Our objective was to protect the
taxpayers from potential cleanup costs,
without imposing liability in excess of
reasonable risks. It is the understand-
ing of the committee that the limits in
the bill are sufficient to cover the costs
of the most expensive spills
Fortunately, there have been no spills
from vessels in the coastal waters of the
United States which even approach the
limits. Moreover, the outer limit of $14
million would be sufficient to cover the
liability, at $125 per ton, of any vessel
presently capable of using U.S. ports.
However, the committee was of the
opinion that the danger from potential
spills from vessels, as well as from on-
shore and offshore oil facilities, should
be taken into account in the develop-
ment of this legislation.
The owner or operator, not the Gov-
ernment, v/ould be given first opportun-
ity to clean up a spill If an owner or
operator later proved the discharge was
caused solely by an act of God, an act
of war, negligence on the part of the
U.S. Government, or an act of a third
party, he could recover his costs from
the Government.
If the owner or operator failed to act,
the Government would clean up the
spill and be entitled to recover its costs.
If the Government could prove a spill
the result of negligence or a willful act,
it would be entitled to recover all costs
regardless of the liability limits.
Vessel owners or operators would be
required to provide evidence of financial
responsibility of $100 per gross ton for
vessels over 300 gross tons. The com-
mittee believes that the exceptions it has
recommended with respect to absolute
liability will enable owners or operators
to obtain insurance to cover their finan-
cial responsibility of at least $100 per
ton. Owners or operators may then de-
termine the extent to which their risk
may exceed their insurance coverage,
or self-insurance.
The liability standards for offshore
and onshore facilities are similar to
those for vessels. However, liability
would be limited to $125 per ton of oil
which any processing, transporting or
transferring facility can pass through in
a 24-hour period, or which can be stored
by the largest unit of a tank farm. The
limit for drilling-production facilities
would be $8 million.
The vessel pollution section provides
for Federal preemption of authority to
regulate the design, use, manufacture,
and installation of marine sanitation
devices. The committee adopted this
approach to avoid a proliferation of
conflicting State regulations which
would work a hardship upon recrea-
tional boaters who enjoy the waters of
several States.
However, in order to relate this sec-
tion of the bill to the water quality
standards of the States, the committee
has proposed that States be allowed to
prohibit the discharge of any sewage
from vessels in areas where such a re-
striction is necessary for the imple-
mentation of applicable water quality
standards. The committee has empha-
sized in its report on the bill its inten-
tion that a prohibition should apply only
to areas from which public water sup-
plies are drawn, to areas where there
are shellfish beds, and to areas desig-
nated for body contact recreation. In
other words, a prohibition against dis-
charges must be tied to water quality
standards.
The section would not apply to ships
-------
1774
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and boats which do not have installed
toilets. In addition, the committee
recognizes, because of shortcomings in
technology, that it may be necessary to
waive the applicability of the standards
for various classss, types, and sizes of
vessels. It obviously will be necessary
to exercise common sense in the admin-
istration of this aspect of the legislation.
This is not to suggest, however, that
there should be footdragging in the
implementation of the program.
The Secretary of the Interior would be
empowered under the vessel pollution
section to develop performance stand-
ards indicating what a sewage treatment
or holding device must accomplish to
be acceptable for marine use. Because
of its expertise in marine engineering
and design, the Coast Guard would be
vested with enforcement authority, and
with authority to develop regulations
governing the design, installation and
operation of marine sanitation devices.
The Coast Guard is particularly well
suited to administer these matters; it
lias the capability to work out a practical
and workable system of implementation.
Mr. President, I hope the Department
of Defense "will expedite its program to
equip naval vessels with sanitation de-
vices, and will request the funds nec-
essary to carry out the intent of this
legislation. Pollution from Navy ships
constitutes a substantial problem in
many of the country's ports. The Navy
has a public responsibility to demon-
strate by continuing affirmative action
its willingness to cooperate in the effort
to resolve environmental problems.
The bill takes a preventive approach
toward activities over which the Federal
Government already exercises a degree
of control. Section 16 is directed pri-
marily at thermal discharges, and pollu-
tion from dredged spoil.
Applicants for a Federal license or
permit to build or operate any facility
which might discharge pollutants into
navigable waters would be required un-
[p.289581
der the section to provide certification
of reasonable assurance that the facility
will comply with applicable water
quality standards. In most instances,
the certification would come from the
State in which the discharge occurs.
Nuclear-power electric generating fa-
cilities and other activities requiring
more than one Federal license or permit
would be required to provide only one
certificate of compliance, unless there is
a change in the nature or design of the
activity, or a change in the water qual-
ity standards applicable to the waters
involved.
There is provision for the suspension
or termination of a certificate in the
event a court of competent jurisdiction
finds that a facility is operating in viola-
tion of water quality standards.
Pollution from dredging posed a spe-
cial problem to the committee because
only one State has developed water
quality standards for temporary turbid-
ity and the disposal of spoil resulting
from this activity. The committee rec-
ommended that certification not be re-
quired as a precondition of a dredging
permit until such time as the States have
developed appropriate water quality
standards. However, at any time fol-
lowing the development of water quality
standards for dredging, an applicant for
a new license or permit would be sub-
ject to other provisions of the section.
Mr. President, S. 7, the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1989, is a major
piece of legislation carried over as un-
finished business from the 90th session
of Congress. The measure is not puni-
tive. The committee's overriding inter-
est in the development of the legislation
was to establish procedures which will
be helpful to preserve and protect our
water resources.
Our existing laws have sarious gaps
which threaten the success of our efforts
to abate pollution. This bill will fill
the gaps. It will go a long way toward
putting the responsibility for pollution
control where it rightfully belongs—on
the polluter.
I again commend the distinguished
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1775
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for
the leadership he has afforded.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to thank the
distinguished Senator from Virginia for
his continuing interest and dedication to
solving the pollution cris-S. He has been
a diligent contributor to the subcommit-
tee's work in this area and the full Sen-
ate is indebted to him.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I applaud
the Senate Public Works Committee and
its distinguished chairman, Senator
RANDOLPH, and the chairman of its Sub-
committee on Water Pollution, Senator
MUSKIE, for the devoted efforts they
have made since the beginning of this
Congress to meet the mounting public
concern over the depletion and spoilage
of our waterways by various types of
pollution. Obviously, it is in the na-
tional interest to update and extend the
requirements and prohibitions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and to assure that, for centuries to come,
the water resources of the United States
will meet the highest possible standards
of purity.
However, as chairman of the Senate
Merchant Marine Subcommittee and as
one who only last week urged the Sen-
ate to provide millions of dollars of
additional Federal funds for the con-
struction of new merchant ships to save
our merchant fleet from sinking into
almost total obscurity, I feel I must
express my deep concern regarding the
very adveise effect the provisions of
sections 12 (f) (1) and (2) of S. 7 might
have upon the ability of the American
merchant marine to continue to operate
at all.
As I read section 12 (f) (1) of the bill,
in the event a vessel of the American
merchant marine is involved in an oil
spill which its owner cannot prove was
caused by, first, an act of God; second,
an act of war; third, negligence on the
part of the U.S. Government, or, fourth,
by an act of a third party, the owner is
automatically liable to the United States
for the actual costs of the cleanup, up
to an amount equal to $125 per gross ton
of the vessel or $14,000,000, whichever is
lesser. If, on the other hand, the Gov-
ernment can show that such discharge
was the result of simple negligence on
the part of the vessel, then the vessel
owner is liable to the United States "for
the full amount of such costs," even if
they far exceed $14,000,000.
Section 12 (f) (2) of the bill, however,
permits vessels of the American mer-
chant marine to sail if they are able to
establish ''financial responsibility" (in
the form of insurance or a bond) of only
$100 per gross ton for any and all oil
cleanup costs. Thus, under the bill, a
vessel of 10,000 gross tons is authorized
to sail if it can establish to the satisfac-
tion of the Federal Government that it
carries $1,000,000 worth of insurance for
oil cleanup costs; while a vessel of
100,000 gross tons, including tankers, is
permitted to sail if it carries $10,000,000
of insurance to cover cleanup costs in
the event it becomes involved in an oil
spill.
Clearly, therefore, S. 7 makes vessels
of the American Merchant Marine sub-
ject to liabilities ranging up to $125 per
gross ton for oil cleanup costs while the
bill simultaneously requires them to
carry insurance of only $100 per ton—
and the first mentioned liability of $125
per ton can arisa even in cases where
an oil spill occurs without any negli-
gence whatsoever on the part of the ves-
sel owner or operator involved.
Indeed, if negligence is proved to exist,
under S 7, the owner has an unlimited
liability, whereas, as indicated, the bill
permits him to sail with insurance in an
amount equal to only $100 per ton.
Obviously, if this were only an over-
sight or mistake in the drafting of this
bill, it would be a simple matter to cor-
rect it here on the Senate floor. We
could merely increase the "financial
responsibility" requirement of section
12 (f) (2) to $125 per gross ton, and then,
absent negligence, American merchant
marine vessels would be covered against
at least the minimum, automatic liabil-
ity provisions of section 12 (f) (1). The
-------
1776
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"unlimited liability" exposure would
thereby be limited to cases of proved
negligence only.
Unfortunately, however, I am advised
that these ssrious, substantial liability
differences are not the result of mistake
at all. On the contrary, it is my under-
standing that section 12 (f) (2) enables
American vessels to sail with proof of
"financial responsibility" of only $100
per gross ton because, in fact, that is the
maximum amount of insurance for oil
cleanup costs which can be obtained,
both here in the United States and from
all of the other worldwide marine insur-
ance underwriters located in England.
Thus, if S. 7 required each and every
American vessel to establish "financial
responsibility" of $125 per gross ton un-
der section 12 (f) (2), the result would
be that most American vessels would
have to remain in port, that is without
insurance—and thus without clearance
from the Government under S. 7—they
would be unable to sail. S. 7, as I have
said, avoids that catastrophe by limiting
the "ability to sail" requirements to only
$100 per ton—that is, to a clearly insur-
able amount.
But, simultaneously section 12 (f) (1)
of the bill goes on to provide that, when
and if an oil spill actually occurs, the
American vessel is liable for cleanup
costs up to $125 per ton; that is, in an
amount which apparently S. 7 itself
recognizes to be uninsurable. And, of
course, if $125 per ton is not insurable,
it follows, as day follows night, that un-
limited liability for a negligent oil spill is
equally uninsurable beyond the $100 per
ton figure mentioned before.
The result for the American merchant
marine is obviously intolerable and it
promises to force many of the smaller
vessel operators out of business. In
effect, each vessel operator must, under
S. 7, become a self-insurer for the dif-
ference in liability between $100 per ton,
which is insurable, and the unlimited
amount of liability which can be as-
sessed against him in the event of a
negligent oil spill.
Thus, in a moment, a small operator
whose vessel is insured for only $1,000,-
000 can, under S. 7, become liable for
$14,000,000 or more in oil cleanup costs
if his vessel unavoidably collides with
an oil tanker off the coast of the United
States. Sudden liability in such a
staggering uninsured amount would
immediately bankrupt most American
shipping concerns which are struggling
to continue to remain in business today.
And, sadly, the inability of such a ves-
sel to pay the oil cleanup costs assessed
against it would still leave the United
States in the position where it would
have to pay the costs of the oil cleanup
itself.
For all of these reason, therefore, as
chairman of the Senate Merchant Ma-
rine Subcommittee, I have come to the
conclusion that the better solution, for
both the United States and the Ameri-
can merchant marine, would be to adopt
the provisions of section 17 (e) of H.R.
4148, which the House unanimously
passed on April 16 of this year, whereby
each vessel of the American merchant
marine would be held liable for oil
cleanup costs in the clearly insurable
amounts of $100 per gross ton or $10,-
000,000, whichever is lesser, unless it is
able to prove affirmatively that it had
no responsibility whatsoever for the oil
spill which made the cleanup necessary
in the first place.
Under the House bill, the liabilities
assessed are clearly insurable and funds
[p. 28959]
will thus be available up to those insur-
able limits to defray for the United
States at least the statutory portion of
all oil spill costs for which a vessel of
the American merchant marine is
responsible.
Because of the very complicated situa-
tion which has been created for all con-
cerned by the conflicting provisions of
section 12 (f) of S. 7 mentioned above,
I shall not endeavor by amendment here
on the Senate floor to resolve that which
the committee has been unable fairly
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1777
to rectify after months of consideration.
However, because the two differing ver-
sions of this legislation will ultimately
have to be ironed out in conference, I
strenuously urge the Senate conferees
to keep in mind during those crucial de-
liberations the existing plight of our
American merchant marine; the fact
that it is presently at its lowest ebb in
modern history and is thus unable to
self-insure risks far beyond that which
the marine insurance industry will dare
to underwrite; that the merchant ma-
rine is vital to the national defense of
the United States; and that both Con-
gress and the administration are cur-
rently seeking to establish programs
whereby hundreds of millions of dollars
of Federal funds will be spent on ship
construction simply to keep the mer-
chant marine alive. In the face of these
conditions and developments, it seems
academic to me that we should not si-
multaneously proceed to try to drive
large segments of the industry out of
business by saddling its fleet with statu-
tory liabilities which cannot be insured
either here in the United States or
abroad.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD a statement which was prepared
for delivery today by the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , who is necessarily
absent.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT or SENATOK MIKE GRAVEI,
Mr. President, I would like to associate
myself with the remarks of the distinguished
Chairman of the Senate Merchant Marine
Subcommittee. Like him, J strongly favor
and support the basic purposes of the pend-
ing legislation which are to combat pollution
of our nation's waters and to provide means
whereby cleanup costs connected with dam-
aging oil spills or oil leaks along our coast-
lines will be defrayed, to the maximum
extent possible, by those who are actually
responsible for such water pollution. My
State of Alaska is obviously deeply concerned
over the possibility of such catastrophes and
thus I join the Senator from Louisiana in con-
gratulating the distinguished Chairman of
the Public Works Committee, Senator Ran-
dolph, and the brilliant Chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on Water Pollution,
Senator Muskie, for the untiring efforts they
have made to bring this bill to the floor for
early action.
At the same time, I am also deeply dis-
turbed by those provisions of Section 12 (f)
of the bill which require all vessels over 300
tons which utilize American ports or water-
ways to establish "financial responsibility"
for oil cleanup costs of only $100 per gross
ton, but which simultaneously provide that,
in the event of an actual oil spill, the vessel's
statutory liability for cleanup costs, depend-
ing on the circumstances involved, might be
as high as
(1) $125 per gross ton, or
(2) an unlimited sum equal to the "full
amount" of such cleanup costs, regardless
of how large that amount might be.
My concern regarding these provisions of
Section 12 (f) would not be so profound if
evidence were available that adequate ma-
rine insurance could be obtained by all ves-
sels of our merchant fleet to cover these
statutory risks and liabilities. Unfortunately,
however the testimony presented before the
Senate Public Works Committee on this
subject, by both the American and British
marine insurance industries, was to the con-
trary. Indeed, during the past several days,
as a member of that Committee, I have re-
ceived copies of letters addressed to our
Chairman by representatives of the British
insurance underwriters (companies which I
understand actually underwrite most of the
marine insurance aound the world) stating
that "the capacity of the market to insure
this kind of liability at the present time is
$100 per gross registered ton or $10,000,000,
whichever is the less.*' These letters to the
Committee bluntly conclude with the state-
ment that "Insurance above those amounts
is, we are satisfied, unobtainable."
If these warnings from the marine insur-
ance industry are correct, then under Section
12 (f) of the pending bill, the $100 per ton
"financial responsibility" requirement in S. 7
actually represents all that can be insured.
It follows as the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana demonstrated, that the $125 and
unlimited oil cleanup liabilities, specified in
the bill for assessment against any vessel
in the event of an oil spill, are simply
uninsurable.
What effect this "uninsurability" might
have on some segments of the American
Merchant Marine in their present low po-
sition of prosperity, I am unable to say at
this time. Clearly, all vessels with maximum
insurance of only $100 per ton will, in the
event S. 7 becomes law, be sailing as self-
insurers of the two statutory liabilities S. 7
-------
1778
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
assesses in excess of that amount Consid-
ering the pitiful condition of our merchant
fleet, it seems highly unlikely that many
would be able to assume this additional risk,
but even if they do, patently their vessels
will be face-to-face with financial disaster,
if, perchance, they become involved, inno-
cently or negligently, in a very costly oil Jpill
And, of course, just as Alaska cherishes its
beautiful unscarred coastlines and thus
strongly favors all measures aimed at pro-
tecting its shores against destructive oil
spills, it also depends upon ihe maritime
industry for most of its daily needs and 10
service the requirements of its blossoming
oil industry. Therefore, we are concerned,
seriously concerned, about the adverse effects
the "uninsurable provisions" of Section 12 (f)
might have upon the Merchant Marine and
upon the ability of our shipping interests to
continue to operate for the well being and
progress of Alaska as they have in the past
In conclusion, therefore, what I urge here
is that every possible effort be made by the
distinguished members of the Public Works
Committee who are and will be in charge of
this legislation both here on the floor and in
conference with the House, to reach some ac-
ceptable solution with reference to Section
12(f) which will (1) meet the basic needs
of water pollution control but (2) establish
clean-up liabilities for the Merchant Marine
which are, beyond dispute and peradventure,
insurable.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr President, the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969
—S. 7—is another significant step toward
controlling one of the major environ-
mental problems facing this Nation It
will extend society's control over water
quality and insure against further degra-
dation of our priceless water resources
both in the inland fresh lakes and
streams and along our coastal shores.
Senator MUSKIE, our able and informed
chairman of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, who is floor man-
ager of S. 7, is discussing the general
features of this legislation.
I shall focus my remarks on three par-
ticular sections of the measure which
are especially noteworthy because they
attack three of the very real water pol-
lution problems of today. These are:
acid and other mine drainage pollution;
pollution from dredging operations; and
oil pollution.
Acid and alkali pollution discharged
into various local watercourses are
carried by the natural flow of stream
systems into our major river basins, thus
creating extensive pollution problems
both intrastate and interstate. The spe-
cific impact of mine drainage pollution
is characterized by stream sterility. This
is a condition in which the normal
stream ecology, or balance between liv-
ing organisms and their environment, is
disrupted by the presence of large vol-
umes of acid or alkali mine drainage
wastes. If the "wild" upstream portions
of streams and rivers are virtually de-
stroyed by such problems as acid mine
drainage, how much hope is there that
the waters reaching the major cities will
be able to serve our growing population?
It has been estimated that 3.5 million
tons of acid are discharged into more
than 6,000 miles of the Nation's streams,
resulting in damage to aquatic life and
potential sever loss of recreational ca-
pacity of the waterways. In addition,
untold damage occurs to vessels, dams,
bridges, water and sewer works, and
other facilities downstream.
The impact of acid pollution is com-
pounded by other than direct effects on
our rivers and streams. The many seep-
age areas around mines are barren of
plantlife to such an extent that as much
as 1,000 times as much sediment is
washed from them into streams by ero-
sion than from forest and grass lands.
There are more than 30,000 surface acres
of impounded waters and reservoirs
which are seriously affected by surface
and subsurface mining operations.
The most serious problem is the fact
that 80 percent of acid mine drainage
comes from abandoned and orphaned
mines. Though laws and regulations in
some States control present and future
mining operations, there appears to be
no simple way to achieve control over
the thousands of abandoned mines.
The Department of the Interior has
identified several priority areas for the
major attack against acid mine drainage
under this new legislation. There is, for
example, a very real need for more basic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1779
research and development into the
mechanisms of formation of acid mine
drainage in order to find new and differ-
ent methods of preventing its formation.
In addition to basic research, the De-
partment expects to move quickly to find
new techniques and mechanisms at vari-
ous stages of acid drainage formation.
The priorities include' development
of new mining techniques to reduce or
prevent mine drainage and new or im-
[p. 28960]
proved mine drainage treatment proc-
esses, the most promising of which is the
development of rapid oxidation of fer-
rous iron from the mineral wastes; isola-
tion of byproducts having economic
value, with a special emphasis on iron
oxide; and new methods for settling and
thickening sludges resulting from the
neutralization of acid mine waters and
new methods for economically disposing
of that sludge, including possible use on
agricultural lands.
Though much research has been car-
ried out, Federal efforts have been
sporadic and poorly coordinated, and
current programs of practical scale
reclamation are not nearly ambitious
enough to meet the problem. Testimony
before the committee strongly suggests
that the cooperative State-Federal effort
envisioned in the demonstration provi-
sions of this bill would be an important
step toward the total solution.
The bill would also add a new section
to the act authorizing the Secretary of
the Interior to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or inter-
state agency for the purpose of assisting
in the development of feasible and prac-
tical areawide methods of controlling
acid pollution resulting from mining ac-
tivities. Another key provision directs
the use of "various abatement tech-
niques" for acid mine water elimination
or control rather than limiting the ap-
proach to a particular process. This is
important because the techniques used
and the relative importance of each will
vary from area to area.
In the Appalachian areas where the
acid mine drainage problem is most
severe, quality agricultural land is at a
premium Recreational opportunities
have also been limited by the relatively
small number of natural lakes. Land
reclamation demonstration projects
could provide both new and improved
agricultural land and new recreation
sites near heavily populated metropoli-
tan areas.
This new attack on acid mine drain-
age will benefit peoples in all parts of
the Nation, from those in the depressed
mining regions like West Virginia and
Ohio to those who depend on the flow
of clean, pure waters along the length
and breadth of the country. This sec-
tion of S 7 not only assures cleaner
waters, but less loss of minerals and in-
dustrial products, less sedimentation and
subsequent silting of our reservoirs, bet-
ter control of the topographic blight in
mining regions, and more areas for farm-
ing, building, recreation, and other uses
for our expanding population.
A second major area of water pollution
which S. 7 will bring under control is
sediment from dredging operations in
the Nation's lakes and rivers. At the
outset, the committee makes it clear that
under section 16, all dredging-—Federal,
State, or private—shall comply with ap-
plicable water quality standards
Approximately 400,000,000 cubic yards
of material are dredged annually from
the Federal project waterways by the
Corps of Engineers. If the amounts
dredged by private contractors from
slips, berths, private channels and for
reclamation work are added to the Fed-
eral work, it is estimated that the total
may be about three-fourths billion cubic
yards
In enacting section 10(c)(3) of the
Water Quality Act of 1985, Congress di-
rected that water quality standards be
prepared, considering, in the words of
ihe act, "their use and value for public
water supplies, propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and agri-
cultural, industrial, and other legitimate
-------
1780
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
uses." The Committee on Public Works
has taken the further step of adding
language in section 10 of the basic act to
specifically include navigation.
Although turbidity, or muddiness, is
included as a measure of water quality
in existing standards, the committee was
informed that, with one exception, such
standards were not drawn to accommo-
date or otherwise consider temporary
turbidity relating to dredging. We noted
the specific provision dealing with
dredging turbidity in the approved water
quality standards of Michigan as one ap-
proach to the problem. We expect the
States to review their standards to deal
with this problem of temporary tur-
bidity in order to conform with the in-
tent of section 10 (c) (3) of the basic act
as amended by this bill.
In order to accomplish the objective
of providing for essential dredging with-
out adversely affecting water quality, the
committee expects the Secretary to pro-
vide the States with technical assistance
required to evaluate both the real and
potential pollution associated with
dredging and disposal of dredge spoil.
The pilot study of dredging and water
quality problems in the Great Lakes
being conducted by the Corps of Engi-
neers should be of material assistance
in this effort.
It should be noted that nothing in
this bill should be construed as requiring
the disposal of all dredge spoil on land.
Where spoil is determined to be non-
polluting and causes no long-term en-
vironmental damage, we feel it may be
properly discharged into lakes or rivers
where permitted under appropriate State
or Federal license.
In the interim period during which
the States will be reviewing their water
quality standards, no arbitrary or un-
reasonable restrictions shall be imposed
on dredging essential for the mainte-
nance of interstate commerce. This ap-
plies to dredging and disposal activities
of private dredgers as well as the Corps
of Engineers.
I feel very strongly that this vital op-
eration must continue unimpaired for
the period in which the States and the
Federal Government are developing
standards for temporary turbidity.
There is no question that dredging ac-
tivities for the maintenance of naviga-
tion in our waterways are important to
the growth and vitality of the Nation.
The States must develop meaningful
long-term solutions to dredging, and
especially to the ultimate disposal of
dredging materials, if they are to con-
tinue to reap the benefits of these
operations.
What this bill provides, therefore, is an
interim solution to the problem, allowing
a period of adjustment while the States
work out their own definitions of water
quality and determine the trade-off be-
tween continued water quality and nec-
essary dredging. For the long run,
however, new answers must be found
for the ultimate protection of the overall
quality of the Nation's waters.
On another front, S. 7 will provide
broad protection against such oil pollu-
tion disasters as the one which befell
Santa Barbara earlier this year. It
would also provide protection against
such tanker spills as the 1967 Torrey
Canyon incident or the spill which took
place in the San Juan Harbor when the
Ocean Eagle broke up.
A vital key to the oil pollution prob-
lem is that of adequate research asso-
ciated with the spilling of oil and its
cleanup. A great deal of testimony be-
fore the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, especially in light of the diffi-
culties associated with cleanup in Santa
Barbara, dealt with the inadequacy of
technology to effectively contain and re-
move oil spills. Several witnesses noted
that the use of straw to absorb oil on the
water and on the beaches is a technique
which has been available for centuries.
More modern techniques such as various
types of booms are often inadequate due
to the nature of the tides and winds. A
vanety of dispersant chemicals have
been applied but, because so little infor-
mation existed on potential adverse eco-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1781
logical effects, the Department of the
Interior is properly reluctant to allow
uncontrolled or excessive use.
Dispersal of oil as a method of
cleanup must be evaluated on the basis
of possible long-term effects. Once oil is
dispersed, there is potential for incorpo-
ration of hydrocarbons in aquatic
organisms harvested for human con-
sumption. The Committee on Public
Works expects the Federal agencies to
carry out research activities on the po-
tential effects of accumulation of hydro-
carbons in the food chain in order to
determine the desirability of cleanup
methods which do not involve actual
physical removal of the oil.
The highest priority, therefore, is the
development of effective techniques to
deal with oil spills and making those
techniques readily available at appro-
priate locations throughout the country.
The primary responsibility for re-
search is placed in the Department of the
Interior, but the committee intends that
the Secretary should transfer some re-
search functions and funds to the Coast
Guard for those activities over which
that agency has significant responsibility.
Other agencies should be encouraged to
conduct and support research along sim-
ilar or different lines.
The Department of the Interior must
gather and develop information on the
effects of oil spills and chemicals and
other methods used to disperse oil. The
Department should also be investigating
improved methods to control oil dis-
charges in connection with ongoing
efforts to achieve and maintain compli-
ance with water quality standards.
This oil pollution research section is
an integral part of the entire Federal
effort to bring under control those types
of pollution which have eluded us under
the current laws. This is one of the
most important parts of the overall ap-
[p. 28961J
proach of S. 7 to provide the basic frame-
work for continual upgrading of water
quality standards to insure that future
generations of Americans will have ac-
cess to pure, clean water.
Throughout our entire deliberations
on S. 7, the Committee on Public Works
followed a single strong thread, which
is woven through the entire fabric of
recent legislation by the committee.
This thread is the committee concern for
maintaining and enhancing the quality
of our environment.
The heart of our concern is the grow-
ing awareness that we can no longer fail
to take into consideration the effects
of our activities on the total environment.
As the President's Science Advisory
Committee Report of 1965, "Restoring
the Quality of our Environment," so
aptly pointed out:
The public should come to recognize in-
dividual rights to quality of living, as ex-
pressed by the absence of pollution, as it has
come to recognize rights to education, to eco-
nomic advance, and to public recreation .
There should be no "right" to pollute.
It is this awareness that brought about
title II of the Water Quality Act of 1969.
Title II weaves together the many
strands of environmental quality which
make up the pattern for a national policy
for environmental quality, to insure that
Americans now and in the future have
that right to clean water, clean air, clean
land, and freedom from physical and
psychological insults of all kinds, This
concept, I would point out was em-
bodied originally in S. 2391 which was
cosponsored by myself and 41 of our
colleagues in the Senate early this year.
Title II of S. 7 provides for more effec-
tive coordination of Federal air quality,
water quality, and solid waste disposal
programs, for the consideration of envi-
ronmental quality in all public works
programs and projects, and for the co-
ordination of all Federal research pro-
grams which improve knowledge of
environmental modifications resulting
from increased population and urban
concentration.
What we have come to realize, of
course, is that environmental quality
goes beyond water and air pollution and
-------
1782
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
solid waste management. Assurance of
environmental quality means that every
man, woman, and child has the oppor-
tunity to live in a world which will in
no way insult his body, mind, or spirit.
It is a sad fact that nearly all of the
important and critical environmental
problems—air and water pollution, the
growing pervasiveness of pesticides,
mounting solid wastes, the effects of
smoking—have emerged as serious
health problems only after a series of
crises have crystallized public attention.
Each of these problems has been an un-
desired and unforeseen byproduct of
goods or services which society has
wanted. But it has been our habit to
take action only after a crisis develops,
rather than to prevent its occurrence.
We fail to heed the old saying that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.
In the past we have relied on what has
been termed the "natural assimilative
capacity" of nature to reprocess or de-
stroy most of the waste of our civiliza-
tion, with little concern for its long-term
capability to perform this function.
Only recently have we become acutely
aware of the fact that we are exceeding
nature's ability and capacity to repro-
cess the kinds and qualities of wastes
which are being produced by modern
technology.
The majority of the Nation's streams
and rivers are no longer able to support
the life which has for eons processed the
wastes of man and the animals and
plants upstream. Experiences in the late
1950's and early 1960's with nondegrad-
able detergents dramatically under-
scored the lack of planning and
understanding of our waste systems and
the effects of our newly developed ma-
terials on vital water resources.
The urgency of finding new solutions
to the problems of water pollution is ap-
parent when we reflect that by 1980 this
Nation will be' producing enough sewage
and other waterborne wastes to consume
all of the oxygen of all the flow in dry
weather in the 22 river systems of the
United States. At the same time the
need for fresh, clean water will increase
from our present consumption rate of
370 billion gallons per day to 600 billion
gallons a day. The supply of fresh water
is limited. The total daily flow in the
United States is about 1,100 billion gal-
lons. By the year 2000, because of pop-
ulation growth and industrial expansion,
our withdrawal rate will be almost four-
fifths of the total available supply, and
we will return approximately two-thirds
of the total available supply with some
degree of waste.
Air pollution loomed as a major prob-
lem in 1963, when 809 people died in one
air pollution catastrophe in New York
City, and the Nation suddenly awoke to
the perils of tainted air.
The illusion that man has conquered
nature through science and technology
has been abruptly challenged by nature
herself. Only slowly are we beginning
to realize that it is not the conquest of
nature that we seek to achieve, but a
harmonious balance with nature
through which we may enhance the
quality of human life.
There will never be—on a nationwide
basis—absolutely clean air or pristine
pure water. There is a necessary and
acceptable amount of each pollutant
that society will understand and accept.
Because of varying uses of land and
air and water, the right amount of pollu-
tion—the desirable compromise—is not
the same everywhere. Some communi-
ties may determine the economic and
industrial development is more impor-
tant than fishing, and that some pollu-
tion of their streams is acceptable.
Others, like the untouched wilderness
areas of the great Northwest, will find
that low tolerances—but not impossibly
low—will be the goal for recreational
areas.
The broad problems of solid waste
management are just now being recog-
nized as a crisis of gigantic proportions.
Americans throw away billions of tons
of solid materials each year. From our
homes and offices each person contrib-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1783
utes almost SVa pounds of garbage and
miscellaneous trash every day to our
overstrained and underdesigned refuse
system. The cost is more than $45 bil-
lion a year. And the figure will reach
8 pounds per person a day by 1980. Ad-
ded to that, industrial solid waste con-
tribute another 3.2 pounds per person
per day to the environment; agricultural
wastes from animal feedlots, packing-
houses, lumbering operations, and re-
lated industries produce another 30
pounds per person; and 7 million auto-
mobiles are junked each year.
The thrust of these remarks is to re-
mind my colleagues that what is impor-
tant is not the isolated pollution problem
nor the quick solution of an immedi-
ate crisis. We are pleased that S. 7 solves
some of the problems which we have
recently experienced. It clarifies and
tightens Federal regulations over water
pollution generally and provides rigid
penalties for operations like the dis-
astrous oil well blow-out that spilled oil
on the beaches around Santa Barbara.
What we must plan for, however, is
environmental quality for the future
Today, the Committee on Public Works
is working with an official advisory panel
of experts—scientists, engineers, and
specialists from a variety of disciplines—
to help determine the problems of en-
vironmental degradation before they be-
come problems. We are assessing the
impact of land mismanagement from
highway construction, from urban re-
development, from mining, or from san-
itary landfills. We are looking at the
question of biological imbalances cre-
ated by dredging, thermal pollution,
pesticides, and air pollution. And we
are probing problems connected with
flooding and dam construction, the effects
of building reservoirs, and the use of nu-
clear energy for power or construction
I am aware that the solutions to many
of these problems do not now exist and
that the search for technology—eco-
nomically feasible technology—may be a
costly one. It is for this reason that I
have, as chairman of the Committee on
Public Works, emphasized so heavily the
importance of Federal coordination and
support for research and development in
all of these areas.
But the problem is not one of re-
search in itself. Nor can it rest solely on
the Federal Government. Industry, the
States and local governments must take
a big share in the solution, as their share
in the product of a clean and wholesome
environment will be large.
Today, society places higher priorities
on the values of our physical environ-
ment, and these priorities must be in-
corporated in the technology that serves
us. Americans are ready, I believe, to
improve the environment, and in so do-
ing we will build a better society for our-
selves and for future generations.
S. 7—and especially title II—will pro-
vide the basis for the long-term enhance-
ment of the quality of the environment
for which we are all striving. I urge the
speedy adoption of this legislation.
Mr. President, since report No. 91-351
[p. 28962]
of the Committee on Public Works was
filed August 7, 1969, by the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, Senator MUSKIE,
of Maine, to accompany S. 7, with
amendments, several letters have been
addressed to me as chairman of the com-
mittee They offer interpretations of
certain sections of the pending measure
which are said to impose liabilities on
shipowners which are alleged to be com-
mercially uninsurable.
Among the communications to which
I make reference is one dated August 20,
1969, from London, England, signed by
14 persons or firms noting in the first
paragraph that they are "fourteen of
the leading insurers of shipowners' lia-
bilities and represent approximately 705
of the world shipping tonnage "
And, Mr. President, their letter fur-
ther notes in the opening paragraph:
Even with this wide spread of tonnage it
would not be possible foi us to insure the
liabilities we do without adequate icinsur-
ancc and to obtain this it has been necessaiy
-------
1784
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to have recourse to the insurance markets of
the world. Therefore this letter is also writ-
ten on behalf of the Reinsurers and, there-
fore, represents the views of the world
market for the insurance of shipowners'
liabilities.
Continuing, the letter's second para-
graph makes this comment:
We have carefully examined S. 7, in the
form reported out by the Senate Committee
on Public Works on August 7th and the
Committee Report accompanying the Bill,
in relation to the shipowners' Interests which
we represent, and in the light of the insur-
ance markets' capacity to insure the liabili-
ties, which the Bill seeks to impose. While
we have nothing but praise for the ideas be-
hind the Bill and no criticism of most of its
provisions, we most respectfully wish to
bring the following facts to your notice.
(1) The provisions of Section 12(f) (2) (C)
relating to the rights of direct action against
an insurer, as written, makes the liability im-
posed by Section 12 of the Bill completely
uninsurable. (2) The provisions of Section
12(f)(l) imposes an unlimited liability for
the discharge of oil resulting from negli-
gent acts—even those of members of the
crew. Such unlimited liability is, as such,
uninsurable.
I will not read the complete letter at
this time, but I will make a copy avail-
able to the manager of the bill so that he
may give cognizance to it and make
comments on it.
Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have the letter from London
on behalf of the 14 insurance firms
printed in the RECORD at this point, to-
gether with a response I made to it
September 18, 1969.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THOS. R. MILLER & SON,
(INSURANCE) LTD.,
London, August 20,1969.
Re S. 7.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: We the under-
signed are fourteen of the leading insurers
of shipowners' liabilities and represent ap-
proximately 70% of the world shipping ton-
nage. Even with this wide spread of tonnage
It would not be possible for us to insure the
liabilities we do without adequate reinsur-
ance and to obtain this it has been necessary
to have recourse to the insurance markets of
the world. Therefore this letter is also writ-
ten on behalf of the Reinsurers and, there-
fore, represents the views of the world
market for the insurance of shipowners'
liabilities.
We have carefully examined S. 7, in the
form reported out by the Senate Committee
on Public Works on August 7th and the
Committee Report accompanying the Bill,
in relation to the shipowners' interests which
we represent, and in the light of the insur-
ance markets' capacity to insure the liabili-
ties, which the Bill seeks to impose. While
we have nothing but praise for the ideas
behind the Bill and no criticism of most of
its provisions, we most respectfully wish to
bring the following facts to your notice.
(1) The provisions of Section 12 (f) (2) (C)
relating to rights of direct action against an
insurer, as written, make the liabilities im-
posed by Section 12 of the Bill completely
uninsurable.
(2) The provisions of Section 12(f) (1)
impose an unlimited liability for the dis-
charge of oil resulting from negligent acts—
even those of members of the crew. Such
unlimited liability is, as such, uninsurable.
For the sake of simplicity, we will first set
out shortly what can be insured, since we
cannot believe that it is the purpose of the
Senate to impose on shipowners liabilities
which are totally uninsurable; or that to do
so is in the best interests of the people of
the United States.
(1) As insurers, we have no objection to
a requirement of evidence of financial re-
sponsibility, but if such provisions include
the right of direct action against the insurer
certain safeguards must be included in order
to make such liabilities insurable.
(2) Limitation of Liability should be per-
mitted in cases of negligence or wilful acts
of a member of the crew as distinguished
from those of the Owner personally or, in
the case of a corporate owner, those of some-
one in a managerial position. We know that
the capacity of the market to insure this
kind of liability at the present time is $100-
per gross registered ton or $10,000,000-,
whichever is the less. Insurance above the
maximum of $10,000,000- is, we are satisfied,
unobtainable.
We will now proceed to develop in detail
the objections which we have to the two
mentioned Sections of the Bill. Neither the
Protection and Indemnity Associations, nor
the world market Underwriters (who to-
gether make up the insurance market for
shipowners' liabilities) will accept insurance
of shipowners' liabilities with provisions for
direct action against them unless certain
safeguards are incorporated. At the very
least, it would be necessary to modify Sec-
tion 12 (f) (2) (C):—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1785
(a) by the inclusion of a provision placing
the insurer in exactly the same position vis
a vis the Government, as plaintiff, as the
assured would have been in, had the action
been brought against the assured; i.e. any
defences which would have been available io
the assured under the law would be equally
available to the insurer; and
(b) by the inclusion of a provision ex-
pressly preserving to the insurer any de-
fences which would have been available to
the insurer in an action by the assured
against the insurer under the policy We
attach to this letter suggested language
modifying Section 12 (f) (2) (C) on the lines
of the language in the Draft Convention on
Oil Pollution Liability, adopted by the
Comite Maritime International at its Tokyo
meeting last April. Without some such
modification, we must repeat that the pro-
visions of Section 12(f)(2)(C) make the
Bill, from the point of view of the shipown-
ers' liabilities which it imposes, totally
unmsurable.
We now turn to the liabilities imposed by
Section 12 (f) (1) This section makes an
owner liable to the United States Govern-
ment for the costs of removal of discharged
oil, in an amount not exceeding $125 per
gross ton or $14,000,000, whichever is ihe
lesser. The Section then continues "except
that where such discharge was the result of
negligence or a willful act, such owner or
operator shall be liable for the full amount
of such costs "
These words appear to be in direct conflict
with the figures of limitation given in the
immediately preceding phrase, since they
make a shipowner liable in an unlimited
amount in every conceivable circumstance
except those of act of God, act of war, act of
a third party, and negligence of the U S
Government where, under the wording of the
Section, he can escape liability completely.
In our unanimous opinion, and in that of
our legal advisers, there is, in practice, ao
other case to which the purported limitation
figures could apply and they are therefore
meaningless.
We respectfully submit on this point, that
what was quite properly in the minds of ihe
legislators, was that a shipowner should not
have the right to limit his liability in che
event of his personal negligence or wilful act
as distinguished from the negligence or will-
ful act of a crew member. To make a ship-
owner liable for an unlimited amount, where
he is guilty of personal negligence or willful
misconduct, is in accordance with established
principles of international maritime law,
including the United States Limitation of
Liability Act. Title 46, United States Code,
Sections 183-189, however, to make a ship-
owner liable in an unlimited amount where
the negligence is purely that of a member
| of the crew or other such minor employee, is
to impose upon him a burden which is not
only unfair but also contrary to universally
accepted principles of maritime law on the
basis of which marine insurance has been
written for centuries. The universal distinc-
tion made in the Statutes and International
Conventions relating to shipowners Limita-
tion of Liability, is not between negligent
and nonnegligent conduct, but between
negligence of employees and negligence of
the shipowner himself (or in the case of a
corporate shipowner, negligence of someone
acting in a managerial capacity, e.g , the
Operations Manager of the Company)
From the evidence given to both Senate
and House Committees, it is clear that such
an unlimited liability is uninsurable, such a
provision would have no effect whatever on
the prevention of oil spills, since, in the case
of American vessels at least, the owner has
absolutely no choice in the selection of crew
members below the rank of Chief Officer and
First Assistant Engineer Moreover, such a
provision must have the effect, as must any
provision which imposes on a shipowner
liabilities beyond the capacity of the market
to insure, of seriously dislocating trade io
the country imposing such liabilities and of
a most undesirable proliferation of single
ship Companies.
As spokesmen for, and insurers of, 70rj of
the world's ocean tonnage, we must say to
you that unless S 7 is modified so that ship-
owners are not to be required to be self-
insurers beyond the amounts for which they
can get insurance, the Bill will make trading
to the United States or between United States
ports virtually impossible for many shipown-
ers Limitation of a shipowner's liability has
been universally accepted not out of charity
to shipowners but so that the people of all
nations can enjoy the benefits of seaborne
traffic When limits of liability are increased
to a point at which this is not possible lo
insure, the nation which imposes such limits
is inevitably deprived of the benefits which
it could leap from sea-
[p. 28963]
borne traffic, particularly coastal traffic, such
as ability to export its goods or to receive its
imports at a icasonable cost or indeed at all
If S 7 were to become law in its present form,
it would surely be a reckless shipowner who
allowed his ship to enter United States waters
with the liabilities imposed by the Bill un-
covered by insurance and a reckless ship-
owner would be unlikely to be able to provide
evidence of financial responsibility As indi-
cated to you, the practical limits of liability
wUhm the capacity of the world maiket to
insure are whichever is the lesser of SlOO-per
gross registeied ton or $10,000,000
You will realize from ihis letter that we
-------
1786
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
are commenting on only two sections of the
Bill. We have already respectfully submitted
a rewording of Section 12 (f) (2) (C) and now
attach the minor amendments which in our
opinion, are required in Section 12(f)(l).
In our view it would be better in that Section
to omit altogether the words which we have
put in parentheses in our suggested redraft.
These comments are made in a sincere effort
on our part to make the Bill succeed and we
trust that the Senate will decide to accept the
short but vital amendments we have
suggested.
Finally, you will know that an IMCO Con-
vention on the whole subject of oil pollution
is imminent The Senate may well wish to
consider not deferring the legislation, but
including a section whereby the operation
of the provisions concerning shipowners' lia-
bilities are held in abeyance for, say, six
months after enactment This would enable
Congress to incorporate in or alter its legis-
lation in any way it felt appropriate in the
light of the International Convention. In
particular, it is obviously desirable to all
concerned that regulations concerning evi-
dence of financial responsibility be common
among the 100 or so coastal States who will
require such evidence; we submit that any
regulations on this subject included in the
United States legislation should be deferred
until it is known what is internationally
agreed.
Yours sincerely,
The Britannia Steamship Insurance As-
sociation Limited, per: Tindall, Riley
& Company, Managers; The Steamship
Mutual Underwriting Association Lim-
ited, per1 Alfred Stockton & Company
Limited, Managers; The Sunderland
Steamship Protecting and Indemnity
Association, per: John Rutherford &
Son, Secretaries; The West of England
Steamship Owners Protecting and In-
demnity Association Limited, General
Manager; The United Kingdom Steam-
ship Owners Mutual Assurance Associ-
ation Limited, per: Thos. R. Miller &
Son, Managers; The United Kingdom
Steamship Owners Mutual Assurance
Association Limited (Bermuda), per:
Thos R. Miller & Son (Bermuda),
Managers.
The Liverpool and London Steamship
Protection and Indemnity Insurance
Association Limited, for Management;
The London Steamship Owners Mutual
Insurance Association Limited, per:
A. Bilbrough & Company Limited,
Managers; The Newcastle Protecting
and Indemnity Association, Secretary;
The North of England Protecting and
Indemnity Association Limited, Deputy
General Manager; The Standard Steam-
ship Owners Protecting and Indemnity
Association Limited, per: Charles Tay-
lor & Company, Managers.
Assuranceforenlngen Skuld, Oslo, Nor-
way; Assuranceforeningen Gard, Aren-
dal, Norway; Sveriges Angfartygs
Assurans Forening, Gothenburg, Swe-
den; Reinsuring Underwriters: Lloyd's
Leading Underwriters: Syndicate 615.
Guy Janson Esq & Ors; Syndicate 418.
R. J. Merrett, Esq & Ors; Syndicate
277. C. B. Gilroy, Esq & Ors.
Lloyd's Syndicates following the above:
Insurance Companies Members of the
Institute of London Underwriters; In-
surance Companies Members of the
Liverpool Underwriters Association;
Insurance Companies in the United
Kingdom, United States of America,
Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Fin-
land, Japan, Australia etc ; Per: Thos
R. Miller & Son (Insurance) Limited,
Director.
SUGGESTED BEWORDING OF SECTION 12 (f) (1)
(New Material Italicized)
"(f) (1) Except where an owner or opera-
tor can prove that a discharge was caused
solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of
war, (C) negligence on the part of the United
States Government, or (D) an act of a third
party, such owner or operator of any vessel
from which oil is discharged, or which causes
the discharge of oil, Into or upon the naviga-
ble waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines or the waters of the contiguous
zone shall, notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law, be liable to the United States
Government for the actual costs incurred un-
der subsection (e) for the removal of such
oil by the United States Government in an
amount not to exceed $100 per gross ton of
such vessel or $100,000,000, whichever is
lesser (except that where such discharge
was the result of the actual fault or privity
of the owner or operator, such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United States
Government for the full amount of such
costs).
SUGGESTED REWORDING OF SECTION
12(f)(2)(C)
(New Material Italicized)
When the owner or operator of such vessel
has applied for a suspension of payments or
has been adjudicated bankrupt or, if a com-
pany, is being or has been wound tip, any
claim for costs incurred by such vessel may
be brought against the Insurer or any other
person providing evidence of financial re-
soonsibility as required under this subsec-
tion, provided, however, that where such
direct action is exercised the insurer or any
other person "providing evidence of financial
responsibility shall be entitled to invoke all
rights and defenses which would have been
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1787
available to the owner or operator if an ac-
tion had been brought against him by the
claimant, and which would have been avail-
able to him if an action had been brought
against him by the owner or operator.
(Adapted from Article 8(7) of the CMI Draft
Convention approved at Tokyo, April 4,
1969).
THOS. R. MILLER & SON
(INSURANCE) LTD.,
London, August 20,1969.
Re S. 7.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Sen-
ate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: Just a short per-
sonal note to advise you that I have sent
copies of this letter to all Members of the
Senate Public Works Committee.
I do hope this is correctly in accordance
with Senate protocol, but if this is not so
please forgive me!
Yours sincerely,
PETER MILLEH.
U S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., September 18, 1969.
Mr. PETER MILLER,
THOS. R. MILLER & SON (INSURANCE) LTD.
London, England.
DEAR MR. MILLER: Thanks for your letter
of August 20, 1969, advising me of your posi-
tion and that of the other thirteen insurers
of shipowners' liabilities regarding the pro-
visions of S. 7, The Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969 Your comments are being
discussed with the members of the Committee
on Public Works.
Your expressed concern relating to rights
of direct action against an insurer under the
provisions of section 12 (f) (2) (C) is noted.
It is the Committee's intent that the insurer
have available to him any defenses available
to the assured, and I would therefore have
no objection to further clarification on this
matter.
Your question relating to the handling of
unlimited liability in the case of the negli-
gence of shipboard employees is a subject
to be resolved either during Senate consid-
eration of S. 7 or in the House-Senate Con-
ference on the many points of difference
between H R. 4148, as passed by the House,
and S 7. The issues which you raise are
worthy of fullest consideration, and assur-
edly will have attention.
With appreciation for your further infor-
mation and counsel, I am
Truly,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, in
addition to the communication received
from London on behalf of the 14 insur-
ance firms whose representatives signed
it, letters were received by me as chair-
man of the Committee on Public Works
from the following, to whom I responded
substantially as I did to Peter N. Miller
and the 13 associated with him in the
August 20, 1969, letter:
American Institute of Marine Under-
writers, 99 John Street, New York, N.Y.,
by G. Doane McCarthy, Jr., president,
August 18, 1969.
American Petroleum Institute, 1101
Seventeenth Street N.W., Washington,
D.C., by E. S. Checket, September 18,
1969.
Maritime Law Association of the
United States, Special Committee on Oil
Pollution, John F. Gerity, chairman, 120
Broadway, New York, N.Y., August 28,
1969.
Labor-Management Maritime Com-
mittee, Earl W. Clark and Hoyt S. Had-
dock, co-directors, 100 Indiana Avenue
N.W., Washington, D.C., September 3,
1969.
Chamber of Shipping of the United
Kingdom, 30-32 St. Mary Axe, London
E.G. 3, England, by Francis E. Hill, pres-
ident, August 27, 1969.
Mr. President, I will not read the let-
ters I have cited, but I will make a copy
of each available to the manager of the
bill so that he may give cognizance to it
and make comments on it.
And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have the five letters printed
in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE
UNDERWRITERS,
New York, N.Y., August 18, 1969.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S.
Senate, New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR RANDOLPH: The American Insti-
tute of Marine Underwriters representing
more than 125 marine underwriting organi-
zations in the United States wishes to record
its strong objection to the proposed legisla-
-------
1788
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion as set forth in the text of S. 7 as re-
ported by your Committee on August 7
(Report No. 91-351).
It is the considered judgment of this insti-
tute that this bill as presently reported will
create insurance exposures to American-flag
[p. 28964]
ship operators which are uninsurable with-
out incorporating underwriting limits set by
the insurer as described below.
We base this judgment on the provisions
provided in the text of S. 7 jor direct rights
of action against the insurer without any
adequate safeguards as being the basic reason
which will prevent any insurance capacity In
any measurable amount being made available
for the insurance exposures created by the
proposed legislation.
Clause 12 (F) (2) (C) creates in this proposed
legislation a potentially uninsurable situation
since in our judgment those American under-
writers engaged in undertakings of a
shipowner's liability insurances and P&I in-
surances may, under circumstances to be
reviewed in each policy, refuse to accept
such insurances of these liabilities when the
controlling legislation permits direct action
to be available against them.
We would reiterate the advices informally
given to the Marine Committee of the New
York Brokers Association who testified at
earlier hearings that the probably available
limits of insurance for this type of coverage
are as follows:
(1) If the basis of liability is negligence
(including the doctrine of reversal of burden
of proof) the probable insurable limit avail-
able the world market would be in the area
of $100. per gross registered ton or $10,000,000
each accident each vessel, whichever amount
proves to be the lesser.
(2) If the doctrine of absolute liability
were enforced the probable maximum world
market would be in the area of $67. per gross
registered ton or $5,000,000 each accident each
vessel, again whichever amount is the lesser.
We reiterate that in our judgment there
will be no insurance market available if the
doctrine of direct rights of action against
the insurer, with no adequate safeguards
provided, is to be enforced. Here we strongly
feel that any insurer must be permitted to
place himself in the same position against
the claimant as is the assured. Further we
believe that any defense under the law which
the insurer would have against the assured
must be preserved.
It must be stipulated—and understood—
that while there exists an American insurance
capacity to meet American-flag operators'
third party marine liabilities, this capacity in
America exists to the best of our knowledge
only because of the existence of a far greater
capacity for such risks in the English market
for reinsurance. Such liabilities as the
American underwriters enjoy to utilize this
English reinsurance market tends to estab-
lish the capacity (or limits) beyond which
the American underwriter cannot venture.
Sincerely yours,
G. DOANE MCCARTHY, JR.,
President.
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
Washington, D.C , September 18, 1969.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S.
Senate, New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: I believe the tes-
timony on behalf of the American Petroleum
Institute before both House and Senate Com-
mittees over the past several years is ample
evidence of the petroleum industry's deep
concern with the problem of oil pollution
from vessels and of our desire to see the
enactment of meaningful and workable legis-
lation dealing with this problem If such
legislation is to be workable, it must not im-
pose liabilities on shipowners which are
commercially uninsurable. Therefore, after
having reviewed S. 7 as reported out by the
Committee on Public Works, I respectfully
call your attention to several provisions of
Section 12 of the Bill which in my opinion
do make such liabilities uninsurable.
We concur in your earlier comments that
some of the previous testimony on what lia-
bilities of a shipowner were insurable and
the amount of insurance available to him
under varying conditions of liability was con-
fusing to those unfamiliar with marine in-
surance However, I do believe, and trust
you will agree, that the latest communica-
tions from the insurance industry, both in
this country and abroad, clarify any past
confusion and make the following points
crystal clear
First, Section 12 (f) (2) (C) providing for
direct action against the insurer means, as a
practical matter, that the liabilities imposed
by Section 12 (f) (1) on the owner or operator
of the vessel cannot be underwritten. This
results from the fact that marine underwrit-
ers simply will not accept policies with this
kind of unqualified right of recourse against
them, as they have formally advised your
Committee. The Bill, therefore, would force
shipowners to be totally self-insured for those
liabilities when operating within the naviga-
ble waters of the United States This is a risk
which, I submit, no prudent independent
shipowner would assume.
I feel sure that it was not the intent of
the Committee to create such a situation and
I accordingly urge your serious consideration
of the modifications to Section 12 (f) (2) (C),
as recently recommended to you by various
leading insurance underwriters and rein-
surers, to make the shipowner's liability
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1789
Insurable.
Second, the provisions of Section 12 (f) (1)
impose an unlimited liability to the U.S. Gov-
ernment for the cost of cleanup where the
discharge of oil was the result of a negligent
act—even that of the least skilled crew
member.
Such unlimited liability is uninsurable, the
underwriters having informed you that they
are unwilling to issue policies covering negli-
gent spills in excess of $300 per gross regis-
tered ton or $10 million dollars, whichever
is the lesser The shipowner would thus be
faced with assuming all of the risk above
those amounts. Again, I submit that the
small independent ship operator might well
refuse to assume such a risk which could
force him into bankruptcy
At the same time we support the proposi-
tion that the shipowner or operator should
not have a right of limitation for his own
personal negligence or willful act and, there-
fore, we would suggest that the language in
question be amended to read as follows:
"Except that where such discharge was the
result of the personal fault or privity of such
owner or operator, the latter shall be liable
to the United States Government for the full
amount of such costs."
Third, even with this change in language
the dollar limitations in Section 12 (f) (1) of
$125 per gross ton or $14 million dollars,
whichever is lesser, should be reduced to lim-
its that are insurable, i.e $100 per gross ton
or $10 million.
In my testimony before the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, I stated that
shipowners through their mutual assurance
clubs already are bearing the first $1.4 mil-
lion of loss per vessel per incident. We be-
lieve it is unfair and unrealistic to require a
shipowner, particularly a small independent
owner, to assume an additional financial
burden for excess of what he can protect
himself against through insurance.
In conclusion, I should like to reiterate our
desire to see legislation enacted which will
effectively protect the U.S. harbors, rivers
and coastlines against oil pollution but which
will not at the same time pose a serious
threat to the United States Merchant Marine
and the inland waterways industry and pre-
sent a deterrent to our waterborne commerce,
both domestic and international. I must state
my conviction that S-7 as presently drawn
does pose such a threat and if enacted in its
present form will not be in the best interests
of the United States. However, if S-7 is
modified in line with the foregoing, it will
protect the public interest without imposing
an unbearable hardship on the shipping in-
dustry or our waterborne commerce.
Respectfully yours.
E S. CHECKET.
MARITIME LAW ASSOCIATION OF THE
UNITED STATES, SPECIAL COMMIT-
TEE ON OIL POLLUTION,
New York, August 28,1969.
Hon JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, V.S.
Senate, New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The Maritime Law Association
of the United States through its President,
and the statements of the undersigned Spe-
cial Committee on Oil Pollution, have had
the privilege of appearing before the Public
Works Committees of the Congress in con-
nection with the above entitled legislation.
This committee has also submitted numerous
documents in a sincere effort to assist the
Congress to enact laws for the betterment
and preservation of our environment from
pollution by oil of the Inland waters of the
United States and of the Seas. Such assist-
ance as we could render for consideration by
the Committees of the Congress, we hoped
would permit the enactment of legislation
upon which the liabilities to be imposed
would be insurable and would not be a seri-
ous deterrent to the continuity of the domes-
tic and foreign trade and commerce of the
United States, including the trade of the
Merchant Marine of this and other countries
to and from our shores. We submit, with re-
spect, that H.R 4148 embraces all of the
principles required by responsible legislation
which apparently shipowners can insure as
a risk and, our waters will be adequately
protected.
With respect, we are compelled to say that
the legislation proposed by material sections
of S 7 do not meet these elementary stand-
ards On advice we have received, the lia-
bility and financial responsibility sections
plus unrestricted rights of direct action
against underwriters are totally uninsurable
as written. It is equally apparent that S. 7
in these respects, can only work to the serious
detriment of the American Merchant Marine
as a whole and the ocean commerce of the
United States—dry cargo vessels and tankers
alike. Many of the proposals are also re-
pugnant to settled principles of United States'
maritime law and the laws of many maritime
nations. We sincerely regret this turn of
events in the legislation to be proposed by
S. 7.
May we, Sirs, take this opportunity to re-
spectfully urge the Committees of the Con-
gress to fully consider the constructive
content of letters which we are advised have
been written by what may be substantially
described as the world's marine insurance
markets and shipping industry associations,
so that the uninterrupted continuity of our
maritime trade can be preserved. We can
foresee situations in which, if S. 7 in material
respects is enacted into the law of the United
-------
1790
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States, many shipowners will be required to
either (a) trade at their own risk without
insurance, but with realistic risk of ultimate
bankruptcy by putting all of their assets at
the disposal of our Government to secure
any damage by pollution of our waters or (b)
obtain some nominal insurance, if available
at all, at a cost which may well be com-
mercially prohibitive to an economically
depressed Merchant Marine plus needed
material assets to meet the financial responsi-
bility requirements or (c) trade elsewhere.
Why must such legislation as proposed in
S 7, as above, be unnecessarily punitive
against the entire maritime commerce of the
United States' We appeal for maritime legis-
lation rooted in reason and written With
legal force and clarity to fully achieve the
[p. 28965]
intended objective, protection of our waters,
such as exemplified by H.R. 4148.
We are, dear Sir,
Respectfully yours,
JOHN F. GEEITY,
BURTON H. WHITE,
GORDON W. PAULSEN,
JOHN F. GERITY, Chairman.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT
MARITIME COMMITTEE,
Washington, D.C., September 3,1969.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: We have been
advised that S 7, a bill amending the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, known as
the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969,
will be on the floor of the Senate for legis-
lative action. We are concerned with the
risks imposed by S. 7 which would remove
all limits for negligent oil spills and accord-
ing to marine insurance sources are uninsur-
able anywhere in the world. This could have
an extremely detrimental effect on the entire
merchant marine.
We favor H R. 4148 recently passed by the
House of Representatives.
Sincerely yours,
EARL W. CLARK,
HOYT S. HADDOCK,
Co-Directors.
CHAMBER OF SHIPPING
or THE UNITED KINGDOM,
London, 27th August, 1969.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: As President of
the Chamber of Shipping of the United King-
dom which represents over 19 million gross
tons of shipping on the U.K. register, I am
taking the liberty of addressing myself to
you in view of your particular interest In the
problems of oil pollution and your major
role in the shaping of S-7.
As you can imagine, it is not only United
States shipowners who have been following
with interest the progress of S-7. The Bill
affects all vessels calling at U.S. ports,
whether tankers or dry cargo, and as at pres-
ent drafted, would have some startling, and
we believe, unintended results.
To us the most difficult clause is that which
provides that a negligent shipowner shall not
be able to limit his liability. As you have
heard, the market cannot insure unlimited
liability. This proposal would therefore
make it impossible for shipowners to insure
and yet the Bill goes on to provide that every
single vessel over 300 g.r.t. shall produce
evidence that it is satisfactorily covered!
British shipowners naturally like to obtain
cover against their liabilities for oil pollution;
the one certain way to stop them doing so Is
to make insurance impossible, which is what
I am afraid the Bill in its present form does.
As the Senate is aware, it is difficult to
produce legislation on liability for oil pollu-
tion which is not self-defeating—IMCO itself
has narrowly avoided one or two traps of
this sort—and we hope that on this point of
insurability, you will, in the interests of the
United States, heed the expert opinion that
has been given by insurance representatives.
There are other features of the Bill which
U.K. shipowners do not favour, but I would
not wish to complicate this letter by listing
them I would, however, like to leave with
you the thought that the interests of the
United States, as well as its shipping lines,
will best be served by a single worldwide
agreement on liability. All the schemes that
have been discussed will give the shipowner
a powerful incentive to avoid pollution; the
choice of one rather than another will there-
fore not affect by one ounce the amount of
pollution on the beaches. That depends on
the preventive measures we are all devising;
accordingly, nothing would be lost and much
might be gained if the special problem of
liability was held over until the end of the
year when there will be available a finished
convention agreed by all coastal states as
being a sound and effective solution.
Please let me know if there is any aspect
of this subject on which we here can help
you further.
I am writing in the same terms to Senator
Edmund Muskie.
Yours sincerely,
FRANCIS HILL.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the
communications and information which
I have placed in the RECORD I am sure
will not be of interest for discussion by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1791
my colleagues in the Senate this after-
noon, but I am sure they will be helpful
as Members of the Senate read the REC-
ORD in reference to the legislation which
is before us and the position of the in-
surers from the standpoint of companies
that ship in the coastal waters of the
United States.
I hope the importance of this legisla-
tion will cause the Senate to act, of
course, with deliberation, but with a
certain promptness.
I have spoken longer than I should
have, but I felt that, as chairman of the
Public Works Committee, in cooperation
with the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, I should
lay out, as it were, the broad, produc-
tive provisions which have been en-
compassed in Senate bill. 7.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I
respond to the distinguished Senator's
remarks? When I yielded to him ear-
lier, I was engaged in discussion and
could not pay proper tribute to his
efforts, interest, and cooperation in this
field, not only in connection with Senate
bill 7, but in air and water pollution
legislation over the years. No chairman
could have been more cooperative or
more understanding, not only in making
facilities and staff available, but in con-
tributing to the substance of the legisla-
tion with which we deal. I express my
appreciation to him.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the Sena-
tor. And I wish to acknowledge again
the outstanding leadership which the
distinguished Senator from Maine has
given to environmental improvement
legislation in his role as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion. This effort has been supported and
strengthened by a bipartisan approach
led by the able junior Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) , ranking minor-
ity member of the subcommittee, and
my good friend from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER), ranking member of the full
committee.
I would add, Mr. President, that S.7
was reported unanimously, a fact that
attests to the effort and attention given
to this legislation by every member of
the committee; in addition to those I
have mentioned I commend for their
contributions to this legislation, Sena-
tor STEVE YOUNG, Senator B. EVERETT
JORDAN, Senator BAYH, Senator MONTOYA,
Senator SPONG, Senator EAGLETON, Sena-
ator GRAVEL, Senator BAKER, Senator
DOLE, Senator GURNEY, and Senator
PACKWOOD.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969—S. 7—provides America with a
powerful lever against three major
sources of pollution which have con-
tinued to ravage our water resources;
oil pollution, vessel pollution, and ther-
mal pollution.
Despite the enactment of the Water
Quality Act in 1965, the quality of the
Great Lakes and the territorial and con-
tiguous waters of this Nation has been
continuously damaged and seriously
polluted and poisoned. Industry, ship-
ping and oil interests have blatantly
continued to dump and spill materials
often intentionally, into these formerly
clear, pure, and precious waters. For
200 years we Americans have had every
reason to be proud of our beautiful
Great Lakes and their pure uncontami-
nated waters. Also, we of the Mid-
western States have been proud of the
fact that the Ohio River and other rivers
were free of pollution and contamination.
As our report on S. 7 points out, fre-
quent oil spills from vessels and from
on-and-off-shore facilities have ruined
Atlantic and Pacific Ocean beaches and
lowered the quality of our rivers and
shore waters. They have jeopardized
not only animal and vegetable life, but
human life as well. Terrible tragedies
in recent months and years, such as the
Santa Barbara oil well leak which spilled
tens of thousands of barrels of oil on
beautiful beaches along the California
coast, have underscored these problems.
Spills from the Torrey Canyon off the
coast of Great Britain and other similar
incidents have alerted us to the dangers
-------
1792
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of having supertankers carrying oil
along our shores.
We in Ohio and the Great Lakes re-
gion are all too aware of the problems of
pollution. We are particularly con-
cerned over the spillage of oil and ship-
ping wastes. Only recently we witnessed
several disasters and near-disasters in
and around the Great Lakes which
should have been avoided.
While many have already written the
obituary for Lake Erie and are mourn-
ing the imminent deaths of the other
Great Lakes, we in the Midwest are de-
termined not to write off these vital
bodies of water. These lakes are sur-
rounded by the heartland of America
with a dense population with growing
needs for clean, fresh water.
However, in Lake Erie great green
skiens of algae have broken loose from
rocky moorings and washed ashore to
rot on the once beautiful beaches. Near
Chicago, the beaches of Lake Michigan
are lined with dead fish caused by such
pollution as the 440 million gallons of
waste water dumped daily from United
States Steel Corp.'s south works. Amaz-
ing as it may seem, the oil-thick Buffalo
River, which flows into Lake Erie, has
been declared a fire hazard by the Buf-
falo Fire Department.
This deplorable situation is exactly
what the pending legislation is intended
to correct. Under provisions of the Wa-
ter Quality Improvement Act of 1969,
this pollution will be halted and the
quality of the lakes improved.
Let me point specifically to section
[p. 28966]
16 (h) of the bill, which would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into contracts or issue grants for re-
search aimed at the roots of pollution.
These grants and contracts would be
"for the prevention, removal, and con-
trol of natural or manmade pollution
in lakes, including the undesirable effects
of nutrients and vegetation." This sec-
tion would also provide funds for the
construction of publicly owned research
facilities for such purposes.
Beyond this, however, section 15 would
authorize a special demonstration pro-
gram to attack the unique and critical
problems of the Great Lakes region.
This program is in addition to the au-
thority in the legislation to control lake
pollution or lake eutrophication in
general.
Under this program, the Secretary of
the Interior, in cooperation with other
Federal agencies, is authorized to enter
into agreements with any State, regional
or local agency. These agreements would
provide support for demonstration proj-
ects to test new methods and techniques
and to develop preliminary plans for the
elimination or control of pollution in and
around the Great Lakes.
This program goes farther than simply
the Great Lakes themselves. It specifi-
cally includes "all or any part of the
watersheds of the Great Lakes."
The Committee on Public Works rec-
ognized that pollution must be controlled
at its source before it enters the bodies
of water. Only then can we insure the
quality of the waters in and around the
United States.
The bill would authorize $20 million
for the Great Lakes pollution control
program. The States or local agencies
would share the cost of these projects.
Most of the States adjoining the Great
Lakes have already undertaken signifi-
cant programs against polllution. This
underscores their willingness to meet
their obligations in this intergovernmen-
tal effort.
Special efforts as called for in S. 7 are
needed to accomplish substantial re-
medial action in order to reverse the tide
of pollution on the Great Lakes and to
insure cleaner waters for future genera-
tions.
Thermal pollution has become a na-
tionwide problem only in recent years as
nuclear power plants have sprung up and
more industries have been built on the
edge of the waterways and lakes. They
disgorge water at temperatures far ex-
ceeding normal ones. This is not only
harmful to fish and aquatic animals, but
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1793
long-term changes in the atmosphere
can result from the circulation of air over
these waters. The vegetation in and
around these areas will change, often to
the detriment of animal and human
inhabitants.
S. 7 provides the Government with
new authority for controlling thermal
pollution in the Nation's lakes and
streams.
Another key provision of the new wa-
ter quality bill is section 11, which would
control sewage discharges from vessels.
Waste from water craft is one of the
most obvious sources of pollution both
in the inland waterways and in our
coastal waters and contiguous zones. It
is most severe in bays, lakes, harbors,
and marinas where vessels congregate
and traffic is heaviest and water circu-
lates the least. As our use of these wa-
ters increases, the problem will become
more acute.
Section 11 will assist in preventing
discharge of untreated sewage into navi-
gable waters by pleasure or commercial
vessels, and provide for continuing up-
grading of technology to bring a com-
plete halt to this practice.
To insure and enforce this stronger
vessel anti-pollution legislation, the bill
gives the Coast Guard fuller and more
specific authority to develop and pro-
mulgate the regulations concerning the
design, installation, and operation of
marine sanitation devices and to certify
these devices as complying with regula-
tion standards. These regulations must
also assure compliance with the stand-
ards of performance issued by the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
Many States have already moved to
control vessel discharge. However, con-
flicting regulations and standards have
presented hardships to recreational boat-
ers who move between States and pre-
sent potentially serious restrictions on
interstate movement of commercial ves-
sels. For this reason, the bill would
provide State authority to prohibit en-
tirely the discharge of any sewage from
vessels in line with its designated water
quality standards.
This section of the bill, I feel, will go
a long way in upgrading the quality of
the waters of the Great Lakes Region as
well as the inland waterways and coastal
waters of the entire Nation.
It is essential, in addition, that America
have a coordinated policy for the quality
of the environment—a policy which will
insure not only cleaner water, cleaner
air, and freedom from solid wastes, but
will provide future generations of Amer-
icans with the type of environment nec-
essary for good health and well-being.
Title II, entitled the "Environmental
Quality Improvement Act of 1969," sim-
ply and succinctly states that:
There is a national policy for the environ-
ment which provides for the enhancement
of environmental quality.
We have come to the point where we
can no longer ignore the consequences
of our actions in the name of economy.
Two hundred years ago, when our coun-
try was young and growing and the pop-
ulation was fairly well dispersed, we
could afford to turn our backs on the
impact of industrial pollution in favor
of building our industrial might.
Today, we are more than 200 million
and will be 320 million by the year 2000.
Today, industries dot every shore; high-
ways stretch endlessly across the con-
tinent; buildings rise where there was
once only wilderness. Today, there is
little of nature left, except in isolated
patches of heretofore unwanted or un-
developable land.
With pollution at the crisis level—air
and water pollution, noise pollution,
thermal pollution—and space at a pre-
mium, it is high time that we squarely
face the issue of environmental quality.
Title II of S. 7 intends that all Federal
moneys spent on public works activities
which affect the environment would be
reviewed and found not to be detrimental
;o the environment. It would establish
an Office of Environmental Quality
within the Executive Office to assist and
advise the President and to help co-
ordinate Federal activities affecting the
-------
1794
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
environment.
There can be no question that this im-
portant first step must be taken in the
direction of Federal coordination of ac-
tivities involving our natural environ-
ment. We must pledge ourselves to the
upgrading of the quality of life—all life
—on this planet, now and in the future.
Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH, chair-
man of the Committee on Public Works,
and the distinguished junior Senator
from Maine (Mr, MUSKIE), chairman of
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, deserve the gratitude of all
Americans for their outstanding leader-
ship and hard work in formulating the
pending bill which is a powerful vehicle
for the attack against environmental
degradation. I urge its enactment.
AMENDMENTS NOS. 226 AND 227
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I submit
two amendments, which I ask to have
printed and lie on the table. I hope the
chairman of the Public Works Commit-
tee and the chairman of the subcommit-
tee handling the bill will see fit to
accept these amendments, but if they do
not, I shall endeavor to offer and explain
them later. At this time I simply submit
them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments will be received and
printed, and will lie on the table.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield
to the distinguished Senator from
Florida (Mr. GURNEY) , or if the Senator
wishes to have the floor in his own right,
I yield the floor to him.
Mr. GURNEY. I wanted to make gen-
eral remarks on the bill. Did the Senator
wish to comment on the amendments
just submitted?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at this time.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I
strongly support passage of S. 7. This
legislation is a very thorough and com-
prehensive effort on the part of the Sen-
ate Public Works Committee to provide
meaningful and effective methods for
combating water pollution problems.
Several of my colleagues, especially
those who have worked most carefully on
the legislation, have already presented
the statements on some sections of the
bill, describing them in detail. I will
make only a few remarks at this time.
Certainly, one of the most controver-
sial areas is that of pollution caused by
oil spills, and the process of creating
some liability guidelines in this area. As
the vessel traffic and volumes of oil in-
crease, this naturally enhances the risk
of major oil spills in our waters.
The Public Works Committee, after
long discussion and thorough considera-
tion, provided for centralized authority
for cleanup and spelled out very specif-
ically financial responsibility in the case
of oil spills. Certainly, this part of the
bill constitutes major new legislation. It
will be landmark law making.
[p. 28967]
The problem of water pollution has
grown to such magnitude that it is im-
perative for the Congress to enact ef-
fective legislation, and certainly the time
for S. 7 has indeed arrived.
In spite of the amounts we are spend-
ing for pollution—and we have commit-
ted large amounts in recent years in the
Congress—it appears that the Federal
Government itself has been lax in en-
forcing compliance with water quality
standards. The Government has been
charged with a leadership role in com-
bating pollution, and has required com-
munities and private industry to make
large investments in sewage treatment
facilities. Ironically enough, many Fed-
eral agencies have made only token ef-
forts in this area.
In my own State of Florida, there are
187 military installations alone. In addi-
tion, the Atomic Energy Commission and,
of course, NASA have large facilities
there. Bearing this in mind, it is not hard
to arrive at the conclusion that Florida
could certainly suffer from Federal pol-
lution. Other States are in similar cir-
cumstances. Certainly, the Federal
Government must be willing to share its
responsibility for those activities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1795
I feel we must require that activities
over which the Federal Government has
direct control be conducted in a manner
to assure compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
Mr. President, one thing that I would
particularly like to call to the attention
of my colleagues is the matter of clean
lakes, and the necessity of cleaning them
up and correcting pollution in that area.
There are over 7,700 lakes in the State
of Florida. My native State of Maine,
the State from which Senator MUSKIE
comes, has about 10,000 lakes.
In Florida many of those lakes have
been slowly choked to death by aquatic
weeds. Those of you from Louisiana,
Alabama, Hawaii, and New York will be
especially familiar with this problem.
Other States are faced with this prob-
lem also.
Several of my colleagues in the House
joined me in a bipartisan effort last year
to control and eradicate these obnoxious
weeds. The main thrust of the legisla-
tion was to get some coordination in the
field of aquatic weed research so we
could expand effective control programs.
During my research on the bill, I found
that over 39 different agencies were in-
volved in lake pollution efforts in the
State of Florida. It occurred to me that
interagency rivalry, lack of authority,
and just plain lack of interest in some
cases was evident. Needless to say, with
a system of centralized control, coordi-
nation, and concentration of effort, we
could do a better job. That is what my
bill sought to do. I was not able to get it
passed.
But one thing S. 7 does is provide for a
means to concentrate presently scattered
efforts into a coordinated attack on lake
pollution The bill creates a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
in the Department of the Interior. This
new administration will be charged with
centralizing and coordinating the now
scattered efforts at weed control Cer-
tainly, this is a major step forward, long
overdue, and ought to make a major con-
tribution to water pollution control, at
least as far as lakes are concerned.
The problems caused by lake pollu-
tion are becoming of such a magnitude
that the matter is creating an emer-
gency situation in our waterways, lakes,
and streams. In Florida again—and this
is true of many other States—water in-
takes of all sorts of systems are becoming
clogged because of the weed problem
alone. Dangers of flooding are imminent
because runoff water cannot escape.
Boats cannot be used in my home city
of Winter Park, Fla. We have a system
of five lakes that are connected with
canals. It is one of the greatest resources
we have as far as recreation is con-
cerned. Within the past 2 years, at one
time or another, one or two, and some-
times more, of the lakes have been
completely closed to boating and water
skiing because of the aquatic weed
problem.
This bill provides a major step for-
ward to do something about the prob-
lem. I think the coordination of the
effort and the concentration of money,
rather than scattering it out among 39
different agencies, is one of the major
factors in getting ahead with the
problem.
There are many good features in the
bill, as the Senator from Maine, the
chairman, the Senator from West Vir-
ginia, and the ranking member of the
committee have explained to the com-
mittee. I hope we will achieve general
support in the Senate today or tomor-
row, when we vote on this measure, for
S. 7 is a major landmark bill in the
area of helping solve our great water
pollution problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish
to express my appreciation to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Florida for his
very active interest and participation in
the development of S. 7. His participa-
tion in both the hearings and the markup
sessions was conscientious and construc-
tive, and extremely useful to all of us.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
-------
1796
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understand-
ing that the committee has a committee
substitute for S. 7, and it is my further
understanding, from the Parliamentar-
ian, that I should offer the amendment
that the Senator from Massachusetts and
I have left at the desk before the Senator
makes a motion to adopt that substitute.
Will the Senator tell me when he an-
ticipates making that motion?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not until every Sena-
tor who has an amendment has had an
opportunity to offer it. I will go out of
my way to make sure that no Senator is
denied such opportunity.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
I want him to know that I have listened
to his address today, and I think he has
done a yeoman's task in this field. I
happen to come from a State that has no
problems with water or air pollution ex-
cept in one small area. We are however,
trying to do everything possible to help
the rest of the Nation get back to the
pristine quality of environment we have
thus far been able to maintain.
Mr. MUSKIE. With reference to the
Senator's amendment, perhaps I have
slipped in not focusing more on that
problem. I was not aware that I had, but
in any case, I shall do everything I can to
help the Senator solve his problem.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator
for that comment.
I point out that the problem of pollu-
tion we are dealing with is a problem in-
volving some 178 villages located on
rivers. Because of pollution, as you go
up the river, the death rate goes down.
This is an area where one-fifth of the
children die in their first year, and the
reason that they die, we now know, is
strictly bad water. It is pollution.
There are no sanitation facilities, there
is no running water, there are no sewers.
Only 8 percent of the homes even have
inside toilets. Less than 8 percent have
running water.
What we are dealing with is the most
basic problem of pollution, and that is
clean water for the purpose of preserv-
ing human life. I think the major part
of this bill deals with the esthetic por-
tion of the pollution problem, the prob-
lem of how to restore clean rivers and
lakes, which is what the Senator from
Florida has been talking about.
But we are talking about fighting pol-
lution in the sense of trying to preserve
life and give these native children a bet-
ter chance. It is my hope that the Sen-
ator from Maine would not look at this
matter casually, when one-fifth of the
children die in their first year and their
parents have an estimated expectancy of
only 34 years, because of the same prob-
lem of persistent pollution.
We have done everything we can, and
this is a crash program that the Senator
from Massachusetts and I tried to de-
vise after our return from the Arctic last
spring. I invite the attention of the
Senate to this phase of the problem
again, before the Senate votes tomorrow.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, and I
thank the Senator from Alaska.
I yield now to the Senator from Ken-
tucky; and I use this opportunity to
thank him for the marvelous coopera-
tion he has given us over the years.
Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, this subject has been
discussed very fully and comprehen-
sively by the Senator from Maine, the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) , and
others, I shall dwell on only a few as-
pects of the legislation.
I should like at this point to say some-
thing about the work of the Senate Pub-
lic Works Committee. I have served on
the Committee on Public Works con-
tinuously since 1957. Prior to that time,
when I spent 2 years in the Senate in
1947 and 1948, I was a member of the
Committee on Public Works. In times
past, our subjects were matters under
the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engi-
neers, which is very important in dealing
with flood control, navigation and water
supply; the Federal-aid highway system
—which is also of vital importance to the
country—and public buildings. Later,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1797
we added responsibility in connection
with large watershed projects.
[p. 28968]
In the last 8 or 10 years, as the country
has become aware—and it is sad that
it has been such a short time ago—of
this problem of pollution and its effect
upon the environment, the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Works has assumed an
entirely new significance and undertaken
to deal with new environmental prob-
lems of the greatest importance.
Largely due to the initiative of the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , this
committee has been developing pro-
grams for the prevention of water pollu-
tion, air pollution, solid waste pollution.
Most recently we have considered the
special problem of oil spillages, not a new
field in the sense that it is an aspect of
the pollution problem, but a very diffi-
cult topic for legislation and one which
has caused long study by the committee.
So I express, without any reservation
whatever, my appreciation and that
which I think the country owes to the
Senator from Maine, who serves as
chairman of the subcommittee, and his
coworker, the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BOGGS), along with the guidance
and help of the chairman, the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH). I
pay tribute also to all the members of
the committee. I am particularly proud,
upon the minority side, to have noted
among those who have worked hard on
this bill the Senator from Delaware, to
whom I have referred, the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), the Senator
from Florida (Mr. GURNEY) , and the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. PACKWOOD),
who, although new members, have been
assiduous in their efforts.
In our executive meetings—I believe
we had 12, as well as many informal
conferences—it was challenging and very
helpful that we had a full attendance of
the committee membership practically
all the time. Everyone was interested,
and everyone contributed to the writing
of the bill, including the new members
of the Senate. While I have not men-
tioned those on the majority side, I am
sure that the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) has given them his praise, and
I join with him in his accolades—or, as
a fellow I talked with the other day said,
he was very happy to hear I had an
"allocade" for him.
I shall discuss the matter very briefly.
S. 7 represents an important step in re-
sponse to the public's demand that the
degradation of our environment be
halted and its quality enhanced. S. 7 is
a comprehensive bill with provisions
dealing with a wide range of difficult
water pollution problems. Its provisions
relate to nearly every aspect of the water
environment and will affect nearly every
major industry of our country. In addi-
tion to the water quality provisions, S. 7
incorporates in title II a timely contribu-
tion to the broad issue of the Federal
Government's response to the quest for
environmental quality.
The impact of Federal activities is
clearly great, especially in the area of
public works, and over the years many
statutes, agencies, policies, and proce-
dures have been created that, if not
running counter to the objective of en-
vironmental quality are at least inade-
quate to meet the challenges that face
our environment. Title II will go a long
way toward resolving this paradox, and
along with other legislation before Con-
gress offers a program to update Federal
performance. Such an effort would have
great effect beyond the Federal per-
formance and hopefully be duplicated
throughout State and local governments
as well as the private sector.
S. 7 ;s extremely important legislation.
It is legislation on which the Committee
on Public Works, in 1969 alone, held
some 13 days of public hearings. These
hearings were followed by more than 20
markup executive sessions; the bill has
been thoroughly considered, thought-
fully drafted, and has been reported
unanimously. In 1968 the Senate and the
House each passed a water pollution
-------
1798
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
measure, however, agreement in confer-
ence was not obtained and the adjourn-
ment of the 90th Congress required that
we begin the legislative process once
again in the 91st Congress.
The vessel pollution provisions of S. 7
are basically the same as those designed
to combat the problem of the discharge
of sewage from all types of watercraft
contained in the 1968 bill.
I am sure that the Senator from
Maine has pointed out that, with respect
to the equipment which is required to be
installed upon watercraft, the Federal
Government preempts authority to reg-
ulate the design, manufacture, installa-
tion, and use of marine sanitation
devices. However, certain matters
should be discussed, particularly the
matter of Federal preemption.
Because many waters are navigable in
nature, and therefore, cross State lines
and because watercraft are easily trans-
ported for use in many States, it is
essential that the boatowner or the ves-
sel-owner and the equipment installed
on his boat or vessel satisfy uniform re-
quirements and regulations. This, of
course, can be achieved through Federal
regulations. S. 7 provides that only the
Federal Government can adopt and en-
force regulations with respect to the
design, manufacture, installations, or use
of any marine sanitation device in con-
nection with any boat or vessel subject
to the provisions of S. 7.
There remains, however, a substantial
and vital interest of each State in cer-
tain local characteristics of the waters
under the jurisdiction of that State.
Only a State is in a position to know its
waters so well as to know where water
supply intakes, bathing beaches, oyster
beds, or other use of waters demand
high purity and consequently, only
States are in a position to permit the
discharge of sewage into these waters.
Consequently, the bill, S. 7 makes pro-
vision that the States retain authority
to prohibit absolutely, and only prohibit
absolutely, the discharge of sewage,
treated or not, in any waters within such
State but only where implementation of
applicable water quality standards re-
quires such prohibition. Certainly States
cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. In
addition the States have a distinct duty
to encourage the development of vessel
sewage equipment service facilities; a
suitable and effective way of communi-
cating to the boating public the exact
areas subject to such a prohibition; and,
of course, suitable public participation in
the establishment of any prohibited
zones.
The committee received much citizen
reaction on this provision, and it is care-
fully drawn to make it clear under what
situations the States can act. It is not
anticipated that this provision will bring
undue hardship to any boat or vessel
owner and will result in those regula-
tions which are necessary to achieve, in
fact, water quality.
The Torrey Canyon, Ocean Eagle,
Santa Barbara, and most recently the
Buzzards Bay oil pollution have caused
great damage and have aroused great
concern among the public. It is clear
that the tremendous increase in the
transport of oil, has given rise to the al-
most certainty that oil will be dis-
charged into the waters of the United
States. We must, therefore, take every
precaution to see that the public's inter-
est in these waters and the adjacent
shores is protected and damage mini-
mized, and at the least direct expense to
the public.
The problem is complex, it involves
vessels, it involves onshore facilities, and
of course it involves offshore facilities.
The writing of provisions to deal with
these potential threats has been ex-
tremely difficult and one on which the
committee labored long.
I suppose that one of the most compli-
cated and controversial questions was
that of fixing a measure of liability for
the cost of removal of oil discharges. In
order for legislation to be responsive, it
is necessary that it be clear, not compli-
cated, applied equally to all and in all
situations, and most importantly, en-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1799
forceable. It is submitted that the
framework adopted by the bill in impos-
ing liability for removal costs meets this
standard. Since this is indeed national
legislation it is imperative that the
standard of liability be a uniform stand-
ard. This can only be achieved if, to the
fullest extent possible, the common law
standard of negligence is avoided. If
negligence were to have been the prin-
cipal test, every discharge of oil would
require that the Federal district court, in
an action by the United States to recover
costs, would be forced to refer to the
relevant State law for a determination
of negligence. It is likely that many dif-
ferent standards of liability would ensue.
To avoid this the committee adopted
a framework of liability that begins with
absolute liability; that is, liability with-
out reference to fault, and then provides
exceptions to this standard; the excep-
tions being where the owner or operator
can prove either the discharge was
caused solely by, first, an act of God;
second, an act of war; and third, or an
act of a third party, and in the case of
vessels, negligence on the part of the U.S.
Government. Although this liability has
been called absolute, it is not, and the
exceptions bring it very close, if not
equivalent, to the standard that can be
referred to as strict liability which is the
standard that the international com-
munity is likely to adopt in the Inter-
national Convention dealing with the
discharge of oil. In testimony before the
[p. 28969]
committee, the legal advisor of the De-
partment of State testified that although
the original position advocated by the
United States at the international con-
vention was absolute liability, the inter-
national community generally preferred
a somewhat lesser standard which is re-
ferred to as strict liability that makes ex-
ceptions, as does the bill S. 7 to what
otherwise would be considered absolute
liability. It should be pointed out that
the international convention when it is
finally completed might include in its
provisions liability for third party dam-
ages. On August 15, the United States
notified the Intergovernmental Mari-
time Consultative Organization—IMCO:
The United States continues in its pref-
erence for the strict liability provision set
forth in alternative B.
I should like to quote the provisions of
alternative B:
1. The owner shall be liable for any pollu-
tion damage caused by oil that has escaped
or been discharged from his ship, except as
provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.
2. No liability shall attach to the owner
with respect to pollution damage resulting
directly from an act of war, hostilities, civil
war, insurrection or a grave natural disaster
of an exceptional character.
3. If the owner proves that the pollution
damage resulted wholly or partially from an
act or omission done with intent to cause
damage by the person who suffered the dam-
age, the owner shall be exonerated wholly
or partially from his liability to such person.
4. No claim for compensation for pollution
damage shall be made against the owner
otherwise than in accordance with this Con-
vention. No claim for pollution damage
under this Convention or otherwise, may be
made against the servants or agents of the
owner.
5. Nothing in this Convention shall preju-
dice any right of recourse of the owner
against third parties.
This is basically compatible with the
liability provisions of S. 7.
The bill, S. 7, imposes liability only
for the cost of removal of oil, should it be
necessary, by the United States. The
provisions of the bill further impose a
dollar limit for the standard of liability
that I have outlined. In accordance with
general concepts of negligence, however,
the bill goes on to provide that where the
United States can show that a particular
discharge was the result of negligence
then there shall be no limit to the
amount of liability and that such liabil-
ity will extend to the full cost of removal
to the United States. It should be noted
that the testimony revealed no dis-
charges in which the cost of cleanup
have been as high as the dollar limits
of the strict liability provisions. Testi-
mony was also received that no spill re-
quiring costs of cleanup in excess of
those limits are anticipated. Therefore,
-------
1800
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the unlimited liability provision, as-
suming negligence could be proved by
the United States, is a highly unlikely
eventuality and is included to cover
those extreme events such as a negligent
discharge, from perhaps a supertanker
or a rupture in the proposed pipeline on
the north slope of Alaska; hopefully
these will never occur but this does not
excuse the Government from advance
preparation.
In order to impose on all vessels a uni-
form standard of liability, the bill re-
quires that all vessels using the ports or
waters of the United States must show
evidence of financial responsibility to
meet liability for the cost of removal to
a limit of $100 per gross ton. The legis-
lative record developed by the commit-
tee clearly indicates that the amount,
$100 per ton, is insurable under this
standard of liability and has, therefore,
been chosen by the committee as a fig-
ure that will adequately protect the in-
terests of the public.
It has been alleged that because the
bill does not impose a dollar limit for
negligent liability that it is uninsurable.
This argument is misleading and does no
justice to the carefully drawn frame-
work of S. 7.
Under any standard of common law
negligence, liability, upon proof of negli-
gence is theoretically unlimited and is
measured only by the amount of damage.
Thus, each one of us is liable without
limit for all damages caused as a result of
the negligent act resulting in an automo-
bile collision. Such theoretical liability
is, of course, uninsurable. A continua-
tion of this analogy is helpful. Many
States require every automobile owner
to obtain certain levels of insurance cov-
erage; this is equivalent to the evidence
of financial responsibility enclosed in the
bill, S. 7. Should a citizen desire, he may
negotiate with an auto insurance com-
pany for a higher level of coverage based
upon anticipated risk and his willingness
to pay.
It is anticipated that shipowners will
engage in this same type of negotiation
with the maritime insurance industry
and arrive at a limit of insurability
which will at least be $100 per gross ton
as required by the bill, and may be
higher based upon the anticipated risk
and the vessel owner's willingness to
pay. The bill, S. 7, does not, I repeat,
does not require insurance to the full
theoretical amount of liability for the
cost of removal.
Of course, because of the great pub-
licity involved in the Santa Barbara oc-
currence, much attention has been
directed toward spillage at sea and in
territorial waters. However, the bill also
covers onshore facilities. We adapted to
the provisions dealing with onshore fa-
cilities a formula to measure liability
similar to that which was provided for
spillage by vessels.
Since onshore facilities is a broad
term and covers a wide range of opera-
tions, from small storage to large bulk
storage, from marinas to large refineries,
it was necessary to devise a formula
which would base the limit of liability
upon some measure of the risk, just as in
the case of vessels and discharges from
offshore facilities.
I suggested a formula which does not
require any great originality. I was fol-
lowing the standard fixed for vessel spil-
lages and suggested a formula that
under the standard of strict liability, a
dollar limit of liability was imposed of
not to exceed $125 per ton of oil which
such facility is capable of processing,
transporting, transferring in any 24-hour
period or storing in the largest unit of
such onshore facility. The committee
adopted this language unanimously.
In considering this legislation the com-
mittee was faced with a difficult problem
of dealing with other substances whose
discharge poses a threat to the water
environment along with oil Testimony
received was inadequate to enable the
committee to impose the same frame-
work developed for oil as does the House
bill. Therefore, through the initiative of
Senator DOLE, the bill proposes to treat
hazardous substances separately in sec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1801
tion 13 and he is to be commended for
his timely and important contribution.
This section provides that the President
shall designate hazardous substances
which when discharged in any quantity
in the navigable waters of the United
States present a threat to public health
and welfare.
The section also provides authority to
the President to prepare regulations
regarding the removal of such hazardous
substances. Both in the designation and
the promulgation of regulations the bill
requires that the public, especially af-
fected parties, be given full opportunity
to participate. One critical problem
faced in the discharge of any toxic ma-
terial into water is notice to downstream
water users. In both the oil and the
hazardous substance sections, therefore,
the bill requires that, upon discharge,
the person in charge of a vessel or on-
or offshore facilities shall immediately
notify the United States. Failure to no-
tify results in a criminal sanction. It is
anticipated that under these two authori-
ties, the United States will develop an
efficient and wide-ranging network that
will enable such information to be re-
ceived and disseminated almost in-
stantly. Such a system is clearly in the
public interest.
Because the record did not support
imposing liability for the cost of removal
of hazardous substances, as it does in the
case of oil, the Committee has authorized
the President to submit a report to the
Congress specifying what techniques are
available for removal of hazardous sub-
stances and under what framework of
liability costs could be recovered. This
report is to be filed with the Congress
by November 1, 1970. It is anticipated
that this report will enable the Congress
to effectively legislate to enable the re-
covery of the costs of removal of dis-
charged hazardous substances.
There has been some misunderstand-
ing of the kind of discharge to which
section 13 would apply. It should be
noted that this section does not attempt
to alter the basic provisions of the Water
Quality Act of 1965 providing for water
quality standards and enforcement pro-
visions for such standards. Section 13
is designed to respond to those situations
where hazardous substances have been
discharged suddenly and inadvertently
into waters of the United States. This
could be a ruptured pipline, an over-
turned truck, a leaking storage tank, or a
vessel breaking up at sea. It should be
emphasized that this matter does not
grant to the Federal Government any
authorities in excess of those granted in
the Water Pollution Control Act of 1965
dealing with the abatement of continu-
ous pollution from an industrial or other
facility.
It is clear to those of us who sit on
committees dealing with environmental
[p. 28970]
matters that research simply does not
exist in sufficient amounts to enable the
development of programs, regulations,
and procedures to remedy many forms
of pollution. The research is not only
lacking on the effects of these pollution
problems; research does not even exist
in sufficient quantities on the nature of
the pollutant itself. S. 7 should go a long
way to remedying the deficiency of
knowledge that surrounds acid and mine
drainage pollution that confronts many
of our Appalachian communities and
waterways. This is an urgent problem
and I look forward to following the im-
plementation of section 14 of this bill.
Another problem that none of us can
be complacent with is the continuing
and rapid deterioration of the Nation's
Great Lakes. Special efforts are needed
by all levels of Government to accom-
plish such remedial action as necessary
to avoid irreversible deterioration of the
water quality of the Great Lakes. Sec-
tion 15 providing for demonstration
projects to control pollution in the Great
Lakes is designed as a limited step in
that direction.
One of the paradoxes of our age is the
fact that the Federal Government di-
rectly and indirectly contributes sub-
stantially to the degradation of the en-
-------
1802
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
vironment. Many Federal activities
contribute directly to water pollution
and these include such diverse activities
as naval vessels discharging sewage and
waste into the waters of the United
States, dredging activities of the Corps
of Engineers, and sewage and waste dis-
posal from Federal facilities of all kinds.
Indirectly, the Federal Government con-
tributes to water pollution in its licens-
ing activities over such things as nuclear
power plants, hydroelectric power plants
licensed by the Federal Power Commis-
sion and dredge and fill permits issued
by the Army Corps of Engineers. S. 7
will require, without exception, that all
Federal activities that have any effect
on water quality be conducted so that
water quality standards will be main-
tained. In the case of all Federal activi-
ties the bill declares a congressional
mandate that these activities be con-
ducted in compliance with water quality
standards. This of course raises a prob-
lem of enforcement. However, if a
Federal agency continues to pollute it
would seem that private citizens affected
by such pollution, and in a very real
sense this would include each and every
citizen, should be able to bring an abate-
ment proceeding on their own behalf in
a Federal court.
With respect to Federal licensing ac-
tivity, the bill S. 7 requires that, as a
part of the license activity, applicants
must furnish certification from the State
and affected States that the activity will
comply with applicable water quality
standards. During the course of consid-
eration of the bill the committee was
faced with difficult question regarding
the application of this provision to
dredging that demands further discus-
sion analysis. Section 16 of the bill pro-
vides an integrated and comprehensive
program designed to require compliance
with applicable water quality standards
in all Federal activity and federally li-
censed or permitted activity. While in-
corporating certain provisions necessary
to provide for special characteristics of
certain Federal licensing and permitting
procedures, especially dredging, section
16 makes no exception for any licensed
or permitted activity from its operative
principle of State certification. Further-
more, section 16 is consistent with, and
arises out of the policy of the 1965
act that the primary responsibility for
controlling water pollution rests with
the States. The committee has on in-
numerable occasions adhered to this
principle and section 16 is another man-
ifestation of it.
Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33
United States Code 403, no dredging or
filling can be conducted in the navigable
waters of the United States without a
permit from the Corps of Engineers.
This includes, inter alia, dredging for
navigation purposes, sands and gravel
exploitation and, real estate develop-
ment.
Dredging for any of these purposes
can and does affect water quality both
in the active removal of spoil and in the
open water disposal of dredge spoil.
Both activities, it should be noted, in
some circumstances, may be accom-
plished without any long-term degrada-
tion of water quality.
In drafting section 16 the committee
has intensely studied its provisions vis-
a-vis dredging and other federally-
licensed or permitted activities. With
respect to the special characteristics of
dredging, the following steps have been
incorporated into section 16.
First. The committee recognized that
water quality standards considering
temporary turbidity resulting from
dredging operations involving otherwise
nonpolluting spoil socially do not exist.
Consequently, report language to ac-
commodate this fact and give directions
to the Secretary and to the States was
prepared.
Second. The committee recognized
that the disposal of dredged spoil, par-
ticularly from the contaminated sedi-
ments in major Great Lakes and
marine ports, precludes dumping in open
water if water quality standards are to
be maintained. Consequently, alterna-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1803
tive methods of spoil disposal must, in
such cases, be adopted. Therefore, sub-
section (e) has been included in section
16 to make available to private dredgers,
at a reasonable charge Federal spoil dis-
posal areas.
Third. The committee has further
recognized that the implementation of
section 16 will cause an adjustment in
practices followed in dredging and, of
course, in all other activities conducted
pursuant to a Federal license or permit.
I suggested a "grace period" in which to
develop new practices and procedures in
order to achieve compliance with water
quality standards in dredging opera-
tions. Consequently, paragraph (7) of
subsection 16 (c) provides that applica-
tions for Federal licenses or permits
pending on the date of enactment is the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969,
which licenses and permits are issued
within 1 year of such date, shall not
require certification for 1 year follow-
ing the date of such issuance. This
provides, in effect, that a pending appli-
cation could have from 1 to 2 years from
the date of enactment before a certifica-
tion of compliance would be required.
Fourth. The committee took the fur-
ther step of providing that where there
are no applicable water quality stand-
ards, in being or in preparation, no cer-
tification will be required. However, a
Federal licensing or permitting agency,
in such event, must impose, as a condi-
tion of any license or permit, a require-
ment that the licensee or permittee shall
comply with the purposes of the act.
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act accomplished, for purposes relevant
to understanding section 16, five things:
First, it states the policy of this Nation
that there shall be enhancement of
water quality;
Second, it declares that the primary
responsibility to control water pollution
rests with the States;
Third, it provides a factual test of
maintenance and enhancement of water
quality; that is, water quality standards;
Fourth, it provides that in the forma-
tion of water quality standards other
policy interests must be considered;
Fifth, it provides that the court in re-
viewing alleged violations of standards,
shall give consideration to "the practi-
cability and to the physical and eco-
nomic feasibility of complying with such
standards." It should be noted that any
court reviewing any challenged stand-
ards would look to this language as
addition to 10 (c) (3).
Consequently, there is built into the
water pollution control procedure a sys-
tem of checks and balances with two
levels of objectivity: First, a measurable
standard for determining compliance
with water quality; and second a meas-
ure that can be challenged in a court of
law to test whether the standards have
been drawn consistent with the intent of
Congress with regard to legitimate uses
and feasibility. To make it absolutely
clear that navigation is to be considered
in the development of standards the
committee adopted my amendment that
inserts "navigation" into the factors to
be considered in the development of
standards under section 10 (c) (3).
Testimony from all sources has re-
vealed a great need for manpower and
training to satisfy the technological de-
mands required for pollution abatement.
Senator SCOTT submitted an amendment
that has been adopted by the committee
and incorporated as section 17 to provide
for a manpower training program de-
signed to stimulate and develop pro-
fessionalism, career achievement and
satisfy the demand for servicing sewage
and waste treatment facilities and oper-
ations. Without this kind of a program
no amount of money or construction will
be truly satisfactory for in the last anal-
ysis people are necessary to make pro-
grams and facilities operate efficiently.
I look forward to the report that will be
filed September 30, 1970, that will state
future manpower needs and recommend
improvements in training programs.
Lake eutrophication, a natural phe-
nomenon, that has been greatly acceler-
[p. 28971]
-------
1804
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ated by man's activity in a process that
demands full understanding. If we are
to remedy the eutrophication that is now
occurring at an accelerated rate on all of
our Nation's estimated 10,000 lakes. S. 7
authorizes research necessary to achieve
such understanding.
The remaining sections of title I pro-
vide necessary research authority to the
Secretary of the Interior. I have al-
ready dwelled on the essential nature of
research to the overall environmental
quality effort and I only say now that
these provisions should be vigorously
implemented by the agency.
The legislative record from all com-
mittees on both sides of Congress has
given a wealth of information on the
Federal Government, its organization
and policies, as they relate to environ-
mental quality. It is obvious there is
extreme fragmentation, there is poor
communication, there is, in fact contra-
dictory authority. For instance, the De-
partment of the Interior is charged with,
and has an extensive program in wet-
land preservation. On the other hand
the Department of Agriculture has a
program, and expends large amounts of
money, for wetland reclamation. These
problems have historical components;
they have bureaucratic components;
they have interest group components,
and many others that all combine to
make the Federal response to environ-
mental quality one of the most complex
problems facing this Congress.
The Committee on Public Works has
held hearings on many aspects of envi-
ronmental quality. It has had testimony
from many agencies of govern-
ment concerning their policies, proce-
dures, and activities. Other committees
such as the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs has received similar tes-
timony, the Committee on Commerce,
the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare as well. On the House side the
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations, have all received
testimony indicating the depth of this
problem.
From all of this testimony, a synthesis
or integration can be made and an at-
tempt begun that will enable us to re-
verse the trend of fragmentation, of
overlap, of poor information exchange
that now prevails. Title II of S. 7 rep-
resents one attempt to learn from all of
the experience that is now available to
us. It provides that there shall be es-
tablished in the executive branch in the
Office of the Presidency an Office of
Environmental Quality. This Office is
charged with reviewing the Federal
operation and making recommendations
to the President to implement through
his Council of Environmental Quality,
a Cabinet-level action organization de-
signed to implement Presidential deci-
sions and policy.
It is absolutely essential that we avoid
placing this kind of responsibility in an
agency or office of historical orientation
and personnel staffing that would pre-
clude it from operating efficiently in this
area. It requires an office in the Execu-
tive Office of the President because the
problems are found in all agencies and
in all departments, therefore, only with
the perspective of the Office of the Pres-
idency will it be possible to make the
necessary overview and analysis and
the proper recommendations. It must
be an office, too, that includes staffing of
the character that will enable it to con-
sider the broad and diverse issues in-
volved in environmental quality.
These are simply not scientific mat-
ters, although there is a scientific com-
ponent, they are not simply economic
matters although there is an economic
component, these are not simply fiscal
matters although there is a fiscal com-
ponent; rather these are problems that
demand a new approach and orientation
that can only be found from a new or-
ganization and cannot be found in any
existing executive organization.
Many activities of the Federal estab-
lishment affecting environmental qual-
ity are under the jurisdiction of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1805
Committee on Public Works. These
include the rivers and harbors activities
of the Corps of Engineers, the Federal
highway program, and of course much
of the economic development programs.
All of these programs must be reviewed
for their effect on environmental quality.
The Office of Environmental Quality
should help perform that review. This
does not, however, allow us to escape
our responsibilities and I hope that tak-
ing the policy enunciated in title II the
Committee on Public Works will begin
to review the statutory base on which
these operations are made, the policies
and procedures that have been devel-
oped in implementing these statutes,
and of course the end product of these
activities. It is expected the Committee
on Public Works will soon begin a re-
view of all activities within its jurisdic-
tion for an analysis of the effect the
operations have for environmental
quality.
It is submitted that this Office of En-
vironmental Quality combined with the
President's establishment of a Council
on Environmental Quality represents a
comprehensive program that will con-
tribute to the development of a truly
responsive Federal Government.
Mr. President, I close by saying that
I echo what the distinguished Senator
from Florida (Mr. GURNEY) has said—
that this is a landmark bill.
Without a quality environment we
will never succeed in developing a qual-
ity of life. It is a first priority of this
Nation, we cannot escape it and we must
face this responsibility. I would hope
that all of my colleagues share my con-
cern on these issues because the public
demands it and the public deserves it.
The matter of environmental quality
goes to each individual, rich and poor,
white and black. A deteriorating en-
vironment does not discriminate, it
affects us all and makes all of those
problems which we do face much more
difficult. When viewed in this light it
becomes urgent that we begin to restore
the quality to our environment and we
must begin now.
AMENDMENT NO. 178
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 178.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read the amendment.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and, without
objection, the amendment will be printed
in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follow:
AMENDMENT No. 178
On page 73, between lines 15 and 16, Insert
the following:
"SEC. 106. Subsection (c) of section 8 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Is
amended to read as follows:
"'(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 de-
rived 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 pro-
posed by the applicant for such Federal finan-
cial 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 sub-
section (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 cen-
tum of such sums in the ratio that the popu-
lation 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 ob-
tained 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 ex-
cess of $100,000,000 and not in excess of
$400,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsec-
tion (d) for any fiscal year beginning after
June 30, 1969, shall be allotted among the
States eligible for reimbursement pursuant
to the seventh and eighth sentences of this
-------
1806
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
subsection in the proportion that the amount
each State is so eligible to receive on the first
day of such fiscal year bears to the total such
amounts on such day for all States, and such
allotment shall not exceed the sum advanced
and shall be available until the termination
of six months following the fiscal year for
which made only for the purpose of reim-
bursing such State pursuant to the seventh
and eighth sentences of this subsection. All
sums in excess of $400,000,000 appropriated
pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal
year ending after June 30, 1969, shall be al-
lotted 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 three 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 cer-
tified as entitled to priority under subsection
(b) (4) of this section, or for other reasons,
shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on such
basis as he determines to be reasonable and
equitable and in accordance with regulations
promulgated by him, to States having
projects approved under this section for
which grants have not been made for 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 Federal institution or Federal con-
struction activity, he may, prior to such re-
allocation, make an additional grant with
[p. 28972]
respect to such project which will in his
judgment reflect an equitable contribution
for the need caused by such Federal institu-
tion or activity. Any sum made available to
a State by reallotment under the preceding
sentence shall be in addition to any funds
otherwise allotted to such State under this
Act. The allotments of a State under the
second, fourth, and fifth sentences of this
subsection shall be available, in accordance
with the provisions of this section, for pay-
ments with respect to projects in such State
which have been approved under this sec-
tion, except that in the case of any project
on which construction was initiated in such
State after June 30, 1966, which was ap-
proved by the appropriate State water pollu-
tion 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 shall also
be available, together with the allotments
under the third sentence of this subsection,
for payments in reimbursement of State or
local funds used for such project to the ex-
tent that assistance could have been provided
under this section if such project had been
approved pursuant to this section and ade-
quate funds had been available. In the case
of any project on which construction was
initiated in such State after June 30, 1966,
and which was constructed with assistance
pursuant to this section but the amount of
such assistance was a lesser per centum of the
cost of construction than was allowable pur-
suant to this section, 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
have been provided under this section if ade-
quate funds had been available. Neither a
finding by the Secretary that a project meets
the requirements of this subsection, nor any
other provision of this subsection, shall be
construed to constitute a commitment or ob-
ligation of the United States to provide funds
to make or pay any grant for such project.
For purposes of this section, population shall
be determined on the basis of the latest
decennial census for which figures are avail-
able, 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 con-
secutive years for which satisfactory data
are available from the Department of
Commerce.' "
On page 73, lines 16, 19, and 23, redesignate
sections 106, 107, and 108 as sections 107, 108,
and 109, respectively.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, the
amendment is designed to provide ur-
gently required financial relief to those
States that have advanced the Federal
share of construction costs for water
quality treatment plants and have not
yet received reimbursement from the
Federal Government.
The amendment allocates up to $300
million from the annual appropriations
to those States eligible for reimburse-
ment.
This amount would be sufficient to
repay the seven States that advanced
the Federal share.
The principal method to restore the
quality of our waters is by construction
of water quality treatment facilities.
This is an enormous task, because many
plants are required throughout the
Nation. Recognizing this, in 1966, Con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1807
gress passed the Clean Water Restora-
tion Act authorizing $4.7 billion in
grants over a period of 6 years to States
with pollution programs forconstruction
of such facilities.
To receive Federal assistance, States
were required to have their own pro-
gram. A Federal-State partnership was
thus created to clean up our waters.
Unfortunately, Federal funds were not
forthcoming in the amount either antici-
pated or required. In fiscal year 1966,
$150 million was authorized, $121 million
was appropriated. In fiscal year 1967,
$150 million was again authorized and
this time actually appropriated. But in
fiscal year 1968, $450 million was author-
ized and less than half, $203 million, ap-
propriated. In fiscal year 1969, $700
million was authorized, only $214 ap-
propriated. For fiscal year 1970, a full $1
billion has been authorized, yet the ap-
propriation request of the administration
is for only $214 million. Thus, there is a
great gap between the authorizations
and the monies actually spent or actu-
ally appropriated.
To illustrate this gap, Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
at this point in the RECORD a table I have
prepared entitled, "Gap in Funds for
Construction of Water Quality Treat-
ment Plants," as well as a chart entitled,
"The Water Pollution Control Funding
Gap," published in the September 1969
issue of Nation's Cities.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
GAP IN FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER
QUALITY TREATMENT PLANTS
Fiscal year
Authorized Appropriated
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Total, including
1971
Total, excluding
1971
$ 50,000,000
80,000,000
90,100,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
150,000,000
450,000,000
700,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,250,000,000
4,120,000,000
2,870,000,000
$ 46,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
90,000,000
93,000,000
121,000,000
150,000,000
203,000,000
214,000,000
1214,000,000
1,291,000,000
1,291,000,000
> Requested.
-------
1808
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
p
£
< "
o 5
5 §
U. (O
, (D
P 2
II
8
_o
<
o
I
oJojcDod^t^odcnrQiDro^cnoi^tcnodi-ioiiriocDrot-Jo'*
(H ^t i-lrH C4*-< *-4l-li-t<^C4*-ti-**-t
j r-. CM CM I-H m
cJocnf
l
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1809
Q,
*•> q **> oo i_J
in
fn1-J<
•-* co »
f-» ^ co CM in !•<;
evj rH r-» CNJ oo in
o od m' o> 06 co
-
toco
com
in i-j 01
*
CM ^ .-J CM
^ > S 5 S
cu
•• i« : ; ;. -° l s • : •
„ s S • : 1 s g S u • :
"Snj™.ro 2fco«~ O ^ ^ ai
S
^S «
§1
S £
" S
£00
•s »
isi
§ " i
D.O g
TO W OO
'5 =**
™ - o
sir
-------
1810
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. TYDINGS. The result of this gap
has been a severe setback for pollution
control.
Congress did recognize, however, at
the time the bill was written and passed,
that immediate appropriation of all
construction grant funds was not likely
and that several States, New York and
Maryland, to name just two, were pre-
pared to move ahead on their own more
rapidly than the availability of Federal
funds. These States recognized the dan-
ger to our environment of water pollu-
tion and had set aside, or were prepared
to set aside, money to help abate it. Yet
they were understandably reluctant to
forge ahead without sufficient Federal
assistance if other States, by waiting
until both the scale of authorizations and
level of actual funding increased, would
receive greater financial support.
These States would then have been
penalized for being progressive.
Congress therefore included in the
1966 act a provision permitting Federal
reimbursement of those projects, ap-
proved by both the State water pollution
agency and the Secretary of the Interior,
for which the States had advanced the
Federal share of project cost. In their
partnership with the Federal Govern-
ment, several States prefinanced the
Federal share so as not to lose momen-
tum and time in the task of cleaning up
the waters.
They did so, of course, with the un-
derstanding and belief that the Federal
Government would honor the partner-
ship, live up to the bargain, and repay
the amounts advanced.
The Federal Government has not done
so. Reimbursables, in the sum of nearly
$300 million, have not been forthcoming
to those States which have moved ahead
in cleaning up their waters.
The inevitable result has been finan-
cial trouble for those States which have
shown initiative and progress. They
have not been repaid, and their water
pollution programs are thereby in
jeopardy.
The States affected are Connecticut,
owed $60,900,000; New York, owed $150,-
315,000; Maine, owed $3,500,000; Massa-
chusetts, due $8,500,000; Vermont, due
$677,000; Pennsylvania, $16,095,000; and
Maryland, owed $52,957,000.
The Federal Government owes these
seven States a total of $292,944,000.
It is ironic that in a time when we
increasingly emphasize the need to re-
vitalize State and local governments, we
are penalizing the very States we should
be rewarding.
In a time when there is much talk
about revitalizing State government, we
have before us an example of seven
States which acted on their own, with
their own money, to meet head on a
major problem. They are now being re-
warded with sympathy rather than the
money they deserve.
These seven States should be paid
back. Fair play demands it.
My amendment, if adopted, would do
it.
It provides for an allotment of up to
$300 million to States eligible for reim-
bursement. It states that funds appro-
priated for construction of water quality
treatment plants, in excess of $100 mil-
lion and not more than $400 million,
shall be allotted to States which pre-
financed the Federal share.
Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act deals with construction
grants. Subsection (d) provides the au-
thorizations for grants till fiscal year
1971. Subsection (c) determines how
funds appropriated will be distributed.
It also includes the reimbursement pro-
vision and is the section of the act I
seek to amend.
Essentially, three patterns or bases of
distribution are apparent in 8(c). The
first is population. Of the sums appro-
priated, the first $50 million and all
funds in excess of $100 million are dis-
tributed on the basis of population of
the State. The specific basis is "the ratio
that the population of each State bears
to the population of all the States." The
second pattern is per capita income. Of
the first $100 million appropriated, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1811
second $50 million is distributed "in the
ratio that the quotient obtained by divid-
ing the per capita income of each State
bears to the sum of such quotients for
all the States." What this means, in sim-
ple language, is that the poorer State
gets a little better break. The third pat-
tern of distribution is what I shall call,
for lack of a better term, Federal in-
volvement. There is a provision in 8(c)
which provides additional funds for a
State whose pollution problem is height-
ened by the presence of Federal installa-
tions or construction activities.
In a sense there is another pattern,
found in 8(d). There, a provision states
that of the first $100 million appro-
priated for water pollution construction
grants, at least half shall go to munici-
palities with populations of 125,0000 or
under.
This amendment eliminates none of
these patterns of distribution. Funds
appropriated would still be allocated on
the basis of population, per capita in-
come, Federal involvement, and the size
of municipality.
What it does is to add another pattern.
Funds appropriated would also be dis-
tributed on the basis of the amount of
the Federal share a State has advanced
in anticipation of reimbursement.
The amendment provides that the sec-
ond, third, and fourth hundred million
dollars appropriated, thus a sum of up
to $300 million, shall be allotted to States
eligible for reimbursement from the
Federal Government. The specific basis
for distribution of these money—
whether it be $300 million, $200 million,
or $100 million—is the ratio that the
amount each State has prefinanced bears
to the total amount of prefinancing done
by all the States.
For example, if a State has prefi-
nanced X and the sum total of all the
prefinancing is Y, then the amount the
State receives under my amendment is
Xk/Y, where k is the money appropri-
ated and allocated by this amendment.
In no case, however, could this be over
$300 million. It might be less, depend-
ing on the 8(d) appropriation.
To make it clearer, I have prepared
a small chart entitled "Allocations of
Reimbursement Funds Under Proposed
[p. 28974]
Tydings Amendment, Revised," and I
ask unanimous consent that it be printed
in the RECORD at the conclusion of my
prepared statement. The table shows
how my amendment would work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, look-
ing at it, we see that Maine has prefi-
nanced $3.5 million for water pollution
control. This represents the Federal
portion of Maine's program which the
State has advanced on her own. It is the
amount she is eligible for reimburse-
ment. It represents 1.19 percent of the
$292,944,000 total prefinanced by the
seven States.
Under my amendment, which allocates
"all sums in excess of $100,000,000 and
not in excess of $400,000,000 appropriated
pursuant to subsection (d)," Maine
would receive $3,700,000 if the appropri-
ation were $400 million or more. If this
were the case $300 million would be al-
lotted for reimbursement. Maine's pro-
gram would be paid for. If it were
less, the amount would be reduced
proportionately.
The chart indicates that under the
maximum amount permitted by the
amendment, $300 million—which will be
available as long as the 8(d) appro-
priation exceeds $400 million—the
seven States would be allotted funds
a little over the amount they actually
prefinanced.
The purpose of my amendment is to
ensure the Federal Government pay
what it owes to these States. It is not
to get them additional funds above and
beyond what they prefinanced. Thus
there is language in the amendment
which says that any reimbursement
"shall not exceed the sum advanced."
In cases where there are funds left
-------
1812
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
over, where the amendment allocates
money that is not obligated, provision
is made for these funds to be redistrib-
uted by the Secretary according to regu-
lations he promulgates.
Maryland is another example of a
State that would justify benefit from this
amendment. Conscious of how impor-
tant her water resources are, Maryland
embarked on a major effort to restore
their quality. The State has prefmanced
79 projects worth $52,957,000, a signifi-
cant sum for a State the size of Mary-
land. Like the other six, she is waiting
for the Federal Government to pay her
back.
Should the section 8(d) appropriation
be $300 million, the amendment would
provide $200 million for reimbursement.
Maryland's percentage of total pre-
financing is 18.08 percent. She would
thus receive 18.08 percent of the funds
available—$200 million—which is $36,-
160,000.
I wish to make it clear that the amend-
ment does not affect the level of fiscal
year 1970 appropriations for water qual-
ity treatment facilities. This is found in
the public works appropriation bill
which should come to the floor late in
the session. My amendment affects title
I of S. 7 which amends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
I am concerned, with this amendment,
not with the level of appropriations but
the distribution of whatever funds are
appropriated.
The present appropriation request is
$214 million. This is clearly inadequate
as the Citizens Crusade for Clean Water
has pointed out. It is likely that the
Senate committee will up the $214 mil-
lion to $600 million. I hope they will. I
would fully support such an increase
and feel it is required if we are ever to
clean up our waters and restore the
quality of our environment.
The amendment thus does not alter
the level of appropriations.
Neither does it eliminate the present
distribution pattern of appropriated
funds. Population, per capita income
and size of municipality are allotted
funds prior to the amendment's taking
effect. So, in part, is population, al-
though some funds for this pattern could
be diverted for reimbursement. Yet
with the expected $600 million appropri-
ation there will be ample funds for both
population and reimbursement patterns.
Nor does the amendment make forever
permanent the section 8(c) distribution
patterns; 8(d) authorizations expire at
the end of fiscal year 1971. Renewal will
require extensive hearings at which fur-
ther consideration can be given to the
prefinancing problem; 8(c) could be
changed at this time. In the meantime,
however, seven-State water pollution
programs are in financial jeopardy.
They should be reimbursed now, without
having to wait any further.
They require and deserve immediate
reimbursement.
Such repayment by the Federal Gov-
ernment is essential. Without it, the
financial integrity and stability of these
programs are threatened. The success
and continuity of the national effort to
clean our waters depend on our paying
for the water treatment facilities we
construct.
The amendment will help us pay what
we owe, some $292,944,000. It will help
restore the confidence of the States in
the grant programs of the Federal Gov-
ernment. This confidence has been se-
verely shaken by instances such as this
where the Federal Government fails to
reimburse and violates the State-Federal
partnership.
By adopting the reimbursement pro-
vision, the United States placed its good
faith and credit on the line. If the Fed-
eral Government fails to meet its end
of the bargain, the States trust in Fed-
eral programs will erode even further.
As David Dominick, the present Com-
missioner of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration has noted:
It is most important that we make every
effort in Washington to keep faith with the
states that have already begun construction
on their own.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1813
The amendment will reward State
initiative and provide an incentive for
other States to move ahead.
Indeed, one of the original reasons for
accepting the reimbursement provisions
was the incentive it would offer States to
finance water pollution programs prior
to receiving Federal assistance. That it
was successful is evident in a letter of
May 17, 1968, which I received from
James B. Coulter, then Maryland's As-
sistant Commissioner Environmental
Health Services and now Deputy Sec-
retary of Maryland's Department of Nat-
ural Resources. Mr. Coulter wrote:
The provision for repayment of state funds
advanced to cover deficiencies in federal
grant offers has made it possible for us to
arrange a financing scheme combining state
and federal funds designed to eliminate our
backlog needs for municipal sewage treat-
ment plants by 1971.
Another advantage to the States was
pointed out by the distinguished junior
Senator from Maine, Senator MUSKIE,
during the 1966 water pollution hearings.
Senator MUSKIE noted that the reim-
bursement provision would actually save
money. Said Senator MUSKIE:
As a matter of fact, I think it is an economy
provision, because if we can enable the States
like New York, which are in a position to do
so, to press ahead with construction early
with this prefinancing measure, they will
build plants at lower cost than those who
have to build them later I think we will
save money
State government must now play a
greater role in our affairs. We have
learned that the Federal Government
cannot do everything. Yet State respon-
sibility for water quality control has
always been primary, as the act's
declaration of policy specifically states.
Some States have met this responsibility
and require now only that the Federal
Government keep its part of the bargain.
My amendment will bring this about
It put the money where the action is
In determining which projects are to
receive Federal assistance, the Secretary
is required in section 8(c) to consider
"the propriety of Federal aid." Surely
there are no projects more deserving of
such assistance than those whose Fed-
eral share of costs have been advanced
by the States.
It should be noted that section 8(d)
contains the statement:
Neither a finding by the Secretary that a
project meets the requirements of this sub-
section, nor any other provision of this sub-
section, 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.
But with the acceptance of the reim-
bursement provision, a promise was un-
dertaken and agreement made.
The term used in drafting the provi-
sion was "prefinancing." The use of the
prefix indicates that the States were
financing before the Federal Govern-
ment paid its share, not instead of the
share itself. Were that the case, there
would be no need for a partnership.
Maine, Maryland and the other five
States advanced the Federal share of
projects costs; they did not assume the
share.
The 1966 report on S. 2947—Report No.
1367, 89th Congress, second session,
July 11, 1966—in its section on reim-
bursement speaks of a "prefinancing
provision" that will provide the Federal
share "as it becomes available." The sen-
tence does not read, "if it becomes avail-
able." The presumption is that it will
and that the States will be paid back.
But they
[p. 28975]
have not been. My amendment merely
provides that they are and is consistent
with the philosophy of the water pollu-
tion legislation.
The "certain risk" which the report
says is assumed by States which pre-
finance refers to a delay in reimburse-
ment, not to the issue of whether
reimbursement takes place. It is a time
risk rather than a payment risk.
Mr. President, I would like now to
answer three criticisms which this
amendment has received. The first con-
-------
1814
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cerns the maximum amount available
for reimbursement. The amendment
provides up to $300 million for this pur-
pose. It is argued that this is too much.
Three hundred million dollars is half
the expected fiscal year 1970 appropria-
tion, and leaves 43 other States with
practically nothing.
I would answer that the sum of $300
million was selected with great care, and
for a simple reason. It is approximately
what the Federal Government owes the
seven States—the actual figure is $292,-
944,000. It is what they are due. It
leaves, moreover, $300 million—assum-
ing a $600 million appropriation—for
normal distribution. This is above the
$214 million fiscal year 1969 appropria-
tion, above the administration's $214 mil-
lion fiscal year 1970 budget request, and
is a significant sum of money.
The second criticism involves those
States that moved ahead in pollution
control with their own money prior to
the adoption of the reimbursement pro-
vision. To be consistent, should not they
receive Federal assistance also? Have
not these States shown real leadership
in meeting their responsibilities? Do
they not deserve to be rewarded?
The answer to the last question is no.
These States, and I applaud their action
indeed—Maryland is also one of them,
in this case moved without advancing
Federal funds and without anticipating
reimbursement. The acceptance of the
reimbursement provision constituted a
new, distinct, and specific partnership
between State and Federal Govern-
ments that came into being as soon as the
act passed. Reimbursement is due only
those States that acted within its frame-
work. It is not due States that acted
prior to the existence of the partnership.
These States could not and did not ex-
pect reimbursement.
Finally, the last criticism involves the
amendment's deletion of the provision
limiting reimbursement only to July 1,
1971. The reasoning behind the inclu-
sion of the expiration date was to avoid
an open ended commitment and insure
acceptance of the reimbursement provi-
sion by the Senate. But this expiration
date has had an unfortunate effect. It
has forced the seven States to conclude
that quite possibly unless they are reim-
bursed before July 1, 1971, they may not
be reimbursed at all. As can be imag-
ined, this has caused them great concern.
The deletion of this provision would be
a sign to these States that the Federal
Government in good faith intends to re-
pay them, if only eventually. It would
assuage their fears and restore some of
their confidence in the reimbursement
provision and in the Federal Govern-
ment itself.
Mr. President, the seven States have
waited long enough. It is high time they
are reimbursed for the funds they
advanced in order to have progressive,
worthwhile water pollution control
programs.
It is the purpose and effect of my
amendment to provide these funds.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that following the printing in the
RECORD of the tables referred to in my
speech, a fourth chart entitled "State
Funds Advanced in Lieu of Federal
Funds for Construction of Sewage Treat-
my amendment be printed in the RECORD,
This chart offers additional information
about the prefinancing problem. I also
ask unanimous consent that the text of
my amendment be printed in the R53*84,
as well as a letter to me from James B.
Coulter dated June 18, 1969; a letter to
me from Louis S. Clapper of the National
Wildlife Federation dated September 9,
1969; the testimony of Maryland Gov.
Marvin Mandel to the Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Public
Works dated June 9, 1969; a resolution
of the Maryland General Assembly's
Legislative Council Committee on Inter-
governmental Cooperation; a fifth chart
entitled "Tentative State Allocations of
Fiscal Year 1970 FWPCA Grant Funds
Under Selected Levels of Appropria-
tions" which indicate how different lev-
els of section 8(d) funds would be
distributed under present law without
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1815
my amendment; an excellent article by
Raymond L. Bancroft, managing editor
of Nation's Cities, in their September
1969 issue entitled, "Are the Cities
Trapped in the Water Pollution Control
Funding Gap?"; a letter to me from C. W.
Metcalf, director municipal services for
the New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission dated
September 30, 1969; and a letter to me
from J. W. Penfold, conservation director
of the Izaak Walton League of America
dated September 30, 1969.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows.
STATE FUNDS ADVANCED IN LIEU OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
States
Total
Connecticut
New York
Maine . ....
Massachusetts
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Number of
projects
. . . 295
38
70
7
. . . . 12
3
86
79
Cost
$948 787 000
121,400000
548 000 000
11 700 000
20,800 000
2 400 000
125 493 000
118 994 000
Federal
grant
entitlement
$334,077 000
64 280 000
165,823 000
6 300 000
9,900 000
1 287 000
27 063 000
59 424 000
Federal
grants made
$41,133,000
3,380,000
15 508,000
2 800 000
1,400,000
610 000
10 968 000
6 467 000
State funds
advanced
(eligible
to be
reimbursed)
$292 944 000
60 900,000
150,315,000
3 500 000
8,500,000
677 000
16 095 000
52 957 000
AMENDMENT No. 178
On page 73, between lines 15 and 16, insert
the following:
"SEC. 106. Subsection (c) of section 8 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended to read as follows:
"'(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 relation
of the ultimate cost of constructing and main-
taining the works to the public interest and
to the public necessity 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 sub-
section (d) for each fiscal year beginning
on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by
the Secretary from time to time, in accord-
ance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per
centum of sucb sums in the ratio that the
population of each State bears to the popu-
lation 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 and not in excess of
$400,000,000 appropriated pursuant to sub-
section (d) for any fiscal year beginning
after June 30, 1969, shall be allotted among
the States eligible for reimbursement pur-
suant to the seventh and eighth sentences
of this subsection in the proportion that the
amount each State is so eligible to receive
on the first day of such fiscal year bears to
the total such amounts on such days for all
States, and such allotment shall not exceed
the sum advanced and shall be available
until the termination of the six months fol-
lowing the fiscal year for which made only
for the purpose of reimbursing such State
pursuant to the seventh and eighth sen-
tences of this subsection. All sums in excess
of $400,000,000 appropriated pursuant to sub-
section (d) for each fiscal year ending after
June 30, 1969, shall be allotted by the Sec-
retary 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
three 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 pol-
lution control agency under subsection (b)
(1) of this section and certified as entitled
to priority under subsection (b) (4) of this
section, or for other reasons, shall be reallot-
ted by the Secretary, on such basis as he
determines to be reasonable and equitable
-------
1816
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and in accordance with regulations promul-
gated by him, to States having projects ap-
proved under this section for which grants
have not been made for lack of funds: Pro-
vided, however, That whenever a State has
funds subject to reallocation and the Secre-
tary finds that the need for a project in a
community in such State is due in part to
any Federal institution or Federal construc-
tion activity, he may, prior to such realloca-
tion, make an additional grant with respect
to such project which will In his judgment
reflect an equitable contribution for the need
caused by each Federal institution or ac-
[p. 28976]
tivity. Any sum made available to a State
by reallotment under the preceding sen-
tence shall be in addition to any funds
otherwise allotted to such State under this
Act. The allotments of a State under the
second, fourth, and fifth 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, 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 pol-
lution 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 shall also
be available, together with the allotments
under the third sentence of this subsection,
for payments in reimbursement of State or
local funds used for such project to the extent
that assistance could have been provised un-
der this section if such project had been
approved pursuant to this section and ade-
quate funds had been available. In the case
of any project on which construction was
initiated in such State after June 30, 1966,
and which was constructed with assistance
pursuant to this section but the amount of
such assistance was a lesser per centum of
the cost of construction than was allowable
pursuant to this section, such allotments shall
also be available for payments in reimburse-
ment of State or local funds used for such
project to the extent that assistance could
have been provided under this section if ade-
quate funds had been available. Neither a
finding by the Secretary that a project meets
the requirements of this subsection, nor any
other provision of this subsection, shall be
construed to constitute a commitment or obli-
gation of the United States to provide funds
to make or pay any grant for such project.
For purposes of this section, population shall
be determined on the basis of the latest de-
cennial census for which figures are available,
as certified by the Secretary of Commerce,
and per capita income for each State and for
the United States shall be determined on the
basis of the average of the per capita incomes
of the States and of the continental United
States for the three most recent consecutive
years for which satisfactory data are avail-
able for the Department of Commerce.' "
On page 73, lines 16, 19, and 23, redesignate
sections 106, 107, and 108 as sections 107, 108,
and 109, respectively.
JUNE 18, 1968.
Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: You hit the nail
on the head in your letter of June 4, 1968
when you observed: "Leadership in water
pollution control among the states should be
rewarded, not penalized." I am sure that is
not only your goal but that of our friends in
the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration. However, even though I am certain
no one intended to harm Maryland's program,
two provisions of the Administration's bill,
H R. 15907 and companion bill S. 3206, would
hurt us badly. These are the proposals to do
away with the reimbursement feature and the
requirement that bonds sold to prefinance
Federal grant offers be taxable.
I have been in touch with Congressman
Fallon's office and he has been very helpful.
Enclosed is a copy of a statement I prepared
for the record at the request of Congressman
Blatnik. Mr. Maurice Tobin in Congressman
Blatnik's office talked with me as a result of
my correspondence with Congressman Fallen.
The statement contains a brief summary of
the Federal-State-local program that is work-
ing so well for us and the difficulties we
would encounter under H.R. 15907. However,
I might be able to more precisely pin-point
the exact problems in funding that we
visualize.
First of all, Maryland is advancing the full
amount of both Federal and State grants as
sewage treatment plants are constructed.
Therefore, there would be no reason for
our communities to enter into the pro-
posed contract arrangement with the Federal
Government.
When the General Assembly considered
prefinancing of Federal grants, the reim-
bursement provision added by Section 204,
PL 89-753, the Water Quality Act of 1965,
proved a powerful incentive. In 1967, the
General Assembly authorized 50 million dol-
lars and in this last session an additional 100
million dollars was added to a Sanitary Fa-
cilities Fund. When a Federal grant offer is
made, money is made available from this
fund to cover the outright State grant and
any deficiency in the Federal offer. Should
future Federal appropriations be sufficient
to reimburse the money advanced, the reim-
bursement would go back into the Sanitary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1817
Facilities Fund to be used to finance still
more sewage treatment works. With only a
moderate degree of optimism, we believed
that the fund would insure catching up with
backlog needs by 1971 and staying abreast of
growth needs into the early 1980's
It was our hope that the reimbursement
feature would be renewed when it expired in
1971 To terminate it on July 1, 1968, as pro-
posed in the current amendments, would
be a cruel blow to our program aspirations.
I don't see how the State could continue to
fund Federal grant offers if there was no
statutory basis for hope that the money
would be reimbursed. If we cut our rate of
construction back to the present rate of
Federal dollars allotted to Maryland, it would
take 15 years to do what we now plan to do
by 1971; i.e., bring all plants up to a level
of secondary treatment with disinfection of
all effluents by 1971.
We might be able to amend the State law
(but that in itself would cause delay and
introduce a large element of uncertainty)
to take advantage of the contract arrange-
ment whereby the Federal Government
would pay principal and interest on bonds
sold to finance the Federal share, but the
proposed taxable requirement for bonds sold
for that purpose rules it out. Our bonds are
of the general revenue type retired from real
estate taxes. A special issue is not sold to
finance sewage treatment plant construction.
Rather, from time to time as need dictates,
the State borrows money through sale of
bonds and distributes the proceeds to various
capital improvement projects and funds such
as the Sanitary Facilities Fund. Our esti-
mated needs during a quarter, or some other
period of time, are lumped with the needs of
other activities and one sale of State bonds is
made to cover all of the needs.
Assuming, but not conceding, that the tax-
able provision is justifiable and desirable,
placing a Federal tax on general revenue
bonds of the State would be objectionable If
not downright unconstitutional. If someone
wants to fight that issue, I wish they would
choose something other than water pollution
control works for the test case. Besides, the
complications resulting from setting up spe-
cial bond issues for this purpose, establishing
the contracts, and keeping records on the
status of repayment on myriads of grant
offers would drastically worsen an already
bad bookkeeping problem.
Please be assured that we are grateful for
your assistance in this matter and your con-
tinuing support of Maryland's Environmental
Health Program. If we can be of assistance
in return, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES B COULTER,
Assistant Commissioner,
Environmental Health Services.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C., September 9,1969.
Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: We have been interested in
learning of your intention to propose an
amendment to S 7, amending the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, and welcome an
invitation to comment upon it.
As we understand it, your proposed
amendment would provide that construction
funds in excess of $100 million and up to $400
million would be allocated to those States
which have pre-financed Federal contribu-
tions. In short, this amount (up to $300 mil-
lion) would go to seven States.
The National Wildlife Federation has been
gravely concerned about the failure of the
Federal Government to live up to its com-
mitments to the States in grants for the con-
struction of municipal waste treatment plants.
It is this reason, principally, that our organi-
zation has supported efforts of the "Citizens'
Crusade for Clean Waters," asking the Presi-
dent to seek the full $1 billion authorized in
construction grants. It naturally follows that
in the most precarious financial conditions
are those States which prefinanced grants on
the assurance that the Federal share would
be forthcoming. Therefore, we fully under-
stand and appreciate your concern in this re-
gard, and it is our opinion that the full $1
billion authorized should be appropriated in
order that the Federal Government can meet
all of its commitments. If this is done, the
allocation of $300 million for priority treat-
ment to those States which already have fi-
nanced the Federal share would not appear
to be unreasonable.
Sincerely,
Louis S. CLAPPER,
Conservation Director.
RESOLUTION
Resolution of the Legislative Council
Committee on Intergovernmental
Cooperation concerning appropriations to
the states for Water Pollution Control
Programs
Whereas, the Congress of the United States
enacted a Water Pollution Control Act which
became effective in 1957 for the purpose of
encouraging and assisting the states in the
development of facilities to carry out the
intent of the Act; and
Whereas, the State of Maryland has vig-
orously cooperated in this program since its
inception, having authorized bond issues be-
tween 1957 and 1968 totalling more than $176
million for this purpose; and
Whereas, the Federal Government has pro-
vided funds for the cost of qualifying projects
in Maryland only to the extent of about
-------
1818
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$21,500,000 as opposed to an amount of ap-
proximately $90 million more than the State
would have received if adequate funds had
been authorized and appropriated; and
Whereas, the amount authorized by Con-
gress for Fiscal 1970 is $1 billion, while the
administration budget provided for an ap-
propriation of only $214 million—Maryland's
share of which would be only approximately
$3,550,000; and
Whereas, this State is still faced with a
very great cost for facilities to eliminate wa-
ter pollution; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that the Legislative Council Com-
mittee on Intergovernmental Cooperation of
the Maryland General Assembly urges its
Congressional Delegation to take whatever
action may be necessary to increase the ap-
propriation for the 1970 Fiscal Year to the
full authorization; and to bring about a suf-
ficient increase in future authorizations and
appropriations of monies to fully implement
the purposes of the Water Pollution Control
Act; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be
submitted to each Maryland Congressman
and United States Senator.
[p. 28977]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1819
TENTATIVE STATE ALLOCATIONS OF FISCAL YEAR 1970 FWPCA GRANT FUNDS UNDER SELECTED
LEVELS OF APPROPRIATION
Total $214,000,000 $300,000,000 $600,000,000 $1,000,000,000
Alabama 4,135,700 5,681,300 11,072,900 18,261,700
Alaska 906,100 1,013,100 1,386,300 1,883,900
Arizona 2,125,400 2,741,500 4,890,700 7,756,300
Arkansas 2,835,800 3,681,000 6,629,000 10,559,900
California 14,882,600 22,318,800 48,258,800 82,845,600
Colorado 2,414,900 3,244,800 6,139,500 9,999,100
Connecticut 2,942,200 4,141,700 8,325,700 13,904,600
Delaware 1,100,300 1,311,500 2,047,900 3,029,900
District of Columbia .. .. 1,315,300 1,676,800 2,937,600 4,618,900
Florida 5,386,400 7,729,100 15,901,500 26,797,900
Georgia 4,589,000 6,454,600 12,962,500 21,639,600
Hawaii 1,355,700 1,655,000 2,699,400 4,091,800
Idaho 1,589,400 1,905,000 3,005,900 4,474,000
Illinois 9,784,300 14,553,900 31,192,300 53,376,700
Indiana 5,008,400 7,214,300 14,909,400 25,169,300
Iowa 3,311,000 4,615,600 9,166,700 15,234,600
Kansas 2,812,700 3,843,400 7,439,000 12,233,000
Kentucky 3,827,100 5,264,500 10,278,700 16,964,300
Louisiana 4,009,800 5,550,700 10,926,000 18,093,300
Maine 1,853,100 2,311,700 3,911,300 6,044,100
Maryland 3,552,100 5,019,100 10,136,500 16,959,700
Massachusetts 5,382,800 7,818,700 16,315,900 27,645,500
Michigan 7,809,500 11,510,900 24,422,500 41,638,100
Minnesota 3,919,100 5,534,200 11,168,600 18,681,000
Mississippi 3,350,200 4,380,800 7,975,600 12,768,900
Missouri 4,760,400 6,804,100 13,933,700 23,439,700
Montana 1,535,700 1,854,900 2,968,500 4,453,300
Nebraska 2,115,500 2,783,200 5,112,400 8,218,000
Nevada 959,600 1,094,500 1,565,300 2,192,800
New Hampshire 1,409,300 1,696,500 2,698,100 4,033,700
New Jersey 6,176,800 9,474,100 19,059,900 32,410,300
New Mexico 2,058,000 2,508,000 4,077,600 6,170,400
New York 15,832,500 23,772,500 51,470,200 88,400,700
North Carolina 5,050,800 7,206,300 14,725,900 24,751,900
North Dakota 1,583,900 1,883,100 2,926,700 4,318,300
Ohio 9,555,500 14,147,900 30,167,500 51,527,100
Oklahoma 3,086,900 4,188,400 8,031,200 13,154,700
Oregon 2,429,000 3,265,800 6,184,800 10,076,800
Pennsylvania 11,029,600 16,385,000 35,066,600 59,975,400
Rhode Island 1,568,500 1,975,100 3,393,500 5,284,700
South Carolina 3,342,700 4,470,000 8,402,400 13,645,600
South Dakota 1,777,400 2,099,400 3,222,600 4,720,200
Tennessee 4,314,600 6,002,300 11,889,500 19,739,100
Texas 9,592,800 14,125,200 29,935,800 51,016,600
Utah 1,780,700 2,202,100 3,672,100 5,632,100
Vermont 1,282,200 1,466,600 2,110,200 2,968,200
Virginia 4,510,200 6,387,100 12,934,300 21,663,900
Washington 3,327,200 4,677,100 9,386,300 15,665,000
West Virginia 2,796,100 3,676,300 6,746,700 10,840,700
Wisconsin 4,388,100 6,257,700 12,779,700 21,475,700
Wyoming 1,172,700 1,328,900 1,873,700 2,600,100
Guam 1,445,500 1,477,200 1,588,000 1,735,500
Puerto Rico ,. .. 3,504,900 4,616,500 8,494,200 13,664,700
Virgin Islands 1,414,000 1,429,200 1,482,400 1,553,100
ARE THE CITIES TRAPPED IN THE WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL FUNDING GAP?
(By Raymond L. Braneroft)
(The Gulf Between Congressional Authori-
zations and Appropriations Grows Wider Each
Year as Cities Struggle to Meet Tougher
Standards.)
Hopes were high back in 1966 when
the Congress approved the Clean Waters
Restoration Act. NATION'S CITIES called
-------
1820
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
It "one of the 89th Congress' most sweeping
accomplishments."
And Indeed It was. The act called for a
steady and steep rise In federal assistance for
sewage treatment facility construction—from
$150 million In fiscal 1967 to $450 million in
1968, $700 million In 1969, $1 billion in 1970,
and $1.25 billion in 1971. Financially hard-
pressed cities and counties were enthusiastic
about the prospects of really being able—
with increased federal help—to meet the
water quality standards then being drafted
by state water agencies under the Water
Quality Act of 1965.
While the lofty money authorization levels
set in the 1966 act remain Intact, however,
the appropriations to match them have not
been made by Congress. In fact, as the table
on page 8 shows, the appropriations from
fiscal year 1967 through 1970 (including $214
million asked for '70) totals $781 million, only
a third of $2.3 billion authorized. Construc-
tion grant officials in the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration said In July
that applications for non-existent funds con-
tinue to pile up. A total of 4,648 applications
for construction grants are now languishing
in FWPCA regional offices or in state water
pollution bureaus.
The result of the lag in federal funds for
wastewater construction projects naturally
has "put the burden back on the localities"
to pay for needed projects, says Robert Can-
ham, acting executive secretary of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, a national as-
sociation representing both Industry and
government.
"This whole situation has tended to lead to
a lack of confidence by local and state officials
in what federal aid levels will be," Canham
adds. "The states are recognizing the prob-
lem where it counts .. . through their tax-
payers with the expectation of federal
assistance later."
The fact that municipalities and states are
taking up the slack in waste treatment facility
building left by inadequate federal assistance
Is borne out in a new WPCF publication,
Water Pollution Control Facts.
"The Influence of the federal grants pro-
gram for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities, even at its $214-million
per year level, assures the proper encourage-
ment of construction by municipalities," the
report states. "Witness the 1968 increase over
1967; it showed a 20 per cent increase for a
total of $1.35 billion, despite the fact that the
level of federal grants funds did not increase.
Fiscal 1970 continues at the $214 million level,
the same as fiscal 1969. At least this will
keep up the momentum."
Canham, however, wonders what will hap-
pen to the fight against water pollution when
the 1966 act's current authorization expires
in fiscal 1971, particularly if Increased federal
appropriations aren't forthcoming.
"The whole effort is bound to suffer," he
says.
In advocating that Congress appropriate
the full $1 billion authorized for fiscal 1970
construction grants, the National League of
Cities has pointed out the bind in which many
cities will find themselves If they cannot get
federal assistance.
"Local improvements must be made since
the act provides for enforcement through the
courts," said NLC President C. Beverly Briley,
Mayor of Nashville, in a letter to Presi-
dent Nixon urging his support of the full
appropriation.
"Local units will be compelled to proceed
with major improvements and expenditures
whether or not the federal government meets
its obligations. The sad product will be that
cities will be forced to clean up the water-
ways but will do so at the expense of improv-
ing housing, education, and other critical
local needs which draw upon the same re-
source base."
Already communities in Pennsylvania,
Missouri, Florida, California, and New Jersey
have faced state-imposed restrictions on fu-
ture residential and commercial construction
because of water pollution problems.
But many observers, including the NLC,
feel it is unfair for cities to be forced to com-
ply with water quality standards while many
are not able to financially meet them because
Congress has failed to appropriate funds al-
ready authorized.
Mayor Briley urged the Administration to
either support efforts to get full appropria-
tions or, if this is not possible, to modify the
schedule of compliance to permit cities a
longer period of time in which to meet water
quality standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE-HISTORY
1821
1968 MUNICIPAL WASTE INVENTORY'
Primary treatment
Secondary treatment
No treatment
Size of place 1960 census Total
plants
Under 500
500 to 1 000
1 000 to 2 500
2 500 to 5 000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 25,000
25,000 to 50,000
50,000 to 100,000 . . .
100,000 to 250,000 . .
250,000 to 500,000 . .
Over 500 000
Totals
112
261
355
623
368
279
242
106
48
35
57
22
2.468
Commu-
nities
Identi-
fiable
65
239
338
550
318
239
211
83
41
18
9
6
2.117
Population
served
6,284,805
587,361
249,101
980,302
1,110,813
2,532,269
3,453,900
3,063,100
3,374,220
3,419,215
3,307,525
15,372,410
43.735.021
Total
plants
643
1,231
1,422
2,160
1,329
961
771
258
158
97
76
77
9.183
Commu-
nities
identi-
fiable
302
1,117
1,334
1,945
1,103
781
519
166
74
39
10
9
7.399
Population
served
8,049,603
1,820,942
1,322,214
3,422,129
4,325,341
5,763,512
8,875,655
6,588,635
6,192,422
6,604,168
4,200,285
18,620,880
75.785.786
Commu-
nities
15
252
333
491
215
143
82
25
14
8
2
2
1.582
Population
served
271,725
79,640
228,444
685,556
704,898
1,649,878
1,354,855
839,075
1,071,710
1,224,070
858,905
2,305,900
11.274.656
' Includes 1962 rather than 1968 conditions for the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa,
and Arkansas.
Source: "The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic Impact," vol. 1, 1969 {preliminary data). Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
The primary reason for lack of adequate
federal financing of the 1966 Clean Waters
Restoration Act is the same given for other
domestic program appropriation lags: the
Vietnam War. Under prodding from the
budget cutters, the Administration has sent
Congress an alternative plan for financing
waste treatment plant construction. Under
the plan, the Secretary of the Interior could
enter into contracts up to 30 years in length
with a local or state government to pay the
federal share of the costs of treatment plants.
This means larger bond issues would have to
be floated and the locality or state would
have to pick up the interest on the federal
share. Federal payments to the state or local
government would be made up to 30 years to
cover that U.S. share. The National League
of Cities and other groups representing local
governments are opposed to the plan. "We
think it stinks," said one NLC staffer.
As Joe G. Moore, Jr., the former commis-
sioner of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration, expressed It at a
conference earlier this year:
"Congress . . . will again this year wrestle
with the problem of how to provide addi-
tional funds for the construction of waste
treatment facilities without appropriating
money."
David D. Dominick, Moore's successor, ex-
presses disappointment at the length of time
it took to get the alternate financing proposal
to Congress. But, he adds, "we must make
the best of a tight budget situation because
right now we are lagging in the fight for
clean water."
[p. 28978]
Dominick's FWPCA is caught in the middle
of the financing dilemma. It pushed hard for
an appropriation of $600 million for con-
struction grants in the proposed 1970 budget
but the Bureau of the Budget chopped that
request to $214 million, the same as that ap-
propriated in 1969.
"It is most important that we make every
effort in Washington to keep faith with the
states that have already begun construction
on their own," Dominick says. "We must
keep faith with the municipalities which need
additional financial assistance in order to
meet the water quality standards to which
they have agreed."
FWPCA officials in the field also feel the
pinch of congressional promises in the light
of funding realities. Richard A. Vanderhoof,
director of FWPCA's Ohio Basin Region, notes
the "clearly incompatible" nature of water
quality standards and the funds available to
meet them.
"We're making progress in water pollution
control if everyone would stand still," Van-
derhoof says. "But we must run faster. The
combination of industrial growth and mu-
nicipal growth almost puts us in a position
of status quo, particularly with the level of
funds we have available."
Although it is generally agreed that there
is a whopping backlog of unmet sewage treat-
ment needs in the U.S. (a 1967 FWPCA esti-
mate put the total at $8 billion to provide
secondary treatment for most of the urban
population), the 1969 edition of FWPCA's
-------
1822
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The Cost of Clean Water and Its Economic
Impact comes up with a much smaller back-
log estimate of less than $2 billion.
"Only a fault in basic assumptions or a
significant change in circumstances can ac-
count for the variation found to exist between
various estimates of the cost of water pollu-
tion and control," the agency report says
"It may be argued," the report continues,
"that the concept underlying almost every
cost estimate that has been made—that is,
the idea of a fixed backlog—is no longer a
valid assumption in light of the current status
of waste treatment as reflected in the 1968
Municipal Waste Inventory.
"Water pollution is a process as well as a
condition It is dynamic in its occurrence;
fluctuating in its circumstances. So water
pollution control must be flexible in its ap-
proaches; and time forms an essential ele-
ment in estimates of its cost.
"This document [the report], then, views
the municipal costs ol water pollution con-
trol within a context of dynamism. It gropes
with the question of determining an appro-
priate rate of investment rather than estab-
lishing a final cost of water pollution control.
In substituting the dynamic view for the
static one, it recognizes the disagreeable fact
that pollution control will continue to require
expenditures, that pollution cannot be ended
by spending any single sum. It loses some-
thing in apparent precision. It is felt, how-
ever, that the view compensates for any lack
of definition by bringing us closer to a man-
ageable statement of real conditions
"The changed way of looking at things
imposes a broader view and forces recogni-
tion of problems in relating federal programs
to events in such a way that the programs
will not be out of date or mis-scaled by the
time they are initiated. While all the rami-
fications of the approach are not understood,
analyses now being undertaken can be ex-
pected to yield some insights over the com-
ing year. These may be useful in recasting
legislation after the expiration of current
authorization in fiscal year 1971."
The FWPCA report also points out that
new treatment plant investments are fairly
close to the estimated need for construction
and that rates of investment for interceptors
and outfalls are very close to the level of
indicated requirement. "But sewer, replace-
ment, and expansion shortcomings seem to
be developing," it adds. "Since 1963 the con-
struction of new waste treatment plants has
been declining relative to the other major
categories of investment that qualify for
FWPCA construction grants—replacements,
additions, and installation of interceptor
sewers."
But the FWPCA notes that the decline in
new treatment projects should not be a sur-
prise. An "enormous number" of new plants
—more than 7,500—have been built between
1952 and 1967 and the great majority of the
population with sewers now receives some
sort of waste treatment.
Since only four cities over 250,000 popula-
tion (Honolulu, New Orleans, Memphis, and
parts of New York City) remain available for
initial waste treatment investments, the com-
ing investment in new plants is concentrated
in small towns. The FWPCA report says
communities under 10,000 population now ac-
count for almost half of the dollar value of
investment for new waste treatment plants,
up from slightly more than a third during
the 1952-55 period.
Estimates from the states in their program
plans indicate that municipal waste handling
investments over the 1969 through 1973 period
will amount to about $6 billion, roughly equal
to that spent over the past five years, the
FWPCA report says. It is very likely that
spending for upgrading, expansion, and re-
placement needs in 1969 will exceed the out-
lays for new plant investments. "There seem
to be great expansion and replacement needs
in cities of all sizes," the report notes.
Adding to this trend will be the need for
advanced waste treatment to meet the stricter
state water quality control standards. Ter-
tiary or advanced waste treatment is a state
goal for many Indiana communities by 1977,
is contemplated for some Ohio towns, is be-
ing phased into the Chicago system, and Is
planned for part of Long Island. Construc-
tion costs zoom upward for advanced treat-
ment facilities.
The need for advanced treatment, the in-
creased emphasis on upgrading operational
efficiency, and the need to raise operator
wages will increase operating and mainte-
nance costs of municipal waste treatment
plants "very sharply in the immediate fu-
ture," the FWPCA report notes. Already
these operating and maintenance costs total
$150 million to $200 million a year, a doubling
in the last decade.
In summarizing its findings, the FWPCA
concludes1
"It would appear, then, that there may be
a substantial gap opening between the
amount the nation expects to spend—as
measured by state program plans and by the
level of federal construction grant appropria-
tions—and the amount that will be required
to complete the connection of all sewered
places to waste treatment plants and to ex-
pand, replace, and upgrade treatment where
it now exists.
"The fact that the states as a group antici-
pate programs that will involve a level of
spending very close to that of the last six
years is a cause for major concern, despite
the major accomplishments of the last six
years.
"The findings of this report show that in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1823
vestment requirements imposed by new plant
construction, expansion, replacement and up-
grading of plants, accelerating acceptance of
industrial wastes in the municipal plant, in-
creasing levels of waste reduction being re-
quired, and the fact that a very significant
portion of needed new investment occurs in
precisely those places where cost experience
in the past has been highest, will all result
in pressing capital requirements upward sig-
nificantly for many years."
ST JOSEPH, Mo , FACES ITS FINANCIAL BIND
As an example of one city's efforts to meet
its water pollution control responsibilities,
here are excerpts from the testimony of
Mayor Douglas A. Merrifield of St. Joseph,
Mo. (pop 80,000), before the Public Works
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee June 9. He was speaking on be-
half of the National League of Cities and
U S. Conference of Mayors in support of full
funding for fiscal 1970 of the $1 billion
authorized for waste treatment project
assistance.
"In the past few years, St. Joseph has
placed in operation or put under construction
nearly $7 million worth of water and sewer
improvements. I am proud of this record,
and believe it exemplary of the efforts of
municipalities around the nation The city
is currently pushing ahead on another
$2,512,000 of construction. For this program
we have been advised that a grant of
SI.290,000 is approved as a reimbursable
grant if waste treatment funds are appropri-
ated In good faith, the city is underwriting
this new construction and advising our citi-
zens that the federal government, in due time,
will reimburse us for a portion of the im-
provement costs St Joseph has planned an-
other ambitious project, costing about $3
million, to complete its primary treatment
program However, it will be very difficult
for us to finance this project unless increased
federal aid to provide the 50" per cent match-
ing share is assured. . . .
"Municipal bond interest rates are now at
an all time high. In 1961 St. Joseph issued
local sewer bonds at a 2.98 per cent interest
rate Today municipal water and sewer
bonds are marketed at rates of 5 to 6 per cent
and more This means that debt service
charges for long term financing projects such
as waste treatment facilities will often exceed
principal payments over the life of the bond.
Despite record high interest rates, municipal
bonds are becoming more difficult to sell.
Large commercial banks, the traditional pur-
chasers of municipal bonds, cut their net
holdings of municipal bonds by nearly $1
billion in the first quarter of 1969 although
a record number of municipal bond issues
were presented for sale. . . .
"For clean water programs of the future,
even greater levels of financing will be
needed But demands for more local action
are simply not realistic unless federal support
is increased. In St. Joseph we are told that
programs of secondary sewage treatment must
be operational by 1972. I do not believe we
[p. 28979]
can construct the $4 million facility required
before 1974, and even that will be impossible
unless federal aid is available for the full 50
per cent share.
"In the distant future, the Interior Depart-
ment is calling for separation of storm and
sanitary sewers Such a program could cost
St Joseph another $13 to $15 million and is
estimated to cost between $15 billion and $30
billion nationally. My citizens will never
vote bonds for this unless there is assurance
of massive federal and state grants to back
the local effort."
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION
CONTROL COMMISSION
Concord, September 30,1969.
Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS,
U S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: Quite recently
there appeared in a National Wildlife Feder-
ation memorandum a reference to an amend-
ment which you are drafting to the Water
Quality Improvement Act. According to the
brief statement, special consideration would
be given to the "seven States" which have
prefinanced at least a portion of the Federal
share.
Although we realize it is impossible to be
acquainted with legislative action in all fifty
states, the Commission is most anxious to
have it made a matter of record that the
New Hampshire General Court passed a bill
in the 1967 session which would preflnance
the 50^7 Federal share.
As indicated in paragraph 376:1 of the en-
closed Act, this State will prefmance "a
maximum grant of ninety percent of the
original costs involved in the construction of
needed sewerage and/or sewage or waste
treatment facilities." To finance this work
over the next two years, New Hampshire's
Legislature authorized bonding in the
amount of one million, four hundred and
ninety-nine thousand dollars. State pay-
ments on all prefinanced projects will be
made over the life of the municipality's bond
issue.
We would like to conclude by pointing out
that the prefinancing of pollution abatement
facilities has also been assumed by several
New Hampshire municipalities. These com-
munities have bonded for the entire cost of
treatment works, or about 11','2 million dollars
up to the present time, with the hope that
-------
1824
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
they will be reimbursed the 50% Federal
share at a later date.
Respectfully yours,
C. W. METCALF,
Director, Municipal Services.
H.B 162
An act to aid municipalities for water
pollution control by state contribution
for costs prior to receipt of federal funds
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court convened:
376:1 Prefinancing of Federal Grant. When,
for lack of adequate federal funds at the time
of acquisition and construction of sewage
and/or waste disposal facilities by any mu-
nicipality, hereby denned as county, city,
town or village district, the state of New
Hampshire, in addition to contributions pro-
vided for under RSA 149-B, shall pay not
in excess of fifty percent of the yearly amor-
tization charges on the original costs result-
ing from the acquisition and construction of
sewage and/or waste disposal facilities by it
The word "construction" and the term "orig-
inal costs" shall have the same meaning for
the purposes of this section as they have
for the purposes of RSA 149-B. The purpose
of the additional payment as established
herein is to provide each municipality, in the
absence of federal funds, with a maximum
grant of ninety percent of the original costs
involved in the construction of needed sewer-
age and/or sewage or waste treatment
facilities.
376'2 Prefinancing of Secondary Treat-
ment. The state of New Hampshire, in addi-
tion to contributions provided for under RSA
149-B, shall pay an additional fifty percent
of the yearly amortization charges on the
original costs resulting from the acquisition
and construction of secondary treatment fa-
cilities in the cities of Concord, Lebanon,
Manchester, and Nashua, and the town of
Plymouth. The word "construction" and the
term "original costs" shall have the same
meaning for the purposes of this section as
they have under the provisions of RSA 149-B.
The purpose of the additional payment as
established herein is to provide the cities of
Concord, Lebanon, Manchester, and Nashua,
and the town of Plymouth, in the absence
of federal funds, a grant of ninety percent
of the original costs involved in the construc-
tion of secondary treatment facilities.
376:3 Appropriation. There is hereby ap-
propriated for the purposes of carrying out
the provisions of section 1 of this act and
to furnish aid provided for in RSA 149-B,
for any municipality which shall acquire or
construct sewage and/or waste disposal fa-
cilities, as authorized hereunder, the sum of
seven hundred fifty-nine thousand dollars
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
the sum of seven hundred forty thousand
dollars for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971. The sums hereby appropriated shall be
administered by the water supply and pollu-
tion control commission and shall not lapse
but shall be added to the appropriation of the
commission for any succeeding fiscal year to
be used for the purposes herein contained.
376:4 Bond Issue. For the purpose of pro-
viding funds for the appropriations made in
section 3 hereof the state treasurer is hereby
authorized, under the direction of the gover-
nor and council to borrow upon the credit of
the state not exceeding the sum of one mil-
lion, four hundred and ninety-nine thousand
dollars, and to issue bonds and notes in the
name and on behalf cf the state of New
Hampshire Said bonds and notes shall be
issued under terms, and conditions as pro-
vided by RSA 6-A, as inserted by 1967, 88:1.
376:5 Effective Date. This act shall take
effect July 1, 1969.
Approved July 2, 1969.
THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE
OF AMERICA, INC.
Washington, D C., September 30, 1969.
Hon. JOSEPH D. TYPINGS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D C.
DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: We have studied
with keen interest your proposed amendment
No. 178 to S. 7 to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act; also your remarks
which provide the background and rationale
for the amendment. We agree that the Fed-
eral Government has a moral obligation to
reimburse the 7 states (and some municipali-
ties) which prefmanced the Federal share of
construction costs for water quality treat-
ment plants—costs totalling about $300 mil-
lion It would be unfair should the Federal
Government default on this debt, and thus
penalize states which have moved ahead ag-
gressively to fulfill their responsibilities for
clean water.
The problem which your amendment would
resolve, as far as the 7 states are concerned,
is part of the larger problem which affects
all 50 states; the failure of Congress to meet
the commitment made in the Clean Water
Restoration Act of 1966 As you point out,
the 1966 Act authorized $150 million for FY
1966, $150 million for FY 1967, $450 million
for FY 1968 and $700 million for FY 1969.
Appropriations through FY 1969 have totalled
$731 million, about half the $1,450 million
authorized for that period and upon which
sum the 50 states had every reason to base
their planning.
Failures to match appropriations with au-
thorizations has seriously hurt the clean
water program, slowed the momentum built
up over the past two decades and shaken the
faith of the public in the Federal commit-
ment to clean water. This larger inequity af-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1825
fects all 50 states. Including the 7 which
preflnanced the Federal share, and it will be
compounded, if Congress fails to appropriate
the full billion dollars for FY 1970 as
authorized.
It must be noted that an appropriation of
$600 million for FY 1970, which you consider
to be likely, would be inadequate Ear-
marking the 2nd, 3rd and 4th $100 millions
to reimburse the 7 states would leave a bal-
ance of $300 million for allocation among
the 50 states, only $86 million above the
budget request figure of $214 million. This
is not enough to get the state programs back
in high gear or make much of a dent in the
2^ billion backlog of project applications.
In our judgment the direct way to resolve
the problem and eliminate inequities is for
Congress to appropriate the full 1 billion
dollars for FY 1970 and the full $1,250 million
as authorized for FY 1971 and, before the 91st
Congress adjourns, extend the program au-
thorizations beyond the end of FY 1971. It
would be logical at that time to make such
changes in the allocation formulae as are
desirable.
Such actions will enable the states to catch
up with existing backlogs, permit reimburse-
ment to the seven states and restore the faith
and confidence needed at all levels to push
on aggressively toward the clean water goal.
Sincerely,
J. W. PENFOLD,
Conservation Director.
P S.—The attached paper developed by the
National League of Cities dramatically points
to the fact that the appropriation—direct
grant method produces the greatest return
on the dollar invested in sewage treatment
facilities.
EXHIBIT 1.—ALLOCATIONS OF REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS UNDER PROPOSED TYDINGS' AMENDMENT
States
Connecticut ... .
New York
Pennsylvania
Total prefinancing
States
funds
advanced
$ 60,900,000
150,315,000
3,500,000
8,500,000
677,000
16,095,000
52,957,000
292,944,000 .
Percentage
of total
prefinancing
20.79
51.31
1.19
2.90
.23
5.50
18.08
Possible appropriations
$300,000,000
$ 62,370,000
153,930,000
3,570,000
8,700,000
690,000
16,500,000
54,240,000
$200,000,000
$ 41,580,000
102,620,000
2,380,000
5,800,000
460,000
11,000,000
36,160,000
$100,000,000
$ 20,790,000
51,310,000
1,190,000
2,900,000
230,000
5,500,000
18,080,000
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Virginia kindly withhold
his request I understand that the Sen-
ator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) wishes to
speak generally to the bill, and then I
will try to get into colloquy on the
amendment.
Mr. SPONG. I am glad to withhold
my request, and to yield to the Senator
from Kansas, but I believe the Senator
in charge of the bill has the floor.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask
[p.28980]
unanimous consent that I may yield to
the Senator from Kansas without losing
my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered, and the Sena-
tor from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise in
support of S. 7, the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969. Por the past 9
months, the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution of the Senate Public
Works Committee has worked indus-
triously to draft appropriate legislation
to prevent and control water pollution.
Of course, the Santa Barbara incident
had a dramatic effect on our delibera-
tions. After that unfortunate incident,
it became apparent there woud have to
be legislative action. This fact is made
even more apparent as we read of the
increasing size of oil tankers and the
potential threat of pollution.
Throughout our subcommittee hear-
ings, there was a wide diversity of
views presented on S. 7. All sides were
heard and after all the testimony and all
our deliberations a bill was offered that
-------
1826
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
will, in my opinion, protect the public
interest and at the same time not inhibit
the operation of the oil and maritime
industries.
Mr. President, I wish to address myself
to a specific section of the bill which is
of particular interest to me. Each year
more and more substances of great tox-
icity are transported by rail, pipeline,
truck, and boat in greater and greater
quantities. This, of course, increases the
likelihood that substances will be acci-
dentally discharged. The people of this
Nation expect the Government to be
prepared in advance to respond to such
discharges.
During the course of its consideration
of the provisions of S. 7, the committee
became aware that hazardous substances
simply could not be treated as an equiv-
alent of oil and subject to the same
provisions of liability for the cost of
removal. Two important differences
require that hazardous substances be
treated separately: First, oil is a readily
recognizable substance that is not mis-
cible with water; hazardous substances,
on the other hand, cover a tremendous
range of chemical elements and com-
pounds with various characteristics, and,
second, oil is, at least in most circum-
stances, removable from water; hazard-
ous substances, on the other hand may
or may not be. Faced with this difficult
situation, I offered an amendment to
segregate hazardous substances out of
the oil liability provisions for separate
treatment to enable a response to the
clear problem of the sudden discharge of
hazardous substances into our navigable
waterways.
The amendment I proposed, which
with certain modifications has been
adopted by the committee, provides es-
sential authority to give this Nation the
ability to respond. First, section 13 of
the bill, S. 7, provides authority and
establishes a procedure by which the
President shall designate hazardous
substances. The test established by this
provision is whether the substance,
when suddenly discharged into the wa-
ters of the United States in any quantity
presents a threat to public health and
welfare. It is necessary to avoid the use
of a subjective test such as "substantial
quantities" because the threat to health
and welfare depends on many factors
such as the characteristics of the water
into which the substances are dis-
charged; the concentrations of the sub-
stances discharged; and the nature of
the substances discharged. The bill
therefore provides that the President
shall conduct an intensive study of each
substance proposed to be designated as
hazardous including provisions for a
detailed procedure involving public par-
ticipation and recourse to the courts to
protect everyone's interest in the desig-
nation of a substance as hazardous for
the purpose of this act.
The bill further provides that the
President shall, along with designating
hazardous substances, promulgate regu-
lations, where applicable, for methods
and means of removal of said substances.
It is necessary that substantial expertise
be brought to bear on the technological
problems involved in cleanup and only
the Federal Government can respond to
this demand.
Once a substance has been designated
as hazardous pursuant to section 13, the
bill provides that for any discharge of
such substance from either a vessel or
an offshore facility any person in control
of such facility must immediately notify
the United States of such discharge.
This provision is patterned after the
notification requirement under the oil
pollution provisions and is absolutely
essential if we are to avoid damage to
downstream water users that may result
from the discharge of hazardous sub-
stances. It is also essential if remedial
measures are to be applied in time.
Because information is simply lack-
ing on what form of liability could be
imposed upon a discharger of a hazard-
ous substance, it is necessary to author-
ize the President to recommend to the
Congress, after a detailed study, meth-
ods and means of assessing liability
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1827
against those who discharge hazardous
substances. Consequently, section 13 (n)
of the bill provides that the President
submit a report to the Congress on the
need for and desirability of legislation
imposing liability for the cost of re-
moval of hazardous substances. After
this study is made, it is expected that
the Congress will be in a position to
legislate in this area.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD a
letter from the Commissioner of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration in response to information
I requested on the problem of legislating
to control the discharge of hazardous
substances. This letter includes a tabu-
lation of spills of materials other than
oil since June 1,1967 to March 1, 1969. I
think the Commissioner's letter clearly
establishes the need for legislation deal-
ing with hazardous substances.
There being no objection, the letter
and table were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTEEIOH,
FEDERAL WATEH POLLUTION
CONTROL ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., July 10, 1969.
Hon. ROBERT DOLE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR DOLE: You requested infor-
mation on the need for regulatory, rather
than study, authority in S. 7 to control haz-
ardous substances which when discharged
into waterways have adverse effect as serious
or more serious than oil on the health and
welfare, including fish and wildlife.
The joint Interior-Transportation report of
February 1968, which was devoted to the oil
pollution problem also recommended "Legis-
lation should be developed making persons
who discharge or deposit hazardous sub-
stances other than oil into the navigable
waters of the United States responsible for
removing these substances. The legislation
should empower the Secretary of the Interior
to act when such persons fail to act and to
recover the costs. Such legislation would
parallel the cleanup provisions of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924."
At that time, however, the public attention
was aimed primarily at the oil problem as
depicted by the Torrey Canyon. We had not
developed sufficient information on the need
for such control measures for other hazardous
substances. Subsequently, In October of last
year FWPCA's the North Atlantic Water
Quality Management Center in New Jersey
published a manual on emergency procedures
to control hazardous substances in the water
environment (copy enclosed).
In addition, a number of spills of hazardous
substances other than oil have begun to catch
the public's eye and concern. A list of some
of these spills is enclosed. The most dramatic
of these occurred only a few days ago. This
was the massive fish kill in the lower Rhine
River in Germany which has now been
traced to an insecticide, endosulfan, used on
vegetables, trees and other crops. It has
been reported that fish placed in the affected
water died within seven minutes. (A report
on this spill is enclosed ) We note this spill
only as an example because If it had oc-
curred in this country, we may not have
been able to do much to cleanup the spill
even with authority to do so. However, the
polluter would have been required to report
the spill and downstream users would have
had early warning in order to shut down
water supply systems and take other meas-
ures to protect public health.
1. BASED ON EXPERIENCE, IS CONTROL AUTHORITY
NEEDED?
We believe that there is a need for author-
ity to control these spills when they occur
with the best means available to us. The In-
diana chemical spill of January 1968 which
caused a fish kill of 65 miles in Buck Creek
serves to emphasize the point. A complete
report of the incident is enclosed.
The most recent spill of hazardous material
occurred on July 9, 1969, when the acid
leaching material, about 450,000 gallons, was
released into the San Francisco River where
51,000 dead fish have been counted so far in
the first four miles of the River. Additional
information on this spill is enclosed.
It should be noted that in 1968, the largest
fish kill reported occurred on the Allegheny
River, Bruin, Pennsylvania where 4,029,000
fish died A petroleum refinery lagoon over-
flowed releasing chemicals into the stream.
Suds six feet high were created as the mix-
ture flowed along the stream.
Phosphate mining operations were respon-
sible for the second greatest fish kill in 1967.
A settling basin dam broke moving a mass of
phosphate slime into the Peach River, suffo-
cating nearly one million fish along 76 miles
of the River.
2. DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
At present, it is very difficult to develop a
definition, except in the very broadest of
terms, which leaves it open to attack for
vagueness and which requires the exercise of
judgment by someone on a case-by-case
basis, that would cover presently known and
-------
1828
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
future hazardous substances. Thus, we be-
lieve that the best approach to this problem
is to establish and publish procedures for
identifying particular hazardous substances
and for developing methods of control
[p.28981]
which could be applied by the discharger and
Federal and State pollution control agencies.
Once finally published they would be en-
forced in the same manner as oil discharges.
This is the approach followed in the drafting
service furnished for you to Mr. Jorling of the
Committee staff.
The reasons for adopting this approach,
rather than defining the term, are based on
the fact that if discharged in water numerous
factors may be responsible for the concentra-
tions to be found in the critical zone and the
degree of associated water pollution hazards.
The most important factors include:
1. Quantity and type of material spilled.
2. Distance of spill from the use area.
3 Available dilution.
4. Type and nature of the water body.
5. Flow rate and tidal patterns.
6 Temperature.
7. Biodegradability and other properties of
spilled material.
8. Effect of the material or reaction com-
pounds on the water use.
The toxicity of a material may be immedi-
ately lethal or accumulative. There may also
be synergism or antagonism with substances
already in the water or a reaction with
chemicals added during treatment. The toxic
level for humans is ordinarily estimated from
results of animal experimentation and nor-
mally expressed as LDso, the single dose
which will kill one-half of the animals in the
test group. Chronic toxicity generally is not
a problem with spills since the material will
not remain in the vicinity sufficiently long
The toxicological effect of materials on
aquatic life may be direct, or indirect by pre-
cipitating changes in the environment, and Is
normally expressed as TLm, the concentra-
tion at which 50% of the aquatic animals can
survive. In cases where protection against
chronic toxicity is necessary, safety factors
of 20 or more are applied to the TLm values.
Substances in water may produce odors
directly or by reactions with other materials
through oxidation, reduction, etc. The prod-
ucts of these reactions may be more or less
odorous than the original substance. The
threshold odors of pure compounds may also
be modified by synergistic or antagonistic
effects. Taste-producing substances in water
can be absorbed by the flesh of fish, making
them inedible or at least unpleasantly
flavored.
The effect of acid and alkali spills will be
strongly influenced by the nature of the sub-
stance, degree of ionization, natural alka-
linity, dilution available in the water body,
and particular construction materials com-
prising pipes, equipment and appurtenances
coming in contact with the substance. Acids
and alkalis may be toxic to the acquatic en-
vironment, harm crops, cause corrosion, im-
part taste to drinking water or irritate the
skin of those using the water for recreational
purposes.
3. ARE CONTROL TECHNIQUES AVAILABLE?
Full information is not presently known on
effective treatment of all toxic substances,
but we do have some knowledge on this prob-
lem as explained below.
Pollution control measures are intended as
possible alternatives to denying a use until
natural conditions dissipate the spilled mate-
rial from the use area. Control measures
would normally be applied when the con-
centration is low enough to permit effective
and practical neutralization, removal or de-
struction of the pollutant. However, when
the spill occurs relatively close to the use
and the material is highly resistant to degra-
dation or cannot be rapidly dispersed, the
use may be denied until treatment measures
can feasibly be employed.
Since the present procedures are only a
guide, some judgment must be made in each
case to assure the safest course of action.
For example, it should be noted that many
of the procedures for organic compounds are
based on taste and odor controls because
these threshold ranges apparently provide a
large margin of safety compared to the toxic
levels. However, toxic levels are generally
derived from tests conducted with rats
and other animals. As to taste and odor
thresholds, there can be substantial variation
among individuals tested, conditions of the
test, and effects of other compounds present
in the water. Thus, taste and odor measure-
ments must be conducted simultaneously with
analytical measurement. If taste or odor are
not detected but the concentration is above
the maximum of the threshold range re-
ported, the water use should be shut down
and reopened only after careful considera-
tion of the actual concentration and toxico-
logical data In order to estimate a safe limit
of concentration for compounds in water
supplies where no such limit was previously
established, safety factors of 100 to 1000 were
applied to the LD50 values. In certain cases,
the water pollution control agency may de-
cide to establish a concentration limit lower
than the taste and odor thresholds shown
herein.
Carbon treatment is the primary proce-
dure recommended for removal of organic
contaminants. Effectiveness of adsorption
depends on the size and structure of the
organic molecule and other factors. How-
ever, it appears that 12 to 24 inches of fresh
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1829
activated carbon placed on top of the sand
filter beds would be the most satisfactory
treatment method for the organic materials
given in the following sheets. Exhausted
carbon is removed by backwashing the filter
and collecting the material in a screen con-
tainer. An alternate method is to slurry
powdered carbon in water and to effect re-
moval in the settling basins. Organic pol-
lutants may also be removed by oxidation
with chlorine or other oxidizing agents. Al-
though breakthrough chlorination may be
appropriate with some of the organics, carbon
adsorption appears more generally applicable,
dependable and practical.
In summary, while the state of the knowl-
edge in this area is far from perfect, we
believe that enough is known to Institute a
control program with the procedures men-
tioned above. Most importantly, such a
program must include requirements for noti-
fication of discharges of any substance so
that action can be taken to prevent adverse
effects. Early warning, even if we do not
have adequate cleanup techniques in all cases,
will significantly help to protect public health
and avoid damage to water use facilities and
in some cases protect the fish and wildlife
environment.
If we may respond further, or additional
information is required, please do not hesi-
tate to let us know.
DAVID D. DOMINICK,
Commissioner.
-------
1830
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
O)
„
o£
<
2
e
i«^
to
O»
IH"
UJ
z
a
_J
o
5
E
Of
M
Q*
HI
t<
E
fe
3
S
Remarks
.£
.a
"w
c
i
0)
>,
c
n
o
0
•o
V
"o
£
Waters al
Damages
'source
_>,
TO
3
o
"TO
S
TO
£
P
CO
CJ
o
_J
ing fly ash was
.Study of methods for handl
initiated.
e
o
o>
£
c
.s
u
to
CO
a.
5
s
Si
= ff
51
S ">
U
. .216,000 fish
killed.
Seriously
a
ra
5
01
•5
«
w
s
CJ
n
o
§
£•
3
M
JZ
re
o"
e
re
O
Mii -
!lti !
llsll!
Cyanide liberated when ch
alkaline waters. H. & H. i
water neutralize cyanide
RR. reimbursed State for
Residents of town evacu
.Material flowed over ice am
1 S
B »
K •&
o= S
eo ^.
"c
S a
•£ o
>\ H-
w C .
C 0 K
C Z 0£
3.
•s
5 Si &
s S a S
•0 t w 13 3
o o: g-5
CU TO — f
SI" S*
a ts m g£
CO O
e :
§1 ^1 ,
fsifl^. I
isgss* s
S i^Si i |
£ z
5L •*
"I TO
S- 1
— 9 re ti
O P ^ re
§ — c E
"> 'ra E —
ji2 s-g
« 0 (fl »-
ra H= re S
ha M
o S L; g -g
8 'c S § J2
•-i" i-!
•~
~S
1
re "=
>N S
(J c
g £
1 _
s -5
< 3
: £
T3 £?
C 3
~ -8
6 S
1 t
5 TO
Q 5
= ti ^
S -Q *
"1 f
Ii 1 i
-•= i i
;ii i.i i
H! IP !
. E ? -° D.-O a
& *- = T> g S 3
TO 5 40 g » « S
*P II! i
ni n« i
-j < w 5
', "™
u
•o 'E
S |
= w
re *-
OC. c
O
t — CL
E E =>
OJ 5 Q
£ i -:
3 5 ^ C
S 5 "
' (1)
; > -
2 Q>
jo s § i i
« £ re £ re
E o 15 -c i
£s 111;
'i 1 s l;
C _. I ' m
J5 E • -3 •"
5» 7 S
0|SS»?
ifllil s 1:
o> o .—
S. z u.
"
0) „ ^.2
•D .- O) *3
iT • O> >t % to
Zl a |sl
.1^ a lif.
g 0- TO .. IT 0 J
o> c *~ w C *" ra
•Ell 1 8 § o
8|« § 1^1
= 10 = rH
: «j
^ . _ 3
•a T* . « ID
C TO • iJ —
| .H ill*
E ™ : -g TJ £
0 Z . c c
O3 "O TO o
a, E S 01 <°
H -o 2 S t! >,
c c c o. ro ^
TO TO »J S i -JS
5 55Ss
: • : :
3 ' :
1 * « s
* e = >
- 0 S •
0 c ,J S
I a -s „•
c jr •»-• —
3 I S S
i I8&* |
— > o. « *•
I I'll I
I!?!1! 1
ni^ii »
iih*5 I
£l^ . ?•= =
TJ^sMSStJ^
OJ E 0 m 3 (U C
lfii:j!M
iiini|ti
£jo>CW*-ro3--, ™
Tri«fcTDOQ.Q.££
So C
C
^£ • £
^"3 g
» a - t:
"O i* TO O
s = ° s
"C 1» c >
<=os 1;
o « »
. c = " 5 .
35 H- i
1 i
s » g
^ £ >
U U. UJ
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1831
d
•a £
'« c
+rf (O
_ S
•Ss
|£
3
"cS
o
1
O)
0
I
a
«
g
K
e
i
«3
a>
a
^
* 1
C M ^
VI
_Q)
_C
2
q
5
c
i
d
«
1
"
umpscol
in
1
:
*
E *
a» «
c °
o> 2
E *
*£ c
O CD
£ 0)
0 °
C£
02
s
I
'
I
X
!s
K
C
o
vi
3
0)
C
3M > T3
2^ •— flj
ill:
I I
ME
§ s
o **-
CO"
c
TO O
2l
fl
£
o
c
c
3
1
(a
S
3
1
-------
1832
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been
suggested that the provisions of section
13 of S. 7 are contradictory to the 1965
Water Quality Act in that they provide
for the establishment of a Federal efflu-
ent standard. Such an interpretation
represents a misunderstanding of the
provisions of section 13 which like the
oil provisions of section 12 are aimed at
the sudden and unintended release of
hazardous substances into the waters of
the United States. These provisions are
not directed at the normal release of
effluents from a manufacturing or other
process. This is clearly the intent of the
committee and to interpret otherwise is
to misinterpret what the committee de-
sires to achieve.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate to
approve this bill.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. TYDINGS. 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. TYDINGS. Mr. President, my
amendment No. 178 is pending, and I
would appreciate it if I could get the
views of the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, may I
say, in response to the distinguished
Senator from Maryland, in commenting
on his amendment, that I have a great
deal of sympathy for it, especially since,
as he knows, my own State would bene-
fit from its application.
May I say, in addition, that when the
amendments of 1966 were approved, I
felt one of the most important provisions
in those amendments was the reim-
bursement provision, to which the Sen-
ator's amendment is addressed.
But let me make the third point, that
that provision was, nevertheless, geared
to the total authorizations of that bill,
which, as the Senator in his comments
has pointed out, have never been fully
funded, or even reasonably funded, I
think, since that time.
For that reason, the problem that the
Senator's amendment poses for us is
whether or not, on the basis of current
funding, or even anticipated funding,
the Senator's amendment would be a
fair allocation of the funds as between
the authorization provisions of the
public law and this reimbursement
provision.
Frankly, I do not consider myself to
be in a fair position to pass on that point,
so I would like to suggest to the Senator
two things: First, that we will hold
hearings next year, as we had planned,
on the whole question of funding the
program; second, we are hopeful, from
conversation we have had on this side
and from discussions with Members of
the House, that the waste treatment pro-
gram will be funded up to $600 million
this fiscal year.
If it is, I think we will have a strong
base in next year's hearings to ade-
quately support the principle that the
Senator is interested in. We will hold
those hearings. We had planned to hold
them, in any event. I think, if we can
get the favorable action from the Ap-
propriations Committees in both Houses
that we expect, we will be in a good
position to move next year on the reim-
bursement provision.
The distinguished Senator from New
York is also interested in this problem,
and it might be useful to engage in a
colloquy at this point.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Senator
from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. As a Senator from a
State which has half of the advance
funding, and who has always expressed
interest in such funds, naturally I would
vote with the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. TYDINGS), if it came to a vote.
We have faced this problem, and we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1833
realize that we had a pretty slippery hill
to climb in trying to allocate an appro-
priate amount with respect to expendi-
tures. So I proposed an amendment,
which I have had printed, which sought
to allow the Secretary of the Interior
to apply to reimbursable payments at
least the difference between what was
appropriated for the States and what was
actually spent by the States; that is,
what was actually left over. For exam-
ple, if $600 million had been appropri-
ated and $100 million had not been
actually spent, the net $100 million
would go to reimburse States which had
been engaged in advanced funding, a
total of 32 States actually involved.
I have conferred with the manager
of the bill on this matter and with the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS).
I hope very much the Senator from
Maryland will consider this amendment
I now propose as an interim effort in-
tended to be of some help to the 32
States concerned, which include Mary-
land, my own State, and five other
States to which the Senator from Mary-
land has referred. In addition—not in
substitution for, but in addition—to pro-
visions of existing law allowing the Sec-
retary of the Interior to apply unobli-
gated construction grant funds to proj-
ects approved under this act for which
grants have not been made because of
lack of funds, I am suggesting an alter-
native application of the funds; "or for
the purpose of making reimbursements
pursuant to the sixth and seventh sen-
tences of this subsection, or both."
The sixth and seventh sentences pro-
vide for reallotment in the way I have
described for money not actually ex-
pended, and now I am suggesting also
giving accommodation to States where
not only State funds but local funds may
have been spent in lieu of Federal funds.
Really, it expands the options of the
Secretary.
It may be that, subject to the study
which the committee may make which
may dictate a mandatory reallocation—
which incidentally I think is very prop-
erly sought by the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr. TYDINGS)—this proposal would
at least give the Secretary more latitude.
Then we would hope, in making our
presentation to the committee of the Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , that the
committee would feel persuaded that we
ought to have some provision along the
lines of what the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr. TYDINGS) has suggested.
While I favor the amendment of the
Senator from Maryland, in view of the
position of the chairman of the commit-
tee; I doubt very much that it would get
anywhere for either of us, so I would
hope perhaps that the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) could at least ex-
pand the options of the Secretary as an
interim measure. I hope the Senator
from Maryland would join me in such
substitute and then that the committee
would go ahead and study whether even
more might be done for the States which
engage in such extended forward opera-
tions.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, as the
Senator mentioned, I conferred with him
earlier. I think his amendment is a
sound one. I would be happy to join
with him in the substitution of his
amendment for mine. I think one thing
it does is put Congress clearly on record
that, as funds become available, those
States which provide an advanced fund-
ing under the Water Quality Standards
Act of 1966 will be reimbursed.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield for that purpose, I
will submit, for the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr. TYDINGS) and myself, a sub-
stitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Maryland wish to with-
draw his amendment or modify his
amendment?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I would
suggest that he leave it. Let me offer my
amendment. If it is adopted, at least he
has not compromised his position.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I will
follow the suggestion of the Senator
from New York.
-------
1834
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
substitute amendment offered by the
Senator from New York and the Sena-
tor from Maryland will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment, as follows:
On page 73, between lines 15 and 16, Insert
the following:
"SEC. 106. Section 8(c) of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act is amended In the
fourth sentence by inserting after 'because
of lack of funds' the following: 'or for the
purpose of making reimbursements pursuant
to the sixth and seventh sentences of this
subsection, or both'."
On page 73, lines 16, 19, and 23, redesignate
sections 106, 107, and 108 as sections 107, 108,
and 109, respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the substitute
amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, just a
word to express my support of the
amendment offered by the Senator from
New York and the Senator from Mary-
land. Each of our States is involved in
this problem, and I think it is a healthy
thing to reemphasize that there has
been, by this amendment, a restatement
of the moral commitment which I think
we have made. I am delighted to sup-
port the amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the Javits-
Tydings substitute amendment for the
original Tydings amendment.
[p.28983]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the distin-
guished chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now recurs on the amendment
of the Senator from Maryland as
amended by the substitute amendment.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
* * * * »
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 7) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
sent a technical amendment to the desk,
which I now call up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Maine will be stated.
The bill clerk read the amendment, as
follows:
On page 44, line 4, after the period insert
the following:
"In the case of any action pursuant to this
subsection such insurer or other person shall
be entitled to invoke all rights and defenses
which would have been available to the
owner or operator if an action had been
brought against him by the claimant, and
which would have been available to him If
an action had been brought against him by
the owner or operator.".
On page 57, line 4 strike out "and".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, since
reporting S. 7 it has come to the atten-
tion of the committee, as a result of cor-
respondence from the British maritime
insurance underwriters, that the liabili-
ties provided in this legislation will be
uninsurable unless the insurer or person
providing evidence of financial respon-
sibility, as required by subsection(f)(2),
is specifically guaranteed the same
rights as available to the owner or
operator of a discharging vessel. The
amendment which I am now offering
carries out that purpose and has the
same defenses as would have been avail-
able in an action between the insurer
and the vessel.
The committee intended that the in-
surer have the same rights and defenses
as an owner or operator. This amend-
ment is technical to the extent that it
clarifies the committee intent. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1835
committee wants to make absolutely
certain that the liabilities established in
this legislation are not made uninsur-
able by a misunderstanding of the legis-
lative intent.
I move the adoption of the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
[p. 28984]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator from Maryland.
AMENDMENT NO. 205
Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator
from Maine for yielding to me.
I call up my printed amendment No.
205, which is a very simple amendment.
It merely provides for a further oppor-
tunity for the public to participate,
where that is appropriate, in the process
of the granting of a license or an appli-
cation, or of some change in an applica-
tion or a license, and that when proper
demand is made, with proper notice,
there shall be a right of public hearing.
That is really all that the amendment
provides, and I think it is so simple and
so consistent with what we have been
trying to do in every area of govern-
ment, which is to provide, for the
public interest, that there be a valid ex-
planation or defense, that I respectfully
solicit the support of the Senate for this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator wish to call up his amendment
at this time?
Mr. MATHIAS. I call up the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The BILL CLERK. The Senator from
Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) proposes an
amendment (No. 205) as follows:
On page 62, line 25, after "cation," Insert
"and after providing an opportunity to inter-
ested persons for a public hearing.".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I
understand the amendment of the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maryland, it
would apply to section 16 (c), which re-
quires that there be State certification of
compliance with water quality standards
on any application for a Federal license
or permit. What the Senator from
Maryland would propose is that a public
hearing be held, or be required, in any
State involving certification of such an
application.
Mr. MATHIAS. If interested persons
so request.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. I think
it is a reasonable amendment, Mr. Presi-
dent; indeed, I compliment the Senator
on offering it. It has been the general
thrust of the committee's approach to
this problem to require public hearings,
so that interested members of the public
as well as the parties directly involved
could have an influence upon the public
policy that is developed.
So I am happy to support the amend-
ment in behalf of the committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I rise to
voice my support to the amendment
offered by the distinguished junior Sen-
ator from Maryland.
An important step forward in the pre-
vention of water pollution would be
taken in the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969 by requiring federally
licensed facilities to obtain State cer-
tification that water quality standards
will be met before a construction or
operating license is issued.
The amendment before us will
-------
1836
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
strengthen the certification process pro-
vided in the legislation by permitting a
public hearing to be held at the request
of an interested party before certifica-
tion is granted. One of the primary
purposes of this proposal is to deal with
the unique problem of thermal pollution
from nuclear reactors. Since the Atomic
Energy Commission has no jurisdiction
to consider environmental effects in its
licensing function, the potential hazards
of thermal discharges have not received
adequate preinstallation consideration.
Consequently, in order to provide the
fullest opportunity for expert analysis
of this problem, provision for a public
hearing is absolutely necessary.
Although all of the States have
adopted or are in the process of adopting
temperature standards, there is still
much to be learned in terms of the ef-
fect on the reproductive cycle of fish and
the development of slime and aquatic
weeds through the diminution of dis-
solved oxygen in the water. A report by
a special committee on nuclear dis-
charges appointed by Lake Michigan
area States and the U.S. Department of
the Interior states:
Because of relatively limited attention to
thermal pollution in the past, there are few
experts in the disposal of waste heat and
many gaps in knowledge of behavior of waste
heat in receiving waters, of its effects on
water quality and uses, and of the most effi-
cient and economical methods of disposal
without damage to the aquatic environment.
For example, methods of calculating the pat-
terns that will be assumed in lake waters by
heated water discharges, and the rates of
cooling that may be anticipated in the receiv-
ing waters are in the developmental stage.
Much additional research will be necessary
before it will be possible to predict with as-
surance what heated water will do when dis-
charged to a lake.
Probably one of the most uncertain
factors is the quantitative effect of many
nuclear powerplants. By 1980, it is esti-
mated that 30 percent of the Nation's
generating capacity will come from nu-
clear power. At present, in Michigan,
there are two operable nuclear plants
with five more in the planning and con-
struction stages. Also, within the next
10 to 15 years there may be as many as
10 nuclear plants discharging into Lake
Michigan. Thus, the almost certain
large increase in nuclear facilities is
reason enough for close scrutiny of each
proposed plant.
Mr. President, I believe that the pro-
posed amendment will improve the pro-
visions in S. 7 and, by not requiring a
hearing in every instance, will not un-
duly hamper the certification process.
I might point out that Michigan is one
of several States which requires that
proposed uses of State waters meet
applicable water standards and which
provides for public hearings before
approval of the use is granted. The
success and feasibility of Michigan's
statutory scheme emphasizes the need
to insure that all State pollution stand-
ards are adhered to before any damage
has occurred.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment (No. 205) of the Senator from
Maryland.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. What is
the will of the Senate?
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which my
amendment (No. 205) was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is
the will of the Senate?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. ELLENDER. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Public Works of the
Appropriations Committee of the Sen-
ate, I have under my jurisdiction the
duty of providing funds for the Atomic
Energy Commission. A question has
lately arisen about pollution that may
result from the construction of atomic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1837
powerplants throughout the United
States.
My question is whether or not this bill
is broad enough to require that those
who apply for a license to construct a
nuclear plant will be regulated under
the bill now before us.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; they will be sub-
ject to regulation under the bill, but I
think I ought to go into a little bit of
detail on that, so that the Senator may
fully understand how it does so.
Under section 16 (c) (1) there is a re-
quirement, on page 62 of the bill, which
reads as follows:
Any applicant for a Federal license or per-
mit to construct or operate any facility or to
conduct any activity which may result in any
discharge into the navigable waters of the
United States shall provide certification from
the State in which the discharge originates or,
if appropriate, the interstate water pollution
control agency to the licensing or permitting
agency and notice thereof to the Secretary
that there is reasonable assurance that such
facility or activity will comply with appli-
cable water quality standards.
In order to trigger that provision of
the bill, may I say to the Senator, it is
necessary that the States develop water
quality standards applicable to this
problem. The States have not, up to this
point, done so, as they would need to do
if we are really to come to grips with the
problem which concerns the Senator. It
seems to us that this is the machinery
which we ought to get started on this
problem.
Under the water quality setting
standards of the 1965 act, the Secretary
can apply pressure, especially following
this mandate, upon the States to develop
those standards, and once such stand-
ards are developed, they are subject to
the Secretary's approval, and then sub-
ject to enforcement under the 1965 act,
first by the States, but ultimately by the
Secretary.
So there will be a little time involved,
[p.28985]
but this legislation will be effective so
that, at some point in the not too distant
future, it will begin to bite.
Mr. ELLENDER. But the states, as
the Senator has stated, would first have
to act?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. ELLENDER. They would have to
set State standards?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; most of the States
may now have legislation adequate to
such standards. I think they do, under
the 1965 act.
Mr. ELLENDER. As the Senator may
know, I understand that of the 17 or 18
plants that have been completed, some
have been closed down because of the
fact that there was in indication that
water in the neighborhood, or even in
the general environment of the place,
was becoming polluted from the opera-
tion of such atomic-powered electric
powerplants; and it would seem to me
that we ought to place in this bill, if it
is not already there, language which
would permit the Federal Government
to step in, in order to prevent the con-
struction of powerplants from which
there may result pollution, as a result of
either their construction or their opera-
tion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is my
best judgment, and I so state to the Sen-
ator, that I think that we have written
that kind of provision into the act,
though there will be the inescapable
time delay to which I have referred.
May I point out to the Senator that
the provision of the bill I read applies
to the construction or operation of plants
that are subject to Federal license or
Federal permit. There are other forms
and other sources of thermal pollution,
to which the Senator has addressed him-
self which are not subject to Federal
permit or license.
Large industrial plants also discharge
heated water into streams. There are
coal- and oil-fired plants which do the
same. Since those plants do not require
Federal licenses or permits unless the
construction is under the authority of
the Corps of Army Engineers, there will
be a great deal of thermal pollution in
this country that will not be subject to
-------
1838
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the provisions of the act.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, why
would it not be advisable to cover that
phase of the problem?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
States could, under their water standard
setting authority, act in the matter. It is
our hope that under this example set by
the Federal Government they will act to
cover other forms of thermal pollution
within their borders.
I think we will have to keep putting
pressure on.
I point out to the Senator, whose
dedication I have learned to respect,
that, sitting as he does on the Appro-
priations Committee, he is in perhaps a
more effective position than I am to
watch the implementation of the policy
upon the nuclear powerplants.
I urge him to do so. I welcome en-
thusiastically his interest in this matter
as I know of his influence.
We are trying to do our job on the
legislation, but I welcome the interest
of the Senator in it.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
have set hearings for next week. Mem-
bers of the AEC will be present to testify
as to the plants already in existence.
Unless we are certain of the environ-
mental effects of these nuclear plants,
some day we may find that we have
created a monster. Before the matter
goes too far, I am very hopeful that we
will be able to do something about it.
I understand that the discharge in some
areas is very bad and that it contami-
nates not only the water but also the air.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
As I think I told the Senator in con-
versation the other day, we had testi-
mony in a hearing before our committee
that as much as 50 percent of the flow of
a river might be necessary to cool the
discharge from one of these nuclear
powerplants.
[p. 28986]
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 7) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I have
an amendment at the desk, and I ask
that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 66, line 6, strike out the word
"two" and insert "three"; and in line 7, strike
out the word "two" and insert "three".
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, under
section 16 (c) (6) it is provided that for
any facility being constructed under a
Federal license on the date of enactment
of S. 7, no certification under section
16 (c) (1) is required for any Federal op-
erating license necessary for such facili-
ties, if such operating license is issued
within 2 years following the date of en-
actment. The subsection further pro-
vides that after 2 years, the licensee
must provide certification or see its op-
erating license terminate.
This provision is directed principally
at facilities licensed under the Atomic
Energy Act and is designed to require
those facilities to comply with applicable
water quality standards particularly as
they relate to thermal pollution. This
objective is laudible and I support it.
However, the 2-year period of time for
facilities being constructed to revise
their specifications is possibly too short.
The installation of facilities necessary to
achieve compliance with water quality
standards involves millions of dollars
and requires considerable time for de-
sign and construction. I, therefore, sub-
mit, and the basis of my amendment
is, that the 2-year time period in order
that facilities under the provisions of
subsection 16 (c) (6) be given added time
to achieve necessary compliance.
I think this amendment is necessary
to avoid undue hardship while at the
same time achieving compliance with
water quality standards. The amend-
ment would merely extend the time 1
year.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
It is my hope that the distinguished
chairman of the committee, who is in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1839
charge of the bill, will see fit to accept it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
discussed this amendment with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Nebraska and
the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. BOGGS) . It does not in any
way change the thrust of this provision
of the bill or the principle underlying it.
It is a question of allowing more time
for plants that began their construction
before the date of enactment of this bill
to adjust to its requirements. I have no
objection to the amendment.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distin-
guished Senator very much.
I ask for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Nebraska.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 132—
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 132, and I ask
unanimous consent that the names of
the following Senators be added as co-
sponsors of the amendment: Mr. MUSKIE,
Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BROOKE,
Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CASE,
Mr. CHURCH, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. DODD,
Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. GOODELL, Mr. GRAVEL,
Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HART, Mr. HARTKE, Mr.
HOLLINGS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JAVITS, Mr.
KENNEDY, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. McGEE,
Mr. McGovERN, Mr. MC!NTYRE, Mr. MON-
DALE, Mr. Moss, Mr. PELL, Mr. PROXMIRE,
Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. WILLIAMS of New
Jersey, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 132
On page 69, line 7, in lieu of "(k)" in-
sert "(1)".
On page 72, between lines 8 and 9, insert
the following' "(j)(l) The Secretary shall.
after consultation with appropriate local,
State, and Federal agencies, public and pri-
vate organizations, and interested individuals,
as soon as practicable but not later than two
years after the effective date of this subsec-
tion, develop and issue to the States for the
purpose of adopting standards pursuant to
section 10 (c) criteria reflecting the latest sci-
entific knowledge useful in indicating the
kind and extent of effects on health and wel-
fare which may be expected from the pres-
ence of pesticides in the water in varying
quantities. He shall revise and add to such
criteria whenever necessary to reflect de-
veloping scientific knowledge.
"(2) For the purpose of assuring effective
implementation of standards adopted pur-
suant to paragraph (1) the Secretary shall,
in consultation with appropriate local, State,
and Federal agencies, public and private or-
ganizations, and interested individuals, con-
duct a study and investigation of methods
to control the release of pesticides into the
environment, which study shall include ex-
amination of the persistency of pesticides in
the water environment and alternatives
thereto. The Secretary shall submit a report
on such investigation to Congress together
with his recommendations for any necessary
legislation within two years after the effective
date of this subsection "
On page 72, line 9, in lieu of "(j)" In-
sert "(k)".
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in a re-
cent grim scenario, a noted ecologist,
Dr. Paul Ehrlich, projects the end of the
[p. 28987]
oceans as a significant source of life in
10 years. Mass starvation of mankind
follows, then war.
Dr. Ehrlich says if present trends con-
tinue, such a disastrous end to life on
earth could be perilously near.
Not surprisingly, pesticides were a key
part of Dr. Ehrlich's setting for disaster.
As the first dramatic danger signal of the
threat to life in the sea, the ecologist
cites the report in 1968 that DDT slows
down photosynthesis in marine plant
life.
In his article in Ramparts magazine,
Dr. Ehrlich spells out the implications:
It was announced in a short paper in the
technical journal, Science, but to ecologists
it smacked of doomsday. They knew that all
life in the sea depends on photosynthesis, the
chemical process by which green plants bind
the sun's energy and make it available to
living things And they knew that DDT and
similar chlorinated hydrocarbons had pol-
luted the entire surface of the earth, includ-
ing the sea.
-------
1840
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Events moved inexorably from that
point on in the Ehrlich scenario, with
pesticides continuing to play a major
role. Through the present, all events he
cites are fact. For the future, he bases
his conjecture on current trends.
Implausible to project the end of the
oceans and man in 10 years? There
have been too many "implausibles" or
"impossibles" in this century that have
come true: World War I, World War II,
the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb,
the war in Vietnam, the riots in Ameri-
can cities and universities, the assassi-
nation of a President, a candidate for
President, and an international civil
rights leader. One can readily under-
stand the perceptive comment of Nobel
Prize Winning Biologist Dr. George
Wald that today's youth are the first
generation that believes, and with good
reason, that there may be no future.
And as we move into the last third of
the 20th century, it has become dramati-
cally clear that the danger we face from
the destruction of the habitat and life
support systems of man by overpopula-
tion and pollution is as great as that
from nuclear holocaust.
Only a short time ago, anyone discuss-
ing our environmental problems could
not have thought to include pesticides as
a major threat. Like other technological
innovations that have brought shocking
byproducts, pesticides have come into
being and then into mass use with stun-
ning speed.
DDT DISCOVERED
For instance, DDT was first formu-
lated in 1874. But its properties as an
insecticide were not discovered and put
into use until World War II. Almost
immediately, DDT became known as the
miracle insecticide that helped control
tropical disease and win the war.
Since then, thousands of millions of
pounds of DDT and other synthetic
pesticides have been applied to millions
of acres to regulate economic plant or
animal populations, to protect food and
fibre crops, reduce vectors of disease,
and abate pest nuisances.
Their fame spread as did their use.
Billions upon billions of pests have fallen
victim to their dust, spray, or powder.
But new strains of pests developed
with increased resistance to DDT and
other common pesticides.
Too often, instead of seeking more
effective, more selective means of pest
control, the reaction of many users has
been to apply more, perhaps two, three,
10 times as much, to overcome the pest's
newly attained resistance.
Today, nearly 900 million pounds of
pesticides, including insecticides, herbi-
cides, fungicides, rodenticides, and fumi-
gants, are sold annually in the United
States alone, more than 4 pounds for
every American. Last year, the sales
of pesticides increased some 10 percent
over the previous year, and by 1985, it
is estimated that they will increase an-
other sixfold.
Reports indicate that about 1 acre
of every 10 in America is treated with
an average of nearly 4 pounds of pesti-
cides every year.
And in little over 25 years, DDT and
other pesticides have been spread by the
soil, wind, the tide, and the chain of life
itself to the farthest reaches of the
earth. This and other highly persistent,
mobile pesticide compounds are now
one of the most easily distinguishable
marks of the presence of man.
GLOBAL CONTAMINATION
Six years ago, two U.S. scientists hy-
pothesized that the entire globe may
already have been contaminated by
DDT. To find out, they went to Antarc-
tica. If any area of the world were
to be free of pesticide residues, it would
be that isolated continent, where there
are no pests, few animals or plants, and
where the nearest pesticide use is thou-
sands of miles away.
The scientists found pesticide residues
in four of 16 Adelie penguin they tested,
four of 16 Wedell seals, and 15 of 16
skuas—a sea bird. The evidence was
inescapable. Worldwide pesticide con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1841
tamination was confirmed.
Another scientist, who measured resi-
dues in the Antarctic snow melt, esti-
mated that over the last two and a half
decades, about 2,600 tons of DDT could
have accumulated in the Antarctic snow
and ice.
Scientists have yet to discover exactly
how DDT and other pesticides have
spread so far, so fast. But some things
are clear: DDT, with a half life of 10
years, is remarkably hard to break down,
especially in the natural environment
where nature has not developed the
means to decompose the synthetic com-
pound. And pesticides such as DDT and
Dieldrin are highly mobile, able to travel
through the environment by any num-
ber of means.
The pesticide residues tend to con-
centrate to progressively higher levels
when they are picked up around the
globe by tiny organisms, then passed up
the food chain.
A well-researched example of this
characteristic was documented in Cali-
fornia. In order to control a trouble-
some flying insect that was hatching
in a lake in that State, the water was
treated with the insecticide DDD—sim-
ilar to DDT—yielding a concentration of
0.02 parts per million. Plankton, which
includes microscopic waterborne plants
and animals, accumulated the DDD
residues at five parts per million. Fish
eating the plankton concentrated the
pesticide in their fat to levels from sev-
eral hundred to up to 2,000 parts per mil-
lion. Grebes, diving birds similar to
loons, fed on the fish and died. The
highest concentration of DDD found in
the tissues of the grebes was 1,600 parts
per million.
If it were simply a case of another
compound sprawling over the earth like
dirt or air, there might be little cause for
concern. But the implications of the
pervasive pesticide accumulation are far
more serious.
ACTIVE AGAINST LIFE
Dr. Charles Wurster, an organic chem-
ist and nationally known pesticide ex-
pert assisting the Environmental Defense
Fund, likens the pesticide spread to mass
use of biocides, agents which are known
by scientists as "active against life."
"In general, if an organism has nerves,
DDT or Dieldrin can kill it," Wurster be-
lieves. He says the action of other hard,
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides such
as Aldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor and Toxa-
phene is similar. Thus, Wurster says
these compounds "are toxic to almost
the entire animal world."
During a recent conference on pesti-
cides in Stockholm, evidence was pre-
sented that DDT, even in very small
quantities, could affect human metabo-
lism. One of the studies cited was Rus-
sian research that indicated that workers
whose jobs bring them in contact with
DDT and other organochlorine pesticides
were found to suffer from changes in the
liver which slowed down the elimination
of wastes from the body.
A major study published this summer
by the National Cancer Institute found
that at least 11 pesticides out of 123
chemical compounds tested induced a
significantly increased incidence of tu-
mors in laboratory animals. The 11
tumorigenic compounds included five
insecticides p.p' -DDT, Mirex, bis (2-
chlorethyl) -ether, chlorobenzilate and
strobane; five fungicides PCNB, Avadex,
Ethyl selenac, ethylene thiourea, and bis
(2-hydroxyethyl) dithiocarbamic acid
potassium salt; and one herbicide N-
(hydroexthyl) hydrazine.
While the researchers have reserved
judgment on whether these pesticides
should be considered as a potential cause
of cancer, it appears very certain that
growing concern about the threat of pes-
ticides to human health is entirely
warranted.
In 25 years, then, we have turned loose
on the earth a massive dose of com-
pounds that can cripple or kill, and
which are tragically indiscriminate in
their attacks. When DDT is applied to
do one job, it lingers and accumulates in
the environment as a toxic threat to fish,
-------
1842
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
wildlife, and possibly even to man.
Already, the petrel of Bermuda, the
bald eagle and peregrine falcon of Amer-
ica and the blue shell crab of the sea
are each being pushed to the brink of
extinction by the spread of pesticides
through our environment.
Like so many other environmental
disasters, it is shocking that this has
happened. But what is almost beyond
belief is that, even from the beginning,
the pesticide dangers were known.
The fact that DDT would kill wildlife
was determined in 1945, the same year
[p. 28988]
that the pesticide was released for civil-
ian use. The discovery was made by
wildlife biologists working in U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture studies.
From that point on, scientific concern
continued to mount worldwide, but, un-
fortunately, the debate simmered out of
the public eye for almost two decades.
"SILENT SPRING"
Then, in 1962, came a dramatic turn-
ing point: The New Yorker magazine
serialized a book by a lady biologist in
the U.S. Department of Interior that
brought home to the public for the first
time the rapidly building dangers from
pesticide misuse. The book was "Silent
Spring," by Miss Rachel Carson.
Challenging the myth that pesticides
were the panacea that they were being
proclaimed, Miss Carson said:
As crude a weapon as the cave man's club
has been hurled against the fabric of life.
Translated into 30 languages, the book
was read by millions in the United States
and around the world. Almost single-
handedly, it bridged the gap between the
scientist and the concerned citizen which
so often exists in our complex society
today.
In 1963, Miss Carson testified before
the Senate Government Operations
Committee, chaired by our colleague
Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF.
Also in 1963, a report by the Presi-
dent's Science Advisory Committee,
chaired by Jerome Wiesner, concluded
that the goal of our national efforts
should be "elimination of the use of per-
sistent toxic insecticides."
In the following Congress, I initially
introduced legislation to ban the inter-
state sale and shipment of DDT. I
subsequently introduced the same legis-
lation in the 90th and 91st Congresses,
and similar measures have since been
introduced in the House. During the
past three Congresses, no committee
hearings have been held on these
proposals.
However, interest around the country
in achieving effective pesticide controls
continued to build, and there was grow-
ing citizen impatience with the failure
of State and Federal agencies to act.
Yet, despite the urgent warnings and
concern, our government agencies have
failed miserably to respond responsibly
to this massive problem. Not a single
Federal office has taken any significant
action that would lead to the goal of
"eliminating" the use of persistent toxic
pesticides that was established 6 years
ago by the Presidential committee.
AGENCIES INEFFECTIVE
The fact is that the Federal Govern-
ment has been perpetuating this grave
environmental and health problem,
rather than resolving it.
It was recently revealed that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which is
charged with regulating pesticide use,
has been sponsoring a program with the
Air Force and other Government agen-
cies under which 250,000 pounds of diel-
drin has been applied to 56 military and
civilian airports across the country over
the past 15 years.
This program, which has raised stren-
uous objections from scientists, was
twice reviewed and approved by the
interdepartmental Federal Committee
on Pest Control.
The committee, which is billed as the
regulator of Federal pesticide use, re-
cently confirmed that the General Serv-
ices Administration and the Office of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1843
Capitol Architect have not even sub-
mitted their pesticide programs to the
committee for review.
Clearly, the Federal effort at regulat-
ing itself has been as ineffective as has
the regulation of pesticide use at large.
Ironically, a number of States, as well
as several foreign countries, have shown
far greater willingness to act than the
U.S. Government. DDT has been banned
by the States of Michigan and Arizona,
and overseas, by Denmark and Sweden.
And countless cities and towns have
stopped using DDT in their mosquito
control and tree disease eradication pro-
grams. In addition, a number of States,
including Wisconsin, and California, are
considering steps to drastically restrict
the use of DDT and other hard pesticides
within their borders.
These recent State and local measures
are a reflection of the citizen demand
for action that has been building at a
heartening pace.
For instance, the idea of creating an
Environmental Defense Fund grew out
of a suit filed in April 1966, against the
Suffolk County Mosquito Control Com-
mission, by Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., a
young lawyer, on behalf of his wife,
Carol, and all other people of Suffolk
County, Long Island. The court chal-
lenge was based on a report that a DDT
dumping by commission employees was
the cause of a fish kill in a nearby lake.
The New York suit was successful in
leading to a temporary ban on the use of
DDT in Suffolk County by public agen-
cies, and gained public recognition as one
of the first attempts to argue that the
citizen has the right under law to pro-
tect his environment.
Then in November of 1967, the Envi-
ronmental Defense Fund brought its first
court action in its own name, seeking to
prevent the use of dieldrin in a Japa-
nese-beetle control project in Michigan
by the Michigan and U.S. Departments
of Agriculture. Several Michigan Con-
servation Department affidavits, includ-
ing one holding that the spraying would
threaten Lake Michigan's new coho sal-
mon fishery, were disallowed on a
technicality when the State attorney
general's office refused to let the depart-
ment officially enter the case. The tragic
results of pesticide misuse for the coho
were to become evident 3 years later.
In the Michigan suit, Yannacone got
a temporary order from the State court
of appeals to stop the dieldrin spraying,
but this injunction was dissolved after
a 6-hour trial.
WISCONSIN DDT HEARINGS
One year later, the battleground
shifted to the other side of Lake Michi-
gan, to Madison, Wis., where citizen
groups and the Environmental Defense
Fund joined forces in a petition asking
the State Department of Natural Re-
sources to ban the use of DDT in the
State under any circumstances where
the pesticide can enter world circulation
patterns and further contaminate the
biosphere. With EDF, the petitions
groups were the Citizens Natural Re-
sources Association of Wisconsin and the
Wisconsin division of the Izaak Walton
League.
In the State hearing which began last
December, the Alliance of Concerned
Scientists and Lawyers presented ex-
tensive testimony outlining the growing
pollution of the environment by persist-
ent pesticides in the chlorinated hydro-
carbon family.
Dr. Robert W. Risebrough, an environ-
mental scientist at the University of
California at Berkeley, stated that the
effect of pesticides on man may be very
serious. He said that man accumulates
12 parts per million of DDT in his fatty
tissues before the body discharges it. He
said that this is enough to stimulate en-
zyme production, which acts as a cata-
lyst for bodily processes, such as
digestion. Risebrough added that the
death of some birds has been traced to
enzyme induction by DDT, impairing
their ability to reproduce.
Dr. Charles F. Wurster, Jr., an organic
chemist at the State University of New
York, Stonybrook, testified on the range
-------
1844
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the pesticide residues through the
world.
Other witnesses have testified that
DDT goes into the atmosphere along with
evaporating water, builds up to ex-
tremely high levels in predator birds and
animals, and has caused new insect prob-
lems by killing predators that once held
those insects in check.
Dr. Joseph Hickey, a University of
Wisconsin wildlife ecologist, said that
DDT has been linked to reproduction
failures of certain birds, including the
eagle, the osprey, and the peregrine fal-
con. Dr. Hickey and other researchers
have traced the presence of pesticide
residues to a decrease in weight and
thickness of the shells of eggs produced
by these birds.
In related testimony, Lucille Stickel,
the pesticide research coordinator of the
Interior Department's Patuxem Wildlife
Research Center, stated that the pres-
ence of small quantities of DDT and its
derivative DDE in the diets of mallard
ducks decreased eggshell thickness, in-
creased egg breakage, and decreased
overall reproductive success.
Although the second half of the hear-
ings, held last spring, was billed as the
time for the defense against the argu-
ments of the environmentalists, the
pesticide industry, which historically has
promoted more pesticide use and fought
new controls, made a weak defense.
Industry witnesses who were knowl-
edgeable about the environmental impact
of pesticides were few and far between.
Instead, defense witnesses relied on
shopworn repetitions of the past tri-
umphs of DDT and trotted out research
from a decade ago which purported to
show that the health of pesticide workers
was not impaired by constant exposure
to the compounds.
In fact, witnesses for the defense often
provided the environmentalists with val-
uable evidence to support their conten-
tions. For example, a Shell Development
Co. scientist confirmed the fact that DDT
does not remain in the soil, but has a
great deal of mobility and persistence
which enables it to infiltrate the at-
[p. 28989]
mosphere, the waters, and the total
environment.
Another witness for the DDT defense,
a U.S. Department of Agriculture pesti-
cide official, admitted that his agency
relies almost totally on industry claims
regarding health and environmental
effects.
An initial decision on the environ-
mentalists' petition is expected before
the end of this year.
COHO SALMON SEIZED
Midway through the Wisconsin hear-
ings, a new and dramatic confirmation
of pesticide dangers was announced to
Wisconsin and the Nation: The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration was seizing
28,150 pounds of frozen Lake Michigan
Coho salmon because it said high DDT
and dieldrin residues had made the fish
unfit for human consumption.
According to the FDA, the concentra-
tion of DDT in the salmon was found to
be up to 19 parts per million, while the
accumulation of dieldrin was just short
of 0 3 of a part per million, both levels
considered hazardous by the FDA and
the World Health Organization.
The contamination of the Coho cnal-
lenges a basic foundation of the pesti-
cide argument that has been sounded for
a quarter of a century—that pesticide use
is invariably an economic benefit, that is
to say, an "economic" poison.
One might ask the commercial fisher-
man who sees the Coho salmon as a great
new opportunity in a lamprey-ravaged
Great Lakes fishery whether the current
pesticide approach is "economic." One
might also ask the same question of the
resort owner in northern Michigan who
saw his business skyrocket with the in-
troduction of the salmon in Lake Michi-
gan in 1965.
One might ask the economic benefit
question of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, which during the 1966
EOF suit attempted to warn of the dan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1845
ger to the Coho, and which has invested
millions of dollars to plant Coho salmon
fry in Lake Michigan only to see nearly
a million of the fry killed by the pesticide
contamination. And, finally, one might
ask the economic effects if the national
recreation resource of the Great Lakes,
enhanced by millions of State and Fed-
eral tax dollars, is further damaged by
the pesticide peril to the salmon and
other lake resources, including the very
quality of the water itself.
Ironically, the Lake Michigan Water
Pollution Conference in 1968 was warned
that the pesticide concentration in Lake
Michigan was at the crisis point. W. F.
Carbine, Great Lakes Regional Director
for the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
stated:
Lake Michigan has the highest concen-
tration of pesticides of any of the Great
Lakes, which now are only slightly below
levels that are known to be injurious to man
or aquatic life. ... A continuation at high
levels or an upsurge in pesticide application
in the Lake Michigan Basin could increase
the pesticide concentration prevailing in the
open lake from the present non-lethal level
to a lethal value.
The evidence is already clear that for
the United States, the Lake Michigan
tragedy is only the beginning. On June
17 of this year, 52 cases of jack mackerel,
caught on the west coast, were confis-
cated in New York by the Food and Drug
Administration because of high DDT
levels. The mackerel appeared to be the
first ocean fish from American waters to
be declared unfit for human food because
of DDT.
In several central and northern New
York lakes, lake trout have either been
eliminated, or their reproduction seri-
ously impaired, because of high pesti-
cide levels. DDT concentrations in the
lake trout of up to 3,000 parts per mil-
lion in the fatty tissues have already
been reported.
NATIONAL PESTICIDE SURVEY
A 2-year national pesticide study re-
cently completed by the U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife found DDT
in 584 —of 590 samples of fish taken from
45 rivers and lakes across the United
States.
The study results showed DDT rang-
ing up to 45 parts per million in the
whole fish, a count more than nine times
higher than the current FDA guideline
level for DDT residues in fish.
Residues of DDT reached levels higher
than the FDA's temporary limit of five
parts per million in 12 of the rivers and
lakes, including the Hudson in New
York; the Delaware; the Cooper in South
Carolina; St. Lucie Canal and the Apa-
lachicola in Florida; the Tombigbee in
Alabama; the Rio Grande in Texas; Lake
Ontario; Lake Michigan; the Arkansas
and the White in Arkansas; and the Sac-
ramento in California.
Residues of dieldrin, a pesticide even
more toxic to humans than DDT, were
found in excess of the 0.3 parts per mil-
lion FDA limit in 15 rivers and lakes in-
cluding the Connecticut; the Hudson;
the Delaware; the Savannah in Georgia;
the Apalachicola; the Tombigbee; the
Rio Grande; Lake Ontario; Lake Huron;
the Illinois in Illinois; the Arkansas and
the White; the Red River in Minnesota;
the San Joaquin in California; and the
Rogue in Oregon.
In summary, the comprehensive sur-
vey found DDT in almost 100 percent of
the fish samples, dieldrin in 75 percent,
heptachlor and/or heptachlor epoxide in
32 percent, and chlordane in 22 percent.
Related research over the 4-year pe-
riod, ending in 1968, has determined that
more than 1,640,000 fish were killed by
pesticide pollution in the Nation's waters,
the result of pesticide spills or runoff and
concentration in our waters. Millions
of more fish no doubt went unborn due
to reproductive failures caused by
pesticides.
Laboratory research has proven that
pesticide levels in water, of even the low
parts per million, can be toxic to adult
fish. Levels in low parts per trillion have
been found to affect reproduction.
Already, the pesticide levels in Lake
Michigan, the most pesticide-polluted of
-------
1846
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Great Lakes, are in the low parts per
trillion range.
And findings released just this month
by the U.S. Public Health Service re-
ported the detection of pesticides in 76 of
79 samples of drinking water supplies
around the country. Although the PHS
report noted that so far the pesticide lev-
els have not exceeded recommended
permissible limits, the health service was
concerned. The PHS said:
The high frequency of occurrence and our
lack of knowledge of the long-term health
effects of this class of compounds dictate the
need for increased surveillance and research
as well as for increased recognition of the
potential ol this problem by state and local
health departments.
In summary, the already massive and
still accumulating evidence on pesticides
makes it clear that these toxic com-
pounds have become one of the most
serious problems of our environment,
and are threatening even greater world-
wide damage. Pesticides have concen-
trated to the far ends of the earth; they
are killing fish and wildlife; they have
inhibited fish and wildlife reproduction;
high pesticide residues have pushed
some fish-feeding birds and other ani-
mals to the edge of extinction, and now,
there is increasing concern and evidence
about the threats posed to man.
The problem of pesticides in the en-
vironment is showing up most dramati-
cally and seriously in our rivers and
lakes. Although the bulk of pesticide
application is on land, the compounds,
especially hard pesticides like DDT and
dieldrin, are persisting long enough to be
carried by agricultural and urban runoff
into water bodies There, as I have
pointed out, they enter and are concen-
trated through the food chain of marine
life and fish-feeding birds.
There is little question that pesticides
are a grave pollution threat, one which
we have barely acknowledged, let alone
dealt with. And if we continue to delay
action to protect the environment and
man from these compounds, I am
gravely concerned for the probable
consequences.
Fortunately, there is an excellent ve-
hicle already available to us to deal with
the pollution aspects of the pesticide
problem—the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and particularly the provi-
sions added by the Water Quality Act of
1965.
PESTICIDE AMENDMENT
It is to this act which my amendment
to Senate bill 7 is directed. Most simply
stated, the amendment provides con-
gressional direction to the Secretary of
the Interior to take certain steps to deal
with water pollution problems of pesti-
cides under the authorities granted him
by the pollution control statute.
I ask unanimous consent that an
analysis of the amendment be printed
in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the analysis
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ANALYSIS OF NELSON PESTICIDE POLLUTION
AMENDMENT
Under this two-part amendment, the Sec-
retary of the Interior would utilize the au-
thorities granted him by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to deal with water
pollution caused by pesticides.
Part One directs the Secretary to develop
and issue to the states within two years
water quality criteria for all pesticides. The
criteria would list safe pesticide levels In
water for public water supplies, propagation
of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and other legitimate uses.
The criteria would be issued for the pur-
pose of setting pesticide standards as part of
the interstate water quality standards already
adopted by the 50 states for other pollutants
under Federal and state laws.
For the purpose of setting the standards,
[p. 28990]
Section IOC of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act provides that "... if the Secre-
tary or the Governor of any State affected by
water quality standards . . . desires a revision
in such standards, the Secretary may . . . pre-
pare regulations setting forth standards of
water quality to be applicable to interstate
waters. . . ."
Under this procedure, the Secretary would
ask the states to revise their interstate water
quality standards to include pesticide limits.
If a state does not act, the Secretary is au-
thorized to set the standards. Also, a state
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1847
may, on its own, request a revision of Its
standards.
In addition to serving as a basis for these
interstate water quality standards, the pesti-
cide criteria would also give the Secretary
a useful tool in ongoing and any future
federal-state pollution abatement conferences
where pesticide pollution might be occurring
As in the case with present water quality
standards, responsibility for enforcing the
pesticide standards would rest primarily with
the states under an implementation plan
adopted by each state as part of the standards.
In the setting and implementing of the
standards. Federal law provides that consid-
eration must be given to their practicability
and physical and economic feasibility.
Means of implementing the standards could
include: state administrative or legislative
action to restrict the use of a pesticide pol-
lutant statewide or in the affected watershed;
interstate action; integrated pest control; use
of less persistent pesticides; development of
agents to decompose pesticides; and blode-
gradability and toxicity standards on the
pesticides themselves.
Part Two of the amendment directs the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies and other con-
cerned parties, to conduct a study on meth-
ods of controlling the release of pesticides
Into our nation's lakes and rivers and the
environment. The study will include ex-
amination of the persistence of pesticides In
the water and alternatives thereto. Within
two years, the Secretary will submit a report
on this study to Congress, together with
his recommendations for any necessary
legislation.
This study will assist the Secretary in per-
fecting existing means of dealing with pesti-
cide pollution and in determining new ones.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, part 1 of
the amendment requires the Secretary
to develop within 2 years water quality
criteria for all pesticides. The criteria
would set forth the effects of various
pesticide levels in water on fish and
wildlife, man and the environment. Be-
cause they would outline maximum safe
levels, they would represent the essential
basis for action to deal with the pesticide
pollution problem.
Under his existing authorities, the
Secretary has already developed criteria
for a wide range of pollutants, from mu-
nicipal sewage to industrial waste, and
these are serving as the basis for the
interstate water quality standards which
have been set by all 50 States as the key
to the national pollution cleanup effort.
Criteria have been developed for some
pesticides, but they are general and in-
complete, and technical personnel have
advised that 2 years is a reasonable time
to allow development of comprehensive
pesticide criteria.
STATE STANDARDS INADEQUATE
After a review of the water quality
standards already adopted by the States
under the Federal act, it is very clear
that pesticides are dealt with only in the
most general way in the standards, and
it is doubtful that this approach will lead
to effective control.
For instance, only three States—
Alaska, California, and South Dakota—
have set specific numerical limits for
pesticides in their water quality stand-
ards. Two other States—Idaho and Vir-
ginia—specifically mention pesticides in
toxicity sections of their standards.
Otherwise, the State standards deal with
pesticides only as they would be covered
in general narrative statements on tox-
icity or by public water supply or
aquatic life criteria.
I requested the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration to do a
State-by-State summary of pesticide
provisions in the water quality stand-
ards, and I ask unanimous consent that
it be printed in the RECORD at the end of
this statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON in the chair). Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, based
on the preliminary criteria already de-
veloped by the Interior Department, the
comprehensive pesticide guidelines re-
quired by this amendment would no
doubt indicate what level of a specific
pesticide in water is hazardous to a spe-
cific species of fish. In addition, safe
levels for pesticides would no doubt be
determined for other water uses, includ-
ing those of drinking, swimming, and
boating.
The comprehensive pesticide criteria
-------
1848
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
would be issued by the Secretary to the
States for the purpose of setting pesti-
cide standards as part of the interstate
water quality standards already adopted
by the States under Federal and State
laws.
For the purpose of setting the stand-
ards, section 10(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act provides:
If the Secretary or the Governor of any
State affected by water quality standards . . .
desires a revision of such standards, the
Secretary may . . . prepare regulations set-
ting forth standards of water quality to be
applicable to interstate waters. . . .
Under this procedure, the Secretary
would ask the States to revise their in-
terstate water quality standards to in-
clude pesticide limits. If a State does not
act, the Secretary is authorized to set the
standards. Also, a State may on its own
request a revision of its standards. The
Federal law provides that consideration
must be given in the standard setting to
practicability and physical and economic
feasibility.
In addition to serving as a basis for
interstate water quality standards, the
pesticide criteria would also give the
Secretary a useful tool in ongoing and
any future Federal-State pollution
abatement conferences where pesticide
pollution might be occurring.
The step-by-step procedure that
would be followed under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act for stand-
ard setting and implementation follows:
First. The Secretary, after consulta-
tion with interested, concerned parties,
would prepare and publish regulations
setting forth water quality standards for
pesticides, based on the criteria he had
developed.
Second. The States would then adopt
pesticide standards for their interstate
waters, subject to the review and ap-
proval by the Secretary as meeting his
comprehensive criteria. The States
could adopt more stringent standards
than provided by the criteria. If the
States did not adopt pesticide standards
and did not petition the Secretary for a
rjublic hearing on the question, the Sec-
retary is authorized to promulgate the
standards.
Third. Responsibility for enforcing
the standards would rest primarily with
the States, under an enforcement plan
adopted as part of the standards. Imple-
mentation of the present water quality
standards for other pollutants generally
means the issuance by the States of or-
ders to polluters to take remedial steps.
If the orders are not followed, State
court action could follow. Issuance of
pollution cleanup orders must be pre-
ceded by further public hearings.
It is unlikely that action to implement
pesticide standards under the water pol-
lution control law would be by court
action against pesticide users.
This is true principally because,
unlike municipal sewage which is dis-
charged from one point, pesticides usu-
ally enter the water in a generalized
fashion from a wide range of sources.
For instance, DDT may be coming to a
river from 100 farms, or 15 towns, in one
watershed.
IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARDS
Fortunately, there are more equitable
and efficient means available to imple-
ment and enforce pesticide standards,
approaches which would be carried out
by cooperative efforts between users,
pollution control and other pesticide
regulatory agencies, and pesticide
manufacturers:
First, State administrative or legisla-
tive action to restrict or prohibit the use
of a pesticide pollutant statewide or in
the affected watershed. As pointed out
earlier, a number of States, and cities
and towns are already taking this
approach.
Second, interstate action, through
compacts, or the Federal-State pollution
control conference provided in Federal
law, to restrict or prohibit the use of cer-
tain pesticides. For instance, a commit-
tee to the Federal-State conference on
Lake Michigan made specific recommen-
dations for pesticide limits and other in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1849
terstate or uniform State actions.
Third, increased use of less persistent
pesticides as substitutes for compounds
such as dieldrin and DDT which remain
in a toxic state for years. This would be
coupled with more efficient means of
pesticide application. The feasibility of
this approach is demonstrated by the fact
that for virtually all crops, the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture lists more than
one pesticide as being able to control
harmful pests; I ask unanimous consent
that a list of readily degradable pesti-
cides prepared by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
[p. 28991]
-------
1850
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
JDING MITICIDES)
_J
O
z
CO
UJ
o
READILY DEGRADABLE INSEC
tpe of compound
h-
(or
Chemical name (or source)
Common name
trade name*)
hosphorus.
o
c
to
s
"B
0)
JC
CL
TJ
O
f
.e
'i
S
s
6
o
to
_0
s.
o
Q.
O
.C
o.
03
E
•o
6
o"
*
03
n
3
o
. t
!!I"!S
5 £o £0
•a
•p
penyljcyclopropanecar
-4(3H)-one
zin-4(3H)-one
e ~ .2 : :
=• a * • •
x 'c ° ' •
CD S CD CD
2-mcthyl-2-(methylthio) propionaldehyde 0-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime
2-allyl-4-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-l-one ester of 2,2-dimethyl
O,O-diethyl phosphorodithioate S-ester with 3-(mercaptomethyl)-l,2
O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate S-ester with 3-(mercaptomethyl)-
3-hydroxy-N-methyl-cis-crotonamide dimethyl phosphate
6-chlorop peronyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-methylpropenyl)cyclopropane-cart
; ;>.£ ; ;
• « E
hosphorus.
c ester.
ate.
O < CJ
: : E
: :^
1
>;
3-dydroxy-N,N-dimethylcrotonamide dimethyl phosphate
2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenyl 3-methyl-2-butenoate
m-(l-methylbutyl)phenyl methylcarbamate and m-(l-ethylpropyl)-phe
;.ji:-
S|l*x-
1 1
s s
J= J=
° IQODQO 1
0 0
: : s : : '.
. . o > . •
: : o : •? ..
2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate
S-[[(p-chlorophenyl)thio]methyl] O,O-diethyl phosphorodithioate .
a/pha-methylbenzyl 3-hydroxycrotonate dimethyl phosphate
O,O-diethyl 0-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-l-benzopyran-7-yl) phosph
O,O-diethyl O-[p-(methylsulfinyl)phenyl] phosphorothioate
O,O-diethyl S(and O)-[2-(ethylthio)etfiyl] phosphorothioates (mixtui
O,O-diethyl O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) phosphorothioate
0 9-riirhlrtrnuinvl riimpfhvl nhrtcnhatp
ll
Q. £
•o oi o R
1*0) 43 TO E
t ^ » °
>t CO ^ k.
a. u o <
TJ 2 'i
Ex ™
So >*
o T; CD •- 5
5555f I
~ a> a> -
J "D ^ ^
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1851
'a I
sz
a.
„• s
«
u o
£ 3
>^ o
£ z i
3 00
•a .e a
I II
II
if
:&
: &
I If
10 si
* I!
I o ft
I S«t*
2 |3*S
of gf ft
:a
K
a
•§.-2
Ta
u.>.-?** Sat"
sS?=°Sllsi=
8ffiHsii«t
Esiil3»|gi
diifUMli
H?tSsgfllll
•Itg§i
'»SK2"|E
*s5&2fl£3
•D^-(OO<0 E ^3 O O -H"
-------
1852
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
o
m
S
S
ta
£
O_
Z
o
z
i
UJ
ce
a
0
>-
£•8
= s
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1853
s
c 5
6 5
•-•HE £ = 12
8 «= « gSS - » ,
;»Sf |g£ Sf_-
IO_™™ . o c nj 'EWC
£<<=OO£=
-------
1854
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
iifiii'i
! d> ', m '. '.
„« •€ •
? e •
1 S i i
3 £ S ^
*U g Q) -2
s ^ » ^ 1
"° "*" ^ "*" 4^
•a |w o to o
2 B E 01 c
M ?* ,.: u £
"•sgis
"c •- a ** Jg — '
£ £ (A CU W)
t3 ™ o "5 'c ^S
n> p — £ i: >
c £ -a £ -^
||||1|
2 c S: S 3 "
1 Herbicides whose deg
that their use, in accorda
on cropland, pose no sign
ide residues or crop pro
particularly with respect
degradability, persistence
Is as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1855
2
Chlorothiocarboximide.
Chlorinated quinone.
2-dicarboximide
N-[(trichloromethyl)tnio]-4-cyclohexen
2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-p-benzoquinone .
Captan
Chloranil
Chlorinated aromatic ether.
Chlorinated aromatic nitrlle.
Chlorinated aniline.
Chlorinated quinone.
Chlorothiocarboximide.
Dinitrophenyl ester.
Alkyl guanidine salt.
Chlorinated triazine.
Ethoxyquinoline.
Ferric thiocarbamate.
Chlorothiocarboximide.
Alkyl imidazoline salt.
Chloronltroalkane.
er and free sulfur Calcium polysulfides.
Manganese thiocarbamate.
Thioquinoxaline.
I:::::::::::: I •:
D. . •
: : : : : : : : : : : : : 43 : :
:::: S ::::::-.: 1 ::
. . . . .0 ; ! . ; '. '. '. . a '. v
: : : : 7 :::::::: £ : ™
: : ••.•§: : : : : : : : § : 3
'. : : .3 "s = S ; ; ; § U
c
M
s
Zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate .....
co
Thiabendazole.
tu
0
(0
E
1
8
_OJ
V
CM
Mertect*
nc with 1 part by weight ethylenebis Dithiocarbamate.
niate of [ethylenebis (dithiocarbamato)] z
§
t
.a
€
«j
a
eg
in
"o
S
3
i
Polyram*
isulfides.
i-Rlucopyranosyl)-3-formyl pentofurano- Antibiotic (produced by
trimolecular cyclic anhydrosulfides and c
exyl 5-deoxy-2-0-(2-deoxy-2-methylamino-
•= fc
[dithiocarbamic acid] bimolecular <
2, 4-diguanidino-3, 5, 6-trihydroxycy
Streptomycin
Streptomyces griseus).
1. 4-oxathiin derivative.
c
«j
X
y
side.
2, 3-dihydro-5-carboxanilido-6-methyl-
«
X
s
+2
>
-------
1856
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
UJ
K
3
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1857
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, fourth,
is the increased use of systems of inte-
grated pest control, combining biological
and chemical controls, and additionally,
developing pest-resistant crop strains.
This approach is showing increased suc-
cess as an effective economic means of
pest control.
Fifth, further development of agents
which cause the persistent pesticides to
decompose more rapidly in the soil and
water after they have been applied to a
crop and accomplished their task; and,
Sixth, the development of standards
on the biodegradability and toxicity of
pesticide components.
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
Part 2 of the amendment directs the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, and
other concerned parties, to conduct a
study on methods of controlling the re-
lease of pesticides in our Nation's lakes
and rivers and the environment. The
study will include examination of the
persistency of pesticides in the water
and alternatives thereto. Within the 2
years, the Secretary will submit a re-
port on this study to Congress together
with his recommendations for any nec-
essary legislation.
This study should assist the Secretary
in perfecting existing means of dealing
with pesticide pollution and in determin-
ing new ones, to assure equitable and
enforceable standards.
There is abundant evidence to show
that the six approaches—State action,
interstate action, integrated pest control,
use of less persistent pesticides, develop-
ment of agents to decompose pesticides,
and biodegradability and toxicity stand-
ards—will prove effective in the nation-
wide program of pesticide water quality
criteria and standards which this amend-
ment would establish.
For instance, a report published this
month by the American Chemical So-
ciety described in detail a number of
means by which the massive pesticide
contamination can be minimized. I be-
lieve it would be helpful to outline some
of the information provided by this and
other reports which we have studied.
First, since pesticides have been billed
as a panacea for controlling all pests,
heavy application has become a national
habit, whether it is needed or not. For
example, cotton is often sprayed with
toxic, persistent pesticides every 5, 7, or
10 days.
BETTER PESTICIDE USE
Yet, with effective use of our improved
knowledge of the life cycle and behavior
of both the crop and the pest, pesticide
application could be cut down to only
that period of the time when a pest is in
fact endangering a crop.
In addition, acceptance of the valid
idea that 100-percent pest control need
not ba achieved would further cut pesti-
cide use. Often, damage to crop produc-
tion could be prevented with just a
75-percent control of the pests.
Another valid application method
which would further cut pesticide use,
expense, and pollution, is treating only
the areas that are heavily infested with
pests. As an example, mountain water
in North Carolina was found to contain
more than 0.3 part per billion of DDT
when an entire oak-hickory forest was
treated for a tree disease. Later, when
only the region of the forest affected by
the disease was treated, it was impossible
to find any trace of DDT in the waters.
And the disease was still controlled.
If improved application equipment
were used, there would be another sig-
nificant reduction in pesticide use.
A Mississippi study on the aerial ap-
plication of the persistent pesticide hep-
tachlor showed that only 17 percent of
the compound was applied at the proper
rate on the crop. The remainder either
missed the crop, was applied at a rate
much lower than necessary, or was ap-
plied at a rate much higher than nec-
essary. In another study, only 10 to 20
percent of a pesticide dust reached the
plant, with the remainder missing its
target entirely.
-------
1858
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Concentrated efforts to eradicate
whole pests populations also offer great
promise. For example, if just three
pests, the boll weevil, the boll worm,
and the codling moth, were eradicated, it
would be possible to reduce the amount
of insecticides applied each year in the
United States by some 40 percent.
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Insect sterilization has become one of
the most effective ways to eliminate a
total insect population. This was the
technique that was used to eradicate the
screw-worm fly from the Southeast
United States. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture raised millions of screw-
worm flies weekly, with radioactive
cobalt used to make the flies reproduc-
tively sterile.
Massive numbers of sterilized flies
were air dropped regularly over thou-
sands of square miles infested by native
screw-worm flies. The sterile flies
mated with the native females, and the
resulting eggs failed to hatch. Repeated
releases of sterile flies reduced screw-
worm numbers, until the pests finally
disappeared.
Presently, the Agriculture Department
is maintaining a barrier zone along the
United States-Mexico border to keep out
new screw-worms through continuously
releasing sterile flies along that area.
The American Chemical Society says
that the ideal pesticide should be as ef-
fective as possible against one or several
pests and as safe as possible to all other
forms of life, including beneficial insects
and predators, fish and other wildlife,
domestic animals, and man. As one of
its main recommendations in its recent
report, the Society urged:
Persistent pesticides should only be used
in minimal amounts and under conditions
where they have been shown not to cause
widespread contamination of the environ-
ment. Where possible, highly persistent
materials should be replaced by rapidly de-
grading materials.
The feasibility of this approach is dem-
onstrated by the fact that, as pointed out
earlier, for virtually all crops, there are
several pesticides, some very persistent
and some not, which can effectively con-
trol harmful pests.
In several parts of the country, the cost
of pesticide use has increased so drasti-
cally, that other systems of pest control
with little or no reliance on chemical
formulations have been adopted with
great success.
INTEGRATED PEST CONTROL
Among these approaches is integrated
pest control, which can be best defined
as an insect population management sys-
tem that depends primarily on the use of
beneficial predator insects with limited
reliance on the use of selective chemicals.
Presently there are successful inte-
grated pest control programs in opera-
tion on the following crops: cotton, citrus
fruits, apples and pears, tomatoes, pota-
toes, avocados, olives, grapes, corn, egg-
plant, lettuce, strawberries and others.
This means of pest control is based on
the principles of applied ecology. In or-
der for success to be achieved, the fields
must be placed under periodic surveil-
lance to determine when and where spe-
cific pest infestations occur. When a
[p. 28994]
problem is discovered, predators, para-
sites, or disease organisms specifically
related to that pest are released to bring
the pests back into a favorable balance.
Very limited amounts of pesticide may
be used, but only when absolutely neces-
sary, and only on the infested area of
the crop.
While many farmers and other pesti-
cide users resist giving up chemical
means of pest control because they feel
that other alternatives may be more
costly, the opposite has been proven true
with regard to integrated pest control.
LOWER COST
Prof. Robert VandenBosch of the Col-
lege of Agricultural Sciences, University
of California at Berkeley, cites this ex-
ample: The cost of pest control using
chemical pesticides for 4,000 acres of
cotton in California was $185,000. When
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1859
integrated pest control replaced the use
of chemical pesticides, the cost dropped
to $20,000 a year. The statistics for
spotted alfalfa in California are very
similar, where in 1957, the cost of pest
control with chemical pesticides was at
least $12 million. Today, after the intro-
duction of integrated pest control, the
cost has been reduced to only $3 mil-
lion, with little or no pest problems
remaining.
A recent edition of the Western Fruit
Grower cites additional cases of the suc-
cessful and economical application of in-
tegrated pest control in place of the use
of chemical pesticides. One expert in
biological control has enabled a producer
of Valencia oranges to reduce the cost of
pest control from $200 per acre, using
chemical control, to only $60 an acre
with integrated pest control. Another
orange grower has been able to reduce
his cost per acre for pest control to just
$35 per acre, using integrated pest con-
trol, and has had higher yields than ever
in the history of the grove.
Another pest control approach show-
ing major promise is the use of hor-
mones. The principle is to give an insect
its own hormone at the wrong stage of
its life, so that it upsets the bug's growth
processes and causes it to destroy itself.
Finally, the search is now underway
for a catalyst which would cause DDT to
self-destruct after it had accomplished
its insect control tasks. If successful,
this would be a major breakthrough in
dealing with the tendency of hard pesti-
cides to persist in the environment long
after they are needed. Secretary of the
Interior Walter Hickel recently an-
nounced the award of a contract to
test this approach.
America and the world cannot afford
to wait much longer to decide that hurl-
ing the crude weapon of hard pesticides
against the fabric of life, the apt de-
scription by Rachel Carson, is not the
answer to our pest control problems.
Our approach must be much more
sophisticated than that, and as I have
outlined above, there is an abundance of
alternatives. And there is no reason
why the job cannot be done more effec-
tively and far more economically than
the present massive, indiscriminate pes-
ticide use. The savings would accrue to
the farmer and all other pesticide users,
to our environment, and most impor-
tantly, to future generations of life on
earth.
I believe the pesticide amendment to
S. 7 is a major step in the right direction.
Criteria would be developed, standards
would be set and implemented, and the
means to meet these standards brought
into use.
I urge the Senate's adoption of the
amendment, and I am heartened and
deeply appreciative of the cosponsorship
of this proposal by 31 Senators, includ-
ing the chairman of the Senate Public
Works Committee, Senator RANDOLPH,
and the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, Senator
MUSKIE, who is the author of S. 7.
This board support is without ques-
tion a confirmation of the growing in-
sistence of Congress that the quality
of the American environment and the
quality of life for all Americans be given
the protection that is so urgently needed.
EXHIBIT 1
U.S. DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR,
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., August 25, 1969.
Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.
DEAB SENATOR NELSON: In accordance with
Mr. John Heritage's recent request by tele-
phone to Mr. Bern Wright of our Water Qual-
ity Standards Branch, a review has been
made of the States' water quality standards
requirements on pesticides and the following
information and enclosed summaries are
being provided for your use.
Most of the State standards contain one or
more requirements by which limits on spe-
cific toxic substances may be imposed on a
case-by-case basis. These controls are found
in the standards in the form of a general
narrative statement on toxicity, or they may
be included in the public water supply or
aquatic life use criteria. Three of the States
have specific numerical limits for pesticides
and at least two others specifically mention
pesticides in their toxicity standards.
-------
1860
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SPECIFIC NUMERICAL STANDARDS ON
PESTICIDES
Alaska
Standards of the State of Alaska contain a
pesticide limit of 0.001 of the 96-hour LCra.
(96-hour LC=o means the lethal concentration
of a substance that will result In a 50% kill
of the test organism in a 96-hour period.)
California
Tidal Waters Inland from the Golden Gate
within the San Francisco Bay Region—No
individual pesticide or combination of pesti-
cides shall reach concentrations found to be
deleterious to fish or wildlife at any place.
Goose Lake—The total chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticide content shall not exceed 0.10
micrograms per liter as determined by the
summation of the individual concentrations,
and the individual pesticide content shall
not reach those levels found to be detrimen-
tal to aquatic life and wildlife.
Idaho
Toxic or Other Deleterious Substances
(pesticides, phenolics and related organic
and inorganic materials)—Toxic chemicals
of other than natural origin in concentra-
tions found to be of public health signifi-
cance or adversely affect the uses indicated.
Guides such as the Water Quality Criteria
published by the State of California Water
Quality Control Board, Second Edition, 1963,
will be used in evaluating the tolerances of
the various toxic chemicals for the use
indicated.
South Dakota
Pesticides, herbicides and related com-
pounds shall be treated as toxic materials
and taste and odor producing chemicals and
controlled under the provisions of Chapter
II, Section II, Subsection 2 and 4.
Chapter II, Section II, Subsection 2—Toxic
Materials No materials shall be discharged
to any surface water or watercourse in the
State which produce concentrations of chem-
icals toxic to humans, animals or the most
sensitive stage or form of aquatic life greater
than 01 times the acute (96-hour) median
lethal dose for short residual compounds or
0 01 times the acute median lethal dose for
accumulative substances or substances ex-
hibiting a residual life exceeding 30 days in
the receiving waters.
Chapter II, Section II, Subsection 4—Taste
and Odor Producing Chemicals. No mate-
rials shall be discharged which will result in
concentrations in the receiving water suffi-
cient to impart obj ectionable tastes and odors
to edible aquatic life.
Virginia
Salt water (shellfish)—Area is not to be so
contaminated with radionuclides, pesticides,
herbicides or fecal material, that consump-
tion of the shellfish might be hazardous.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY CRITERIA
Several States have included the Public
Health Service (PHS) Drinking Water Stand-
ards as requirements for establishing the
quality of water to be maintained as an ac-
ceptable source of public water supply.
These standards establish a limit of 0.2 mg/1
for Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE). This
is intended to be a general safety control for
the detection of "ill defined" chemicals which
could include pesticides. The CCE control is
not intended for replacement of specific lim-
its on pesticides and other toxic substances
Those States which expressly include the
PHS requirements for waters designated for
public water supply use are as follows: Ala-
bama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Geor-
gia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Ver-
mont, West Virginia, Wyoming.
AQUATIC LIFE-TOXICITY STANDARDS
All of the States standards provide for the
protection of aquatic life from toxic sub-
stances. Appendix A is a summary of these
requirements as they relate to aquatic life.
A copy of the "Report of the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria-Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration" is also enclosed
for your reference use. Pages 56, 58, 59 of
this report provide discussions on "Toxic
Substances" and "Bioassay" which may be
helpful to you in interpreting the standards
on toxic substances. You will also find on
pages 62-65, 82-83, 116, 118, 131, 137, 156 of
this report information on pesticides. Each
of the State water pollution control agencies
have been provided a copy of this report and
it is being widely used by the States as a
guide in the updating of their water quality
standards
If you have any further questions con-
cerning specific requirements in the stand-
ards, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
DAVID D. DOMINICK,
Commissioner.
APPENDIX A—TOXICITY STANDARDS For
Surface Waters Used For FISH PROPAGA-
TION AND WILDLIFE
(Toxic substances—Maximum allowable
(mg/1))
Alabama: Only amounts not injurious to
fish and aquatic life, including shrimp and
crabs, or the propagation thereof. 1/10 of 48-
hour TLm or other approved limits.
Alaska: Less than acute or chronic problem
levels as revealed by bioassay. None which
causes tainting of flesh of edible species.b
Pesticides- 0.001 of 96-hour LCso".
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1861
Arizona: Biocide concentrations shall be
Footnotes at end of article
[p. 28995]
kept below levels which are deleterious to
human, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or in
amounts which interfere with this use.
Arkansas Shall not be present in quantities
toxic to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life
or which interfere with the normal propaga-
tion of aquatic life. 1/10 of 48-hour TLm.
California: At all times less than the con-
centrations toxic or harmful to wild or do-
mestic animals or to aquatic life.
Colorado: Free from biocides, toxic, or
other deleterious wastes in concentrations or
combinations sufficient to be harmful to
aquatic life
Connecticut' Free from chemical constit-
uents in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal,
or aquatic life Bioassays shall be performed
as needed
Delaware: None In concentrations harmful
(synergistically or otherwise) to humans,
fish, wildlife, and aquatic life.
District of Columbia: None from waste
sources in concentrations or combinations
which are harmful to human, animal, plant,
or aquatic life or which interfere with this
use.
Florida: Free from waste substances toxic
or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life
F: 10.0 Cu-0.5, Zn-1.0, Cr«-0 05, Pb-0 05,
Fe-0.3, As-005, Cn- none detectable.
Georgia: None in concentrations that would
harm man, fish, and game, or other beneficial
aquatic life.
Territory of Guam: Free from waste mate-
rials that will be toxic or irritating to humans,
animals, plants, or aquatic life.
Hawaii. Free from biocides, toxic, or other
deleterious substances in concentrations
harmful to human, animal, or marine life,
or which cause unpleasant taste in seafood
Idaho: No toxic chemicals of other than
natural origin, in concentrations of public
health significance or which adversely affect
this use
Illinois- 1/10 of 48-hour TLm. AS-1.0, Ba-
5 0, Cd-0 05, CrM) 05, Cr3-l 00, Cu-0.04, Cn-
0025, Pb-01, Ag-0.05, An-1.00
Indiana- 1/10 of 96-hour TLm from con-
tinuous-flow bioassays where the dilution
water and toxicant are continuously renewed,
or other factors when justified and approved
Iowa: NHr-N-2.0, As-1.0, Ba-5.0, Cd-0 05,
CrM) 05, Cr'-l.OO, Cu-0 02, Cn-0 025, Pb-0.10,
Zn-1 0 Maximum of 5 0 for entire heavy
metal group.
Kansas: Pollutional substances will be
maintained below maximum permissible con-
centrations which would be detrimental for
recreational requirements.
Kentucky: 1/10 of 48-hour TLm. Free from
waste substances in concentrations or com-
binations which are toxic or harmful to hu-
man, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
Louisiana: 1/10 of 48-hour TLm. None
present in quantities that alone or in com-
bination will be toxic to animal or plant life
Maine- No chemical constituents from
waste sources, which are harmful to humans,
animal, or aquatic life, or which adversely
affect this use.
Maryland" Free from toxic wastes which
interfere with this use or which are harmful
to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
Massachusetts: None at levels harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life, or which
make the waters unsuitable for fish or their
propagation, or impair their palatability.
Michigan: 1/10 of 96-hour TLm from con-
tinuous flow bioassays.
Minnesota- Cr-tr, Cu-tr, Cn-tr, NH3(N)-
tr1'1, Cr-1 0, Cu-0.2, Cn-0 02, NH,(N)-1.0',
Cr-1.0, Cu-0 2, Cn-0.02, NHi(N)-2.
-------
1862
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Oklahoma: 1/10 of 48-hour TLm. Shall not
be present in such quantities as to cause the
waters to be toxic to human, animal, plant,
or aquatic life.
Oregon: No conditions deleterious to fish
or other aquatic life or which affect the
palatability of fish.
Pennsylvania: None in amounts sufficient
to be inimical or harmful to this use.
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: None alone
or in combination with other substances or
wastes in amounts injurious to edible fish or
their culture, taste, or propagation.
Rhode Island: Bioassays shall be performed
as required by the appropriate agencies.
None which would be harmful to human,
animal, or aquatic life.
South Carolina- Free from waste materials
which are toxic or harmful to human, ani-
mal, plant, or aquatic life, or which inter-
fere directly or indirectly with this use.
South Dakota: 1/10 of 96-hour TLm for
short residual compounds 1/100 of 96-hour
TLm for substances of residual life exceeding
30 days. Cn-02^'"s 0.05".
Tennessee: There shall be no substances
added that will produce toxic conditions that
affect fish or aquatic life.
Texas: Shall not exhibit acute or chronic
toxicity to human, animal, or aquatic life to
such an extent as to interfere with this use.
Utah: No waste materials in concentrations
or combinations which are toxic or which
produce undesirable physiological responses
in humans, fish, and other animal life, and
plants.
Vermont; Bioassays shall be performed, in-
cluding assessment of taste and odor Free
from chemical constituents harmful to hu-
man, animal, or aquatic life
Virginia: Free from toxic substances at-
tributable to waste, in concentrations or
combinations which interfere directly or in-
directly with this use.
Virgin Islands of the United States' Free
from waste substances in concentrations or
combinations which are toxic or harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life.
Washington. Below concentrations which
may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions
to the aquatic biota.
West Virginia- No concentrations of mate-
rials poisonous to man, animal, or fish life
Wisconsin: None present in amounts which
by bioassay or other tests indicate acute or
chronic levels harmful to animal, plant, or
aquatic life.
Wyoming- Free from toxic substances of
other than natural origin in concentrations
or combinations which are toxic to human,
animal, or aquatic life.
FOOTNOTES
b Standard reserved from approval by
FWPCA.
M Applies to propagation and maintenance
of warm and coldwater sport or commercial
fishes.
llS Standards apply only to coastal waters
<• Applies to propagation and maintenance
of sport or commercial fishes.
d Applies to propagation and maintenance
of fish species common to the area waters.
dl Fish life propagation—coldwater per-
manent.
'• Applies to use by wildlife.
e< Fish life propagation—coldwater mar-
ginal.
' Fish life propagation—warmwater per-
manent.
8 Fish life propagation—warmwater semi-
permanent.
h Fish life propagation—warmwater mar-
ginal.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON. I yield to the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the
Senator from Wisconsin has often ap-
peared before the Committee on Public
Works and its subcommittees in refer-
ence to the matters of cleansing the air
and purifying the water. I will not
mention the long list of affirmative ac-
tions he has initiated in the Senate. I
am not sure how many cosponsors on
the amendment, but I do know there is
a considerable list. I am delighted I
could join him in the amendment.
In joining with him we recognize his
leadership in this field. I think his ex-
planation this afternoon of the presence
of pesticides and the danger that can be
wrought by this type pollution is a real
one. I express my thanks for his con-
structive efforts.
Mr. NELSON. I thank the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Public Works for his gracious remarks.
I might add, however, the reason I ap-
peared before the Committee on Public
Works, of which the Senator from West
Virginia is chairman, is that that com-
mittee has been doing such extensive
work in the field of enhancing the qual-
ity of air and water in this country.
They have made it possible for conserva-
tionists and Members of Congress to ap-
pear in connection with legislation of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1863
this nature to which his committee has
devoted so much time.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I rise
in support of the amendment (No. 132)
introduced by the Senator from Wiscon-
sin (Mr. NELSON) to S. 7.
I have already stated the many reasons
that I support the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969, and I appreciate
this opportunity to direct specific re-
marks to the amendment now proposed
by my distinguished colleague from
Wisconsin.
Under the proposed amendment, the
Secretary of the Interior is directed to
take certain steps that would guarantee
water quality criteria for all pesticides.
The criteria would be based on the ef-
fects of various pesticide levels on fish
and wildlife, as well as man and his
environment. The criteria would out-
line maximum safe levels for the pres-
ence of pesticides in water, and these
would represent
[28996]
the essential basis for State or Federal
action to deal with the pesticide pollu-
tion problem.
It is clear that persistent pesticides are
so polluting our rivers, lakes, streams,
and oceans that fish can and have been
killed; that fish reproduction can and
has been inhibited; that high pesticide
residues in water have affected birds and
other animals; and, that now, even man
is threatened.
Specifically, the amendment would
permit the Secretary of the Interior,
after consultation with all interested and
concerned parties, to prepare and pub-
lish regulations setting forth water qual-
ity standards for pesticides that will
clearly not have a deleterious effect on
fish or man. Responsibility for enforc-
ing the standards would rest primarily
with the States. Standards could be
implemented by issuing orders to pollu-
ters to take remedial measures.
A particularly significant aspect of this
amendment is that it permits the estab-
lishment of a system for tabulating,
monitoring, and recording precisely
what pesticide residues should be
permitted.
As chairman of the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Migratory Labor, I have be-
come particularly aware of the need to
establish similar procedures insofar as
farmworkers may be affected by pesti-
cide use.
There is mounting evidence concern-
ing the harmful effects of pesticides on
our Nation's migrant and seasonal farm-
workers. Experts from the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare con-
cede that perhaps as many as 800 farm-
workers are killed and 80,000 injured by
pesticides each year. We know that the
agricultural industry experiences one
of the highest occupational disease rates
in the United States. Just last week we
learned that a substantial proportion of
farmworkers experience symptoms of
chemical poisoning which include der-
matitis, rashes, eye irritation, nausea,
vomiting, fatigue, excess sweating, head-
aches, double vision, dizziness, skin irri-
tations, difficulty in breathing, loss of
fingernails, nervousness, insomnia,
bleeding noses, and diarrhea.
It is clear from our hearings that
proper safeguards and protections for
farmworkers do not exist in the use of
pesticides. In fact, under present State
and Federal regulations, information
about how, when, and where chemicals
are used is seldom available to the farm-
worker or to the public.
The hearing record is painfully lack-
ing in any firm evidence that the pesti-
cides to which farmworkers are daily
exposed in fact have no deleterious
short- or long-range effects on their
health and well-being. Further, it was
shocking to learn of the pitifully inade-
quate funding of programs devoted to
research on occupational hazards to
farmworkers; and to discover that pro-
grams aimed at protecting the farm-
workers are neither adequately funded
nor enforced.
We do know, however, from recent ac-
counts in medical and scientific journals,
-------
1864
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the wrong kinds of chemicals, in
the wrong amounts, and in the wrong
places are sometimes used with inade-
quate regard of the health and safety of
their workers. Furthermore, we know
that recent scientific investigations have
produced evidence that DDT causes can-
cer in animals and provides very strong
indications that DDT may produce can-
cer in man.
Mr. President, I support this amend-
ment, because it establishes a mecha-
nism for the Secretary of the Interior to
determine maximum safe levels of pesti-
cides in water that would represent the
essential basis for action to deal with
the pesticide pollution problem in water.
Additionally, enactment of this amend-
ment may serve as a workable model for
necessary legislation to protect farm-
workers through establishment of a
meaningful system for monitoring pesti-
cide effects on man.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) is a construc-
tive addition to the legislation which is
pending before the Senate. I have dis-
cussed this proposal with the Senator
from Wisconsin and agree with the need
to provide the Secretary of the Interior
with a specific directive to formulate cri-
teria which indicate the effects of pesti-
cides on the water environment.
There is a growing national concern
regarding the use of pesticides. Con-
servationists, scientists, medical experts,
and ecologists are speaking out against
indiscriminate use of pesticides while
other scientists, health officials, and agri-
cultural experts oppose actions to limit
their availability and use.
Existing information is sufficient to
suggest that we have not exercised due
care in either the amount or type of
pesticides we use. Inadequate attention
has been paid to developing less toxic
more degradable pesticides and thus, to-
day, we are confronted with the poten-
tial of banning entirely the use of some
materials which have been extremely
helpful in expanding the Nation's pro-
ductivity and protecting the Nation's
health.
I am not prepared, at this time, to sug-
gest that all pesticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and insecticides should be
banned or even that some of them should
be banned. I support Senator NELSON'S
amendment because we need to know a
great deal more about the health and
welfare effects of these pollutants and
because existing scientific information
needs to be assembled and evaluated.
The criteria to be published by the
Secretary should provide useful assist-
ance to the States in determining the
extent to which the use of pesticides
and water quality requirements are in
conflict.
In some States it may be necessary to
establish limitations on the availability
of certain types of pesticides and, in
other cases, it may be necessary to limit
use of specific pesticides in certain
watersheds. Whatever course is taken
in controlling use of persistent pesticides,
care should be taken to assure that pub-
lic health responsibilities such as malaria
control are not hindered.
Enforcement procedures must consider
the differences between point source
control available to municipal and in-
dustrial wastes as opposed to the general
diffusion of the pollutant in this case.
The inability to effectively control this
type of pollutant after application sug-
gests the need to consider legislation
which will establish uniform standards
on the biogradability and toxicity of
pesticides to assure environmental pro-
tection prior to the indiscriminate
introduction of pesticides into the
environment.
The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
NELSON) has indicated an intent to. in-
troduce such legislation in the near fu-
ture. I will cosponsor his proposal and
the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pol-
lution will hold hearings early next year.
I would like to ask the distinguished
Senator this question. First of all I
share the Senator's concern about the
growing dilemma of pesticide pollution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1865
In many ways I think it is perhaps the
most serious in its potential impact
upon the environment, upon wildlife,
and upon human life itself. It is the
most persistent and most difficult to
come to grips with once pesticides are
released in the environment. In that
sense, it is like air pollution. Once dis-
charged, it cannot be controlled; so, as in
the case of pesticides at the dispersal
point.
Since the problem of control is, for
that reason, somewhat different from
that of other air pollutants, the enforce-
ment problem is different in the same
way. So we have to come to grips with
that problem.
The amendment offered by the distin-
guished Senator from Wisconsin is a
major advance, I think, toward restor-
ing and preserving the quality of our
waters that are now threatened by
pesticides.
In addition to leading to specific stand-
ards for safe concentrations of pesticides
in interstate rivers and lakes, I believe
that the amendment serves an equally
important purpose of establishing a
comprehensive program for research in
the Department of the Interior, to study
the problems of persistent pesticides and
alternatives that can eliminate this con-
tamination of our environment.
That is the point which, I think, is at
the heart of resistance to the control of
pesticides.
I ask the Senator from Wisconsin
whether he believes that the standards
that would be developed as a result of
his amendment can be met without hin-
dering efforts to control insects, weeds,
fungus, and other pests that can cause
damage to farmers and can pose a po-
tential hazard to human health.
Mr. NELSON. I do not think there is
any question about that. No Member of
Congress is more familiar with the
Water Pollution Control Act than the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) who
conducted the hearings, drafted the bill,
and engineered its passage in the
Senate.
As the Senator knows, under section
10 (c) the Secretary can establish crite-
ria, but he must consider the practica-
bility and the economic feasibility of
any standards that are proposed to be
used. He must take these factors into
consideration.
I make one other point. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture prescribes an alter-
native pesticide for every chlorinated
hydrocarbon, so far as I can ascertain,
this is listed for use on virtually every
crop in this country. In other words,
there is another, more readily degrading
pesticide that is readily available. As
I review the application rates recom-
[p. 28997]
mended by the Department and the cur-
rent prices of pesticides, the cost of hard
pesticides compared with readily de-
gradable pesticides is roughly the same.
I believe that the Senator knows
Michigan and Arizona have already
banned the use of DDT. My own State
of Wisconsin is moving to drastically
improve the controls on it and has cre-
ated a board to determine if it is neces-
sary to use certain pesticides. There is
integrated pest control which has been
initiated successfully in California in
which they do not indiscriminately spray
the crop. They use whatever biological
methods they can, including certain or-
ganisms which prey on insects. But
whatever method they use, biological or
chemical, it is limited to the area where
the pest is.
In my earlier remarks, I outlined those
programs and the cost per acre, which is
dramatically less for a program of inte-
grated pest control. Unfortunately, so
many people just hire an airplane and
go out and spray indiscriminately all
over the place.
So in answer to the Senator, I believe
that many practical, alternative means
are available right now. But again I say,
the Secretary must consider the practica-
bility and the economic feasibility for
any standards. So that is the protection
against arbitrariness on anything he may
propose.
-------
1866
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the value of the
Senator's amendment. It increases the
pressure to recognize the availability of
other means of controlling pests than
with hard pesticides. If we do not con-
centrate on that and enlarge the pos-
sibilities in this respect, we will be
wasting, perhaps, the last chance we will
have to avoid the massive dispersal of
hard pesticides into the environment.
I am delighted to cosponsor the
amendment. I compliment the Senator
on becoming, in my judgment, the most
knowledgeable expert in the Senate on
this problem.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, inciden-
tally, I might say to the Senate, that my
staff and the staff of the Senator from
Maine will get together and develop a
legislative proposal establishing stand-
ards for the components of pesticides,
taking into consideration their persist-
ence, degradability, and toxicity. This
is the next step that must follow so that
we can determine if pesticides, like de-
tergents, should be subject to certain
standards in order to protect the en-
vironment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, as a
cosponsor of amendment No. 132, I
congratulate the junior Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) for his tireless
efforts to call attention to the environ-
mental danger stemming from the wide-
spread and often indiscriminate use of
persistent pesticides.
Toxic residues of these chemical com-
pounds are showing up in our air and
water, and, through the multiplying ef-
fect of the food chain, in human beings
as well.
The effect of these poisons on fish and
wildlife are well known. Our animal re-
sources can be killed outright, as the
Coho salmon were, or face gradual de-
struction, if not extinction, as are the
brown pelican and the bald eagle.
The effect of pesticide residues on man
are not yet fully known. Presently there
is no evidence that the increasing
amounts of pesticides in fact harm hu-
man beings. Yet common sense tells us
that absorbing poisonous chemicals is
not healthy.
The long-term health impact on man
of persistent pesticides may well be most
damaging.
Mr. President, in late July I introduced
wide ranging pesticide protection legis-
lation. The bill, S. 2747, directs the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare
to make a complete study of the use and
effects of pesticides. It transfers the pes-
ticide regulatory functions from the
Department of Agriculture to the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. It removes the exemption from
registration and labeling of those pes-
ticides intended solely for export. Fi-
nally, the bill places a 4-year moratorium
on four of the more persistent and power-
ful pesticides.
It is perhaps the most comprehensive
legislation on pesticides yet introduced
in the Senate. But it is unlikely to go
anywhere and now will serve only as a
point of discussion.
Yet what is required now is not just
talk but action as well. Senator NELSON'S
amendment is the first step toward pro-
tecting our environment from toxic pes-
ticides. I fully support his amendment
and again congratulate the Senator for
alerting us to the threat.
Mr. HAET. Mr. President, I am very
pleased to cosponsor Senator NELSON'S
amendment to S. 7 which would require
the Secretary of the Interior to develop
water quality criteria for pesticides.
These criteria would then be used by the
States as a basis for the adoption of
standards to effectively control pesticide
pollution of our lakes and rivers.
As with most of our clean water ef-
forts, the need to develop standards
which will help to reduce the quantity
of persistent pesticides entering our
water is long overdue. For many years
scientists have been warning that the
large-scale and indiscriminate introduc-
tion of these chemicals into our environ-
ment may be doing serious harm. But
only today are people generally begin-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1867
ning to realize that although agricultural
production has increased and disease
control has been improved through the
use of persistent pesticides, these short-
term gains may have been purchased at
the price of irreversible disruption of
many ecological systems.
The so-called magnification effect of
pesticides on fish and wildlife has now
been well documented. Fish, feeding on
microscopic organisms which contain
persistent pesticides, assimilate these
chemicals into their own systems. In ad-
dition, through normal gill action, a fish
appears to effectively filter pesticides di-
rectly from the water. In both cases, the
pesticide is stored up in the body fat of
the fish where it becomes increasingly
more concentrated. Then, moving up-
ward in the food chain, each successive
predator assimilates greater and greater
concentrations of these pesticides from
the smaller fish on which it feeds. Fish
at the end of the food chain, such as the
Lake Michigan coho salmon, now contain
DDT concentrations ranging up to 19
parts per million, and fish-eating birds,
such as the osprey and eagle, contain
even higher levels of this pesticide.
The effects of such concentrations of
persistent pesticides on fish and wildlife
are daily becoming better understood.
For example, Prof. Howard Johnson of
Michigan State University has reported
upon the reproduction problems DDT
has created for the Lake Michigan coho
salmon. Apparently the female salmon
passes some of the DDT on to her eggs in
concentrations ranging between five and
seven parts per million. After the fry
hatches from these eggs, they begin to
absorb the yolk sac, but, as they do, the
DDT remaining in the yolk becomes
more and more highly concentrated. At
the last stages of absorption, DDT con-
centrations become six to 12 times higher
than those in the actual body tissue of
the fry and this high level of DDT has
proven fatal to a high percentage of the
fry.
Slightly different problems have oc-
curred with fish-eating birds. Here the
high concentrations of DDT apparently
upset the bird's liver enzyme balance
and as a result affect its calcium metab-
olism. The result has been that these
birds have produced eggs which have ex-
ceptionally brittle shells. In most cases
the mother is unable to hatch these eggs,
because she accidentally breaks the shell.
In one case reported by the Audubon
Society, an embryo was born without a
shell altogether: it was encased only in a
membrane.
Last week the Commerce Committee's
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Re-
sources, and the Environment, which I
chair, held field hearings in Michigan to
consider the effects of pesticides on
sports and commercial fisheries. At
these hearings Prof. Joseph Hickey of
the University of Wisconsin commented
on the serious disruption which DDT
has caused to fish-eating bird popula-
tions. Branding DDT as the "compound
of extinction," Professor Hickey stated:
In a series of closely integrated studies,
British, Canadian, and American scientists
have proven that similar reproductive fail-
ures (1) occurred in 1947 in peregrine fal-
cons; (2) involve fish-eating birds like bald
eagles, ospreys, brown pelicans, double-
crested cormorants, and herring gulls; (3) are
producing regional extinction in some species
and continentally wide extinctions in other;
and (4) are due to DDT. There is simply no
scientific doubt about these statements
He then went on to state:
We have lost at least 95 per cent of our
nesting peregrine falcons—perhaps the su-
preme example of avian evolution—in the
United States south of Canada, and we may
very well lose its entire subspecies in North
America. We are going to lose our national
bird, the bald eagle, as a nesting species on
the shores of the Great Lakes, not neces-
sarily on inland lakes We have lost the
brown pelican on the west side of the Gulf
of Mexico And we will lose it on the coast
of California. These are pollution effects due
to DDT The facts are solid and the result
of careful, painstaking research.
[p. 28998]
Much more speculative at the present
time are questions about whether con-
sumption of DDT or other persistent
pesticides by man could seriously harm
-------
1868
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
his health or well-being. Nevertheless,
the evidence of its harm to birds and fish
is sufficient to cause grave concern. And
recent research efforts are beginning to
produce additional disturbing results.
For example, earlier this year I released
a report of a study which had been con-
ducted for the National Cancer Insti-
tute. This study revealed that when a
group of mice was fed a mixture contain-
ing 140 parts per million of DDT over a
period of 81 weeks, 63 percent developed
tumors. With a control group of mice,
only 16 percent developed tumors, indi-
cating that the mice exposed to DDT
were approximately four times more
likely to develop tumors than mice not
so exposed. In describing the DDT-
induced tumors, the report states:
It seems more reasonable to conclude that
the great majority had malignant poten-
tiality.
In addition, at the Environmental
Subcommittee hearings on pesticides
which were held last May, we asked the
Food and Drug Administration whether
they could summarize some of their
work on the mutagenic effects of pesti-
cides. One of the investigations which
they described involves a study of 40
volunteers who are heavy pesticide users
and 20 control subjects who are exam-
ined monthly to determine what leu-
kocyte chromosome damage can be
associated with the exposure to pesti-
cides. According to the FDA:
Preliminary results indicate that during
mid-summer the exposed group had some-
thing on the order of five times as many
chromosome abberations as the control
group. So far this study has not been able
to make comparisons between the groups at
other times of the year.
The Food and Drug Administration,
concerned with the results of the ex-
panding volume of research on pesticides,
has moved to set pesticide tolerances on
many food products. In the case of fish,
an interim tolerance level of five parts
per mission has been established. Al-
though there is little question that the
FDA is taking proper precautions in set-
ting these tolerances, there is also little
doubt that this action will seriously dis-
rupt, if not destroy, the fishing industry
on Lake Michigan. The coho salmon can
no longer be marketed in interstate com-
merce because of its high DDT con-
centrations, and other commercially
important fish which are lower down in
the lake's food chain, such as the chub,
now appear to be building up DDT con-
centrations in excess of the minimum
FDA tolerances. Analyses by the Mich-
igan field office of the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries indicate that the DDT
concentration in some chubs now ex-
ceeds nine parts per million. Lake Mich-
igan lake trout, too, also frequently
contain concentrations in excess of the
FDA's minimum tolerances.
To preserve many of our country's
unique forms of life from extinction, to
reverse the grave ecological damage
which we are presently causing, and to
restore the vitality of our freshwater
fisheries, it is imperative that we begin
now to upgrade the quality of our water.
Establishing water tolerance levels for
pesticides—and then rigidly enforcing
these standards—is an essential step
toward this goal. We should emphasize,
however, that because very minute
quantities of persistent pesticides within
water—measured in terms of parts per
trillion—cause severe harm to aquatic
organisms which concentrate these pes-
ticides within their systems, water qual-
ity standards should be based on the
pesticide levels found in fish taken from
the water, and not on the water itself.
Only in this manner can we readily de-
termine when the amount of pesticides
in our waters is reaching dangerous
levels.
Mr. President, I reiterate my great
pleasure in supporting this amendment,
and I earnestly hope that not only is it
adopted, but that meaningful standards
are forthcoming in the very near future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment, No. 132, of the Senator from Wis-
consin.
The amendment was agreed to.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1869
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I move that the motion to re-
consider be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD a series of technical studies
taken from various scientific and con-
servation magazines.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From Scientific American, March 1967]
Toxtc SUBSTANCES AND ECOLOGICAL CYCLES
(By George M. Woodwell)
The vastness of the earth has fostered a
tradition of unconcern about the release of
toxic wastes into the environment. Billow-
ing clouds of smoke are diluted to apparent
nothingness; discarded chemicals are flushed
away in rivers; insecticides "disappear" after
they have done their job; even the massive
quantities of radioactive debris of nuclear
explosives are diluted in the apparently in-
finite volume of the environment. Such pol-
lutants are indeed diluted to traces—to levels
infinitesimal by ordinary standards, meas-
ured as parts per billion or less in air, soil
and water. Some pollutants do disappear;
they are immobilized or decay to harmless
substances Others last, sometimes in toxic
form, for long periods. We have learned in
recent years that dilution of persistent pol-
lutants even to trace levels detectable only
by refined techniques is no guarantee of
safety. Nature has ways of concentrating
substances that are frequently surprising and
occasionally disastrous.
We have had dramatic examples of one of
the hazards in the dense smogs that blanket
our cities with increasing frequency. What
is less widely realized is that there are global,
long-term ecological processes that concen-
trate toxic substances, sometimes hundreds
of thousands of times above levels in the
environment. These processes include not
only patterns of air and water circulation but
also a complex series of biological mecha-
nisms Over the past decade detailed studies
of the distribution of both radioactive debris
and pesticides have revealed patterns that
have surprised even biologists long familiar
with the unpredictability of nature.
Major contributions to knowledge of these
patterns have come from studies of radio-
active fallout The incident that triggered
worldwide interest in large-scale radioactive
pollution was the hydrogen-bomb test at
Bikini in 1954 known as "Project Bravo."
This was the test that inadvertently dropped
radioactive fallout on several Pacific islands
and on the Japanese fishing vessel Lucky
Dragon. Several thousand square miles of
the Pacific were contaminated with fallout
radiation that would have been lethal to
man Japanese and U.S. oceanographic ves-
sels surveying the region found that the
radioactive debris had been spread by wind
and water, and, more disturbing, it was be-
ing passed rapidly along food chains from
small plants to small marine organisms that
ate them to large animals (including the
tuna, a staple of the Japanese diet).
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and
agencies of other nations, particularly
Britain and the U.S.S R , mounted a large
international research program, costing many
millions of dollars, to learn the details of the
movement of such debris over the earth and
to explore its hazards. Although these
studies have been focused primarily on radio-
active materials, they have produced a great
deal of basic information about pollutants in
general. The radioactive substances serve as
tracers to show the transport and concentra-
tion of materials by wind and water and the
biological mechanisms that are character-
istic of natural communities.
One series of investigations traced the
worldwide movement of particles in the air.
The tracer in this case was strontium 90, a
fission product released into the earth's
atmosphere in large quantities by nuclear-
bomb tests. Two reports in 1962—one by
S. Laurence Kulp and Arthur R. Schulert of
Columbia University and the other by a
United Nations committee—furnished a de-
tailed picture of the travels of strontium 90.
The isotope was concentrated on the ground
between the latitudes of 30 and 60 degrees
in both hemispheres, but concentrations were
five to 10 times greater in the Northern
Hemisphere, where most of the bomb tests
were conducted.
It is apparently in the middle latitudes that
exchanges occur between the air of upper
elevations (the stratosphere) and that of
lower elevations (the troposphere). The
larger tests have injected debris into the
stratosphere; there it remains for relatively
long periods, being carried back into the
troposphere and to the ground in the middle
latitudes in late winter or spring. The mean
"half-time" of the particles' residence in the
stratosphere (that is, the time for half of a
given injection to fall out) is from three
months to five years, depending on many
factors, including the height of the injec-
tion, the size of the particles, the latitude
of injection and the time of year. Debris in-
jected into the troposphere has a mean half-
-------
1870
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
time of residence ranging from a few days
to about a month. Once airborne, the parti-
cles may travel rapidly and far. The time
for one circuit around the earth in the
middle latitudes varies from 25 days to less
than 15 (Following two recent bomb tests
in China fallout was detected at the Brook-
haven National Laboratory on Long Island
respectively nine and 14 days after the tests.)
Numerous studies have shown further that
precipitation (ram and snowfall) plays an
important role in determining where fall-
out will be deposited Lyle T. Alexander of
the Soil Conservation Service and Edward P.
Hardy, Jr., of the AEC found in an extensive
study in Clallam County, Washington, that
the amount of fallout was directly propor-
tional to the total annual rainfall.
It is reasonable to assume that the findings
about the movement and fallout of radio-
active debris also apply to other particles
of similar size in the air. This conclusion
is supported by a recent report by Donald
F. Gatz and A Nelson Dingle of the Uni-
[p. 28999]
versity of Michigan, who showed that the
concentration of pollen in precipitation fol-
lows the same pattern as that of radioactive
fallout. This observation is particularly
meaningful because pollen is not injected
into the troposphere by a nuclear explosion;
it is picked up in air currents from plants
close to the ground There is little question
that dust and other particles, including small
crystals of pesticides also follow these pat-
terns
From these and other studies it is clear
that various substances released into the air
are carried widely around the world and may
be deposited in concentrated form far from
the original source. Similarly, most bodies
of water—especially the oceans—have sur-
face currents that may move materials five
to 10 miles a day. Much higher rates, of
course, are found in such major oceanic
currents as the Gulf Stream. These currents
are one more physical mechanism that can
distribute pollutants widely over the earth.
The research programs of the AEC and
other organizations have explored not only
the pathways of air and water transport but
also the pathways along which pollutants
are distributed in plant and animal com-
munities. In this connection we must ex-
amine what we mean by a "community."
Biologists define communities broadly to
include all species, not just man. A natural
community is an aggregation of a great many
different kinds of organisms, all mutually
interdependent. The basic conditions for the
integration of a community are determined
by physical characteristics of the environ-
ment such as climate and soil. Thus a sand
dune supports one kind of community, a
freshwater lake another, a high mountain
still another. Within each type of environ-
ment there develops a complex of organisms
that in the course of evolution becomes a
balanced, self-sustaining biological system.
Such a system has a structure of inter-
relations that endows the entire community
with a predictable developmental pattern,
called "succession," that leads toward sta-
bility and enables the community to make
the best use of its physical environment. This
entails the development of cycles through
which the community as a whole shares
certain resources, such as mineral nutrients
and energy. For example, there are a num-
ber of different inputs of nutrient elements
into such a system. The principal input is
from the decay of primary minerals in the
soil. There are also certain losses, mainly
through the leaching of substances into the
underlying water table. Ecologists view the
cycles in the system as mechanisms that have
evolved to conserve the elements, essential
for the survival of the organisms making up
the community.
One of the most important of these cycles
is the movement of nutrients and energy
from one organism to another along the
pathways that are sometimes called food
chains. Such chains start with plants, which
use the sun's energy to synthesize organic
matter; animals eat the plants; other ani-
mals eat these herbivores, and carnivores in
turn may constitute additional levels feed-
ing on the herbivores and on one another.
If the lower orders in the chain are to sur-
vive and endure, there must be a feedback
of nutrients. This is provided by decay or-
ganisms (mainly microorganisms) that break
down organic debris into the substances
used by plants. It is also obvious that the
community will not survive if essential links
in the chain are eliminated; therefore the
preying of one level on another must be
limited.
Ecologists estimate that such a food chain
allows the transmission of roughly 10 per-
cent of the energy entering one level to the
next level above it, that is, each level can
pass on 10 percent of the energy it receives
from below without suffering a loss of pop-
ulation that would imperil it's survival. The
simplest version of a system of this kind
takes the form of a pyramid, each succes-
sively higher population receiving about a
tenth of the energy received at the level
below it.
Actually nature seldom builds communi-
ties with so simple a structure. Almost in-
variably the energy is not passed along in
a neatly ordered chain but is spread about to
a great variety of organisms through a
sprawling, complex web of pathways. The
more mature the community, the more di-
verse its makeup and the more complicated
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1871
its web. In a natural ecosystem the network
may consist of thousands of pathways.
This complexity is one of the principal
factors we must consider in investigating
how toxic substances may be distributed and
concentrated in living communities. Other
important basic factors lie in the nature of
the metabolic process. For example, of the
energy a population of organisms receives as
food, usually less than 50 percent goes into
the construction of new tissue, the rest being
spent for respiration. This circumstance acts
as a concentrating mechanism: a substance
not involved in respiration and not excreted
efficiently may be concentrated in the tissues
twofold or more when passed from one
population to another.
Let us consider three types of pathway for
toxic substances that involve man as the
ultimate consumer. The three examples,
based on studies of radioactive substances,
illustrate the complexity and variety of pol-
lution problems.
The first and simplest case is that of stron-
tium 90. Similar to calcium in chemical
behavior, this element is concentrated in
bone. It is a long-lived radioactive isotope
and is a hazard because its energetic beta
radiation can damage the mechanisms in-
volved in the manufacture of blood cells in
the bone marrow In the long run the irradi-
ation may produce certain types of cancer.
The route of strontium 90 from air to man is
rather direct: we ingest it in leafy vegetables,
which absorbed it from the soil or received
it as fallout from the air, or in milk and other
dairy products from cows that have fed on
contaminated vegetation Fortunately stron-
tium is not usually concentrated in man's
food by an extensive food chain Since it
lodges chiefly in bone, it is not concentrated
in passing from animal to animal in the
same ways other radioactive substances may
be (unless the predator eats bones').
Quite different is the case of the radio-
active isotope cesium 137. This isotope, also
a fission product, has a longlived radioactivity
(its half-life is about 30 years) and emits
penetrating gamma rays. Because it behaves
chemically like potassium, an essential con-
stituent of all cells, it becomes widely
distributed once it enters the body Conse-
quently it is passed along to meat-eating ani-
mals, and under certain circumstances it can
accumulate in a chain of carnivores.
A study in Alaska by Wayne C. Hanson,
H. E Palmer and B. I Griffin of the AEC's
Pacific-Northwest Laboratory showed that
the concentration factor for cesium 137 may
be two or three for one step in a food chain.
The first link of the chain in this case was
lichens growing in the Alaskan forest and
tundra. The lichens collected cesium 137
from fallout in rain. Certain caribou in
Alaska live mainly on lichens during the
winter, and caribou meat in turn Is the
principal diet of Eskimos in the same areas.
The investigators found that caribou had
accumulated about 15 micromierocuries of
cesium radioactivity per gram of tissue in
their bodies. The Eskimos who fed on these
caribou had a concentration twice as high
(about 30 micromierocuries per gram of tis-
sue) after eating many pounds of caribou
meat in the course of a season. Wolves and
foxes that ate caribou sometimes contained
three times the concentration in the flesh of
the caribou. It is easy to see that in a longer
chain, involving not just two animals but
several, the concentration of a substance
that was not excreted or metabolized could
be increased to high levels.
A third case is that of iodine 131, another
gamma ray emitter. Again the chain to man
is short and simple: The contaminant (from
fallout) comes to man mainly through cows'
milk, and thus the chain involves only grass,
cattle, milk and man. The danger of iodine
131 lies in the fact that iodine is concentrated
in the thyroid gland. Although iodine 131
is short-lived (its half-life is only about eight
days), its quick and localized concentration
in the thyroid can cause damage. For in-
stance, a research team from the Brookhaven
National Laboratory headed by Robert Con-
ard has discovered that children on Rongelap
Atoll who were exposed to fallout from the
1954 bomb test later developed thyroid
nodules.
The investigations of the iodine 131 hazard
yielded two lessons that have an important
bearing on the problem of pesticides and
other toxic substances released in the en-
vironment. In the first place we have had a
demonstration that the hazard of the toxic
substance itself often tends to be underesti-
mated. This was shown to be true of the
exposure of the thyroid to radiation. Thyroid
tumors were found in children who had been
treated years before for enlarged thymus
glands with doses of X-rays that had been
considered safe. As a result of this discovery
and studies of the effects of iodine 131, the
Federal Radiation Council in 1961 issued a
new guide reducing the permissible limit of
exposure to ionizing radiation to less than a
tenth of what had previously been accepted.
Not the least significant aspect of this lesson
is the fact that the toxic effects of such a
hazard may not appear until long after the
exposure; on Rongelap Atoll 10 years passed
before the thyroid abnormalities showed up
in the children who had been exposed.
The second lesson is that, even when the
pathways are well understood, it is almost
impossible to predict just where toxic sub-
stances released into the environment will
reach dangerous levels. Even in the case of
the simple pathway followed by iodine 131
the eventual destination of the substance and
-------
1872
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
its effects on people are complicated by a
great many variables; the area of the cow's
pasture (the smaller the area, the less fallout
the cow will pick up); the amount and tim-
ing of rains on the pasture (which on the one
hand may bring down fallout but on the other
may wash it off the forage); the extent to
which the cow is given stored, uncontami-
nated feed; the amount of iodine the cow
secretes in its milk; the amount of milk in
the diet of the individual consumer, and
so on.
It is difficult to estimate the nature and
extent of the hazards from radioactive fall-
out, which have been investigated in great
detail for more than a decade by an inter-
national research program, it must be said
that we are in a poor position indeed to esti-
mate the hazards from pesticides So far the
amount of research effort given to the eco-
logical effects of these poisons has been
comparatively small, although it is increasing
rapidly. Much has been learned, however,
about the movement and distribution of pesti-
cides in the environment, thanks in part to
the clues supplied by the studies of radioac-
tive fallout
Our chief tool in the pesticide inquiry is
DDT There are many reasons for focusing
on DDT: it is long-lasting, it is now com-
paratively easy to detect, it is by far the
most widely used pesticide and it is toxic
to a broad spectrum of animals, including
man Introduced only a quarter-century ago
[p. 29000]
and spectacularly successful during World
War II in controlling body lice and therefore
typhus, DDT quickly became a universal
weapon in agriculture and in public health
campaigns against disease-carriers. Not sur-
prisingly, by this time DDT has thoroughly
permeated our environment. It is found in
the air of cities, in wildlife all over North
America and in remote corners of the earth,
even in Adelie penguins and skua gulls (both
carnivores) in the Antarctic. It is also found
the world over in the fatty tissue of man
It is fair to say that there are probably few
populations in the world that are not con-
taminated to some extent with DDT.
We now have a considerable amount of
evidence that DDT is spread over the earth
by wind and water in much the same pat-
terns as radioactive fallout. This seems to be
true in spite of the fact that DDT is not
injected high into the atmosphere by an ex-
plosion When DDT is sprayed in the air,
some fraction of it is picked up by air cur-
rents as pollen is, circulated through the
lower troposphere and deposited on the
ground by rainfall I found in tests in Maine
and New Brunswick, where DDT has been
sprayed from airplanes to control the spruce
budworm in forests, that even in the open,
away from trees, about 50 percent of the DDT
does not fall to the ground. Instead it Is
probably dispersed as small crystals in the
air. This is true even on days when the air
is still and when the low-flying planes release
the spray only 50 to 100 feet above treetop
level. Other mechanisms besides air move-
ment can carry DDT for great distances
around the world. Migrating fish and birds
can transport it thousands of miles. So also
do oceanic currents. DDT has only a low
solubility in water (the upper limit is about
one part per billion), but as algae and other
organisms in the water absorb the substance
in fats, where it is highly soluble, they make
room for more DDT to be dissolved into the
water. Accordingly water that never con-
tains more than a trace of DDT can continu-
ously transfer it from deposits on the bottom
to organisms
DDT is an extremely stable compound that
breaks down very slowly in the environment.
Hence with repeated spraying the residues
in the soil or water basins accumulate.
Working with Frederic T. Martin of the Uni-
versity of Maine, I found that in a New
Brunswick forest where spraying had been
discontinued in 1958 the DDT content of the
soil increased from half a pound per acre to
1 8 pounds per acre in the three years be-
tween 1958 and 1961. Apparently the DDT
residues were carried to the ground very
slowly on foliage and decayed very little.
The conclusion is that DDT has a long half-
life in the trees and soil of a forest, certainly
in the range of tens of years.
Doubtless there are many places in the
world where reservoirs of DDT are accumu-
lating. With my colleagues Charles F. Wur-
ster, Jr , and Peter A. Isaacson of the State
University of New York at Stony Brook, I
recently sampled a marsh along the south
shore of Long Island that had been sprayed
with DDT for 20 years to control mosquitoes.
We found that the DDT residues in the upper
layer of mud in this marsh ranged up to 32
pounds per acre!
We learned further that plant and animal
life in the area constituted a chain that con-
centrated the DDT in spectacular fashion. At
the lowest level the plankton in the water
contained .04 part per million of DDT; min-
nows contained one part per million, and a
carnivorous scavenging bird (a ring-billed
gull) contained about 75 parts per million in
its tissues (on a whole-body, wetweight
basis) Some of the carnivorous animals in
this community had concentrated DDT by a
factor of more than 1,000 over the organisms
at the base of the ladder.
A further tenfold increase in the concen-
trations along this food web would in all
likelihood result in the death of many of the
organisms in it It would then be impossible
to discover why they had disappeared. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1873
damage from DDT concentration is particu-
larly serious in the higher carnivores. The
mere fact that conspicuous mortality is not
observed is no assurance of safety. Com-
paratively low concentrations may inhibit
reproduction and thus cause the species to
fade away.
That DDT is a serious ecological hazard
was recognized from the beginning of its use.
In 1946 Clarence Cottam and Elmer Higgins
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warned
in the Journal of Economic Entomology that
the pesticide was a potential menace to mam-
mals, birds, fishes and other wildlife and that
special care should be taken to avoid its ap-
plication to streams, lakes and coastal bays
because of the sensitivity of fishes and crabs.
Because of the wide distribution of DDT the
effects of the substance on a species of ani-
mal can be more damaging than hunting or
the elimination of a habitat (through an op-
eration such as dredging marshes). DDT
affects the entire species rather than a single
population and may well wipe out the species
by eliminating reproduction.
Within the past five years, with the devel-
opment of improved techniques for detecting
the presence of pesticide residues in animals
and the; environment, ecologists have been
able to measure the extent of the hazards
presented by DDT and other persistent gen-
eral poisons. The picture that is emerging
is not a comforting one. Pesticide residues
have now accumulated to levels that are
catastrophic for certain animal populations,
particularly carnivorous birds. Furthermore,
it has been clear for many years that because
of their shotgun effect these weapons not
only attack the pests but also destroy preda-
tors and competitors that normally tend to
limit proliferation of the pests Under ex-
posure to pesticides the pests tend to develop
new strains that are resistant to the chemi-
cals The result is an escalating chemical
warfare that is self-defeating and has secon-
dary effects whose costs are only beginning
to be measured. One of the costs is wildlife
notably carnivorous and scavening birds
such as hawks and eagles. There are others1
destruction of food webs aggravates pollution
problems, particularly in bodies of water
that receive mineral nutrients in sewage or
in water draining from heavily fertilized ag-
ricultural lands. The plant populations, no
longer consumed by animals, fall to the bot-
tom to decay anaerobically, producing hy-
drogen sulfide and other noxious gases,
further degrading the environment.
Location Organism
Concentration
(parts per
Tissue million)
United States (Average).
Man Fat 11.0.
Alaska (Eskimo) 2.8.
England 2.2.
West Germany 2.3.
France 5.2.
Canada 5.3.
Hungary 12.4.
Israel 19.2.
India 12.8-31.0.
United States:
California ..Plankton 5.3.
Do Bass Edible
Flesh .. 4-138,
Do Grebes ...Visceral Up to 1,600.
Fat ...
Montana ... Robin .... Whole
Body .. 6.8-13.9.
Wisconsin ..Crustacea 041.
Do Chub Whole
Body ..452.
Do Gull Brain 20.8.
Missouri ... Bald Eagle. Eggs 1.1-5.6.
Connecticut . Osprey do 6.5.
Florida Dolphin ... Blubber .. About 220.
Canada Woodcock .Whole
Body .. 1.7.
Antarctica Penguin ..Fat 0.015-0.18.
Antarctica Seal .. .. Fat 0.042-0.12.
Scotland Eagle Eggs 1.18.
New Zealand .. Trout Whole
Body .. 0.6-0.8.
Note: DDT residues, which include the derivatives
DDO and DDE as well as DDT itself, have apparently
entered most food webs. These data were selected
from hundreds of reports that show DDT has a
worldwide distribution, with the highest concentra-
tions in carnivorous birds.
The accumulation of persistent toxic sub-
stances in the ecological cycles of the earth
is a problem to which mankind will have to
pay increasing attention It affects many
e'ements of society, not only in the necessity
for concern about the disposal of wastes but
also in the need for a revolution in pest con-
trol. We must learn to use pesticides that
have a short half-life in the environment—
better yet, to use pest-control techniques that
do not require applications of general poisons.
What has been learned about the dangers
in polluting ecological cycles is ample proof
that there is no longer safety in the vastness
of the earth.
-------
1874
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
DDT RESIDUES AND DECLINING REPRODUCTION
IN BERMUDA PEIBEL
(Abstract. Residues of DDT [1,1,1-trich-
loro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane] averag-
ing 6.44 parts per million in eggs and chicks
of the carnivorous Bermuda petrel indicate
widespread contamination of an oceanic food
chain that is remote from applications of
DDT. Reproduction by the petrel has de-
clined during the last 10 years at the annual
rate of 3.25 percent; if the decline continues,
reproduction will fail completely by 1978.
Concentrations of residues are similar to those
in certain terrestrial carnivorous birds whose
productivity is also declining. Various con-
siderations implicate contamination by in-
secticides as a probable major cause of the
decline.)
Many oceanic birds nested on Bermuda
in 1609 when the first settlers arrived, the
most abundant apparently being the Ber-
muda petrel, Pterodroma cahow. Within 20
years man and his imported mammals vir-
tually exterminated those species; for nearly
300 years it was considered extinct. Several
records of specimens since 1900 were fol-
lowed in 1951 by discovery of a small breed-
ing colony (1), and in 1967 22 pairs nested on
a few rocky islets off Bermuda. With a total
population of about 100 the petrel is among
the world's rarest birds.
A wholly pelagic species, P. cahow visits
land only to breed, breeds only on Bermuda,
and arrives and departs only at night. The
single egg is laid underground at the end
of a long burrow. When not in the burrow
the bird feeds far at sea, mainly on cephalo-
pods, when not breeding it probably ranges
over much of the North Atlantic (1).
Reproduction by P. cahow has declined
recently. The data since 1958 (Table 1) show
an annual rate of decline of 3.25 + 1.05 per-
cent; the negative slope of a weighted re-
gression is significant (P, .015; F test). If
this linear decline continues, reproduction
will fail completely by 1978, with extinction
of the species Many recent reports have cor-
related diminished reproduction by certain
carnivorous birds with contamination by
chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides (2-7).
As the terminal member of a pelagic food
chain, presumably feeding over much of the
North Atlantic, the petrel may be expected
to concentrate by many orders of magnitude
any stable, lipid soluble chemicals, such as
chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, present
in lower trophic levels (2, 3, 8). In fact it
should serve as an ideal environmental moni-
tor for detection of insecticide contamination
as a general oceanic pollutant, rather than
contamination resulting directly from treat-
ment of a specific land area (9). When we
analyzed several specimens of P. cahow for
chlorinated hydrocarbon Insecticides, all $am-
ples contained DDT residues (10).
During March 1967 five unhatched eggs
and dead chicks were collected from unsuc-
cessful petrel burrows and stored frozen.
The small size of the population precluded
the sampling of living birds. Samples were
analyzed for DDT, o,p-DDT, DDE, ODD, diel-
drin, and endrin by electron-capture gas
chromatography; the results are summarized
in Table 2. No o,p-DDT, dieldrin, or
[p. 29001]
endrin was detected, but an independent
laboratory detected a trace of dieldrin.
Certain identifications were confirmed by
thin-layer chromatography (11) as follows:
After Florisil cleanup (12), the unknown
sample was spotted on a thin-layer plate
with l-/ig authentic standard samples on
both sides. After development, the unknown
was masked by a strip of paper, and the
standards were sprayed with chromogenic
reagent (11). When spots were visible fol-
lowing exposure to ultraviolet light, the
masking was removed, horizontal lines were
drawn between the standard spots in order to
locate corresponding compounds in the un-
known, and these areas were scraped from
the plate and extracted with a few drops of
a mixture of hexane and acetone (9:1 by vol-
ume) . Injection into the gas chromatograph
confirmed the presence of DDT, DDE, and
DDD by showing the appropriate single peaks
for these compounds This confirmation pro-
cedure was employed because the electron-
capture detector is more sensitive than the
chromogenic spray reagent in detecting
minute amounts of these materials.
Coincidental with diminishing reproduction
by the Bermuda petrel is the presence of DDT
residues averaging 6.44 parts per million
(ppm) in its eggs and chicks. In itself this
coincidence does not establish a causal rela-
tion, but these findings must be evaluated in
the light of other studies. Whereas a healthy
osprey (Pandion haliaetus) population pro-
duces 2.2 to 2 5 young per nest, a Maryland
colony containing DDT residues of 3.0 ppm
in its eggs yielded 1.1 young per nest, and a
Connecticut colony containing 5.1 ppm pro-
duced only 0 5 young per nest; the Connecti-
cut population has declined 30 percent
annually for the last 9 years (4). In New
Brunswick, breeding success of American
woodcocks (Philohela minor) showed a sta-
tistically significant inverse correlation with
the quantity of DDT applied to its habitat in
a given year. Furthermore, during 1962 and
1963, birds from unsprayed Nova Scotia
showed breeding success nearly twice as great
as did those from sprayed New Brunswick,
where woodcock eggs averaged 1.3 ppm of
DDT residues during those years (5).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1875
TABLE 1.—REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF THE BERMUDA
PETREL BETWEEN 1958 AND 1967 '
Success
Year Pairs Chicks (percent)
1958..
1959..
I960..
1961..
1962.
1963..
1964 .
1965..
1966..
1967..
6(1)
5(2)
13(3)
18(1)
19
17(1)
17(1)
20
21
22
4
2
6
12
9
9
8
8
6
66.7
40.0
46.2
66.7
47.4
52.9
47.1
40.0
28.6
36.4
' Percentages of established adult pairs under ob-
servation whose chicks survived 2 weeks after hatch-
ing. Numbers of pairs of unknown success (not
included in calculations) appear in parentheses
Data from 1961 to 1967 are believed to represent the
total breeding population; earlier, not all burrows
had been discovered. The decline in reproductive
success follows the linear relation y=a + bx (y,
reproductive success, a, a constant; b, annual per-
centage decline in success, x, year). The regression
weighted by numbers of pairs: y=251.9 —3.25x.
In Britain five species of raptors, Including
the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), carried
residues of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecti-
cides in their eggs, averaging 5 2 ppm; each
of these species have shown a decline in re-
production and total population during recent
years By comparison, residues in the eggs
of five species of corvids averaged 0 9 ppm,
and breeding success and numbers have been
maintained (6). It is noteworthy that dur-
ing the last decade the peregrine has become
extinct as a breeding bird in the eastern
United States (13). Residues in bald eagle
(Haliaetus leucocephalus) eggs averaged 106
ppm, and this species also shows declining
reproduction and population (7). Lake Mich-
igan herring gulls (Lams argentatus), ex-
hibiting very low reproductive success,
averaged 120 to 227 ppm of DDT residues In
the eggs (3), the suggestion being that sus-
ceptibility varies widely between species.
In most of the above instances, including
P. cahow, reduced success in breeding re-
sulted primarily from mortality of chicks
before and shortly after hatching Bobwhites
(Colinus virgmianvs) and pheasants (Phost-
anus colchicus), fed sublethal diets of DDT
or dieldrin, gave similar results (14); a
mechanism explaining chick mortality from
dieldrin poisoning during the several days
after hatching has been presented (15).
From studies of these birds and other avian
carnivores a very widespread, perhaps world-
wide, decline among many species of carniv-
orous birds is apparent The pattern of
decline is characterized by reduced success
in reproduction correlated with the presence
of residues of chlorinated hydrocarbon In-
secticides—primarily DDT. Our data for the
Bermuda petrel are entirely consistent With
this pattern.
Observations of aggressive behavior, In-
creased nervousness, chipped eggshells, In-
creased egg-breakage, and egg-eating by
parent birds of several of the above species
(3, 6, 13) suggest symptoms of a hormonal
disturbance or a calcium deficiency, or both.
Moreover, DDT has been shown to delay
ovulation and inhibit gonadal development
in birds, probably by means of a hormonal
mechanism, and low dosages of DDT or
dieldrin in the diet of pigeons increased
metabolism of steroid sex hormones by he-
patic enzymes (16) A direct relation be-
tween DDT and calcium function has also
been demonstrated, and these endocrine and
calcium mechanisms could well be interre-
lated; DDT interferes with normal calcifica-
tion of the arthropod nerve axon, causing
hyperactivity of the nerve and producing
symptoms similar to those resulting from
calcium deficiency (17). Dogs treated With
calcium gluconate are very resistant to DDT
poisoning (18); female birds are more re-
sistant than males (19), perhaps because of
calcium-mobilizing action of estrogenlc
hormones
TABLE 2. RESIDUES OF DDT (10) IN PARTS PER
MILLION (WET WEIGHT) IN EGGS AND CHICKS OF
THE BERMUDA PETREL, COLLECTED IN BERMUDA
IN MARCH 1967; PROPORTIONS OF DDT, DDE, AND
ODD ARE EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF THE
TOTAL
A
A
R
C,
D,
D,
E,
egg 1 3
addled
chick
chick
chick
chick,
Sample
i ,
in egg '
in egg' . ...
brain "
1 to 2 days old
Residues
(million)
11 02
. 10.71
. 3.61
. . 4.52
. . 6.08
.57
. 697
Percentages
DDT
a 37
a 34
15
33
33
30
2 29
DDE
2 58
2 62
65
64
62
54
' 66
ODD
a 5
2 4
20
3
5
16
'5
Average 6.44 31 62 7
1 Egg showed no sign of development.
2 Identity confirmed by thin-layer chromatography
(11)
3 Analysis 5 rnontns later by Wisconsin Alumni
Research Foundation, which also detected dieldrin
at 0 02 p.p.m.
4 Not included in averages.
! Fully developed chick died while hatching.
Of major importance, then, was the dis-
covery that a significant (P<.001) and wide-
spread decrease in calcium content of
eggshells occurred between 1946 and 1950 In
the peregrine falcon, golden eagle, and
-------
1876
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sparrow-hawk, Accipiter nisus (20). This
decrease correlates with the widespread in-
troduction of DDT into the environment dur-
ing those years, and further correlates with
the onset of reduced reproduction and of the
described symptoms of calcium deficiency.
These multiple correlations indicate a high
probability that the decline in reproduction
of most or all of these birds, including P.
cahow, is causally related to their contamina-
tion by DDT residues.
Other potential causes of the observed de-
cline for the Bermuda petrel appear unlikely.
The bird has been strictly protected and iso-
lated since 1957, and it seems that human
disturbance can be discounted. In such a
small population, inbreeding could become
important, but hatching failure is now con-
sistent in pairs having earlier records of suc-
cessful breeding, and deformed chicks are
never observed. Furthermore, the effects of
inbreeding would not be expected to increase
at a time when the total population, and
probably the gene pool, is still increasing.
The population increase results from artifi-
cial protection since 1957 from other limiting
factors, especially competition for nest sites
with tropic birds (21).
It is very unlikely that the observed DDT
residues in P. cahow were accumulated from
Bermuda: the breeding grounds are confined
to a few tiny, isolated, and uninhabited islets
never treated with DDT, and the bird's feed-
ing habits are wholly pelagic. Thus the pres-
ence of DDT residues in all samples can lead
only to the conclusion that this oceanic food
chain, presumably including the plankton, is
contaminated This conclusion is supported
by reported analyses showing residues in re-
lated seabirds including two species of shear-
waters from the Pacific (22); seabird eggs
(9, 22); freshwater, estuarine, and coastal
plankton (2, 8, 23); plankton-feeding orga-
nisms (2, 8, 9, 22, 23); and other marine ani-
mals from various parts of the world (8, 22).
These toxic chemicals are apparently very
widespread within oceanic organisms (8, 22),
and the evidence suggests that their ecolog-
ical effects are important.
CHARLES F WURSIER, JR.,
Department of Biological Sciences,
State University of New York, Stony
Brook
DAVID B. WINGATE,
Department of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Paget East, Bermuda.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. R C Rurphy and L. S. Mowbray, Auk
68, 266 (1951); A C Bent, US. Nat. Museum
Bull 121 (1922), pp. 112-7.
2 E G Hunt and A I. Bischoff, Calif. Fish
Came 46, 91 (1960); E. G. Hunt, in Nat. Acad.
Sci-Nat. Res Council Publ. 1402 (1966), p.
251.
3. J. P. Ludwig and C. S. Tomoff, Jack-Pine
Warbler 44, 77 (1966); J. A. Keith, J. Appl.
Ecol. 3 (suppl.), 57 (1966); J. J. Hickey, J. A.
Keith, F. B. Coon, ibid., p. 141.
4. P. L. Ames, ibid., p. 87.
5. B. S. Wright, J. Wildlife Management 29,
172 (1965).
6. S. Cramp, Brit. Birds 56, 124 (1963); J.
D. Lockie and D. A. Ratcliffe, ibid. 57, 89
(1964); D. A. Ratcliffe, ibid. 58, 65 (1965);
Bird Study 10, 56 (1963); 12, 66 (1965).
7. L. F. Stickel et al., in Trans. North
American Wildlife Natural Resources Con}.
31st (1966), pp. 190-200; J. B. DeWitt, Audu-
bon Mag. 65, 30 (1963); A. Sprunt, ibid., p. 32.
8. G. M. Woodwell, C. F. Wurster, P. A.
Isaacson, Science 156, 821 (1967); G. M.
Woodwell, Set. Amer. 216, 24 (March 1967).
9. N W. Moore and J. O'G. Tatton, Nature
207, 42 (1965); N. W. Moore, J. Appl. Ecol.
3 (suppl.), 261 (1966).
10 Residues of DDT include DDT and its
decay products (metabolites) DDE and DDD;
DDT, l,l,l-triehloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-
ethane; DDE, l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloro-
phenyl) ethylene; DDD (also known as
TDE), l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethane.
11 M. F. Kovacs, J. Assoc. Offic. Anal.
Chemists 49, 365 (1966).
12. J. G. Cummings, K T. Zee, V. Turner,
F. Quinn, R. E. Cook, ibid , p. 354.
13. R. A. Herbert and K. G. S. Herbert, Auk
82, 62 (1965); J. J Hickey, Ed., Peregrine
[p. 29002]
Falcon Populations, Their Biology and De-
cline (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, in
press).
14. J. B. DeWitt, J. Agr. Food Chem. 3, 672
(1955); 4, 863 (1956); R. E. Genelly and R. L.
Rudd, Auk 73, 529 (1956).
15. J. H. Koeman, R. C. H. M. Oudejans,
E. A. Huisman, Nature 215, 1094 (1967).
16. D. J Jefferies, Zbis 109, 266 (1967);
H Burlington and V. F. Lindeman, Proc. Soc.
Exp. Biol. Med. 74, 48 (1950); D. B. Peakall,
Nature 216, 505 (1967) ; Atlantic Naturalist
22, 109 (1967).
17. J. H. Welsh and H. T. Gordon, J. Cell.
Comp. Physiol. 30, 147 (1947); H. T. Gordon
and J. H. Welsh, ibid. 31, 395 (1948).
18. Z. Vaz, R. S. Pereira, D. M. Malheiro,
Science 101, 434 (1945).
19. D. H. Wurster, C. F. Wurster, R. N.
Strickland, Ecology 46, 488 (1965); L. B.
Hunt, unpublished manuscript, University of
Wisconsin, 1965.
20. D. R. Ratcliffe, Nature 215, 208 (1967).
21. D. B. Wingate, Con. Audubon 22, 145
(1960).
22. R W. Risebrough, D. B. Menzel, D. J.
Martin, H. S. Olcott, Nature 216, 589 (1967);
J. Robinson. A. Richardson, A. N. Crabtree,
J. C. Coulson, G. R. Potts, ibid. 214, 1307
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1877
(1967); W. J. L Sladen, C. M. Menzie, W. L.
Reichel, ibid. 210, 670 (1966); J. O. G. Tatton
and J H. A Ruzicka. ibid. 215, 346 (1967);
J O Keith and E. G. Hunt, in Trans Worth
American Wildlife Natural Resources Con].
31st (1966), pp 150-77.
23. P A. Butler, ibid., pp. 184-9; J. Appl.
Ecol. 3 (suppl.), 253 (1966).
24. Aided by a grant from the Research
Foundation of the State University of New
York, transportation by the Smithsonian In-
stitution, Washington, D C. The Bermuda
petrel conservation program was financed by
Childs Frick and the New York Zoological
Society We thank G. M. Woodwell for criti-
cizing the manuscript.
THE PEREGRINE SITUATION IN GREAT BRITAIN
1965-66
(ByD. A. Ratcliffe)
(Monks Wood Experimental Station—The
Nature Conservancy)
INTRODUCTION
In order to follow latest trends in the
breeding population of the British Peregrine
(Falco peregnnus), a sample census was con-
tinued in 1965 and 1966 on a scale similar to
that of 1963-64. This paper summarises the
results, and gives data on chemical analysis
of the small samples of eggs taken during
these two years
CENSUS DATA
Observations on 200 territories in 1965 and
213 territories in 1966 (representing 240 dif-
ferent territories of the two-year period)
are given in Table I, according to the six
different regions of Great Britain recognised
previously (Ratcliffe 1963) This sample is
approximately one-third of the mean annual
total of 650 territories estimated to be occu-
pied regularly in Great Britain during the
standard period 1930-39, or just under one-
third of the total of 718 territories occupied
at least once since 1930 Census data for
1961-64 are given for comparison However,
because of a bias against visiting previously
deserted territories and reporting negative
observations during the period 1963-66, the
figures for these years are not directly com-
parable with those for 1961-62, and a correc-
tion has to be made (see Table I).
It is evident that there has been no appre-
ciable change in level of breeding population
since 1964, for although only 41 successful
eyries were known in 1966, against 45 in
1965, this is not a significant difference. The
data certainly give no hint of overall im-
provement in the Peregrine situation during
the last two years. Few records for the main-
land of the North and West Highlands are
available for 1965-66, and most of the data
referring to this region are for Orkney and
Shetland It is clear that parts of the South
and East Highlands are still the stronghold
of the Peregrine in Britain, and breeding suc-
cess has remained good in this region; but
even here, a quarter of the inspected terri-
tories held apparently nonbreeding birds in
1966. In England and Wales together, suc-
cessful breeding was limited to ten pairs In
1965 and seven pairs in 1966, and at least
four-fifths of the territories visited were un-
occupied in both years.
When the figures for 1965-66 are compared
with those for 1963-64, the proportion of de-
serted territories is seen to have been fairly
constant throughout, i.e about 60 percent of
the number of known territories visited,
when correction for observation/recording
bias has been made Regarding breeding suc-
cess, it should be noted that in 1965 and 1966
there were, respectively, 17 and 12 eyries
where eggs were probably or certainly laid,
but which were not re-visited to determine
the final outcome; whereas in 1963 and 1964
there were only 4 and 3 such eyries. As the
other data suggest that at least half the 'out-
come unknown' eyries would be successful,
the figures for successful nesting in the
1965-66 census samples would almost cer-
tainly be higher than those given in Table I.
Even so, it is doubtful if there is valid evi-
dence for a significant change in breeding
success during the whole four-year period
1963-66; this has fluctuated from about 13
to 16 per cent of the number of known ter-
ritories visited. There may have been a
slight recovery in 1964 after the low ebb of
1963, but the figures may indicate merely the
normal fluctuation of a population which
has become relatively stabilized at a much
reduced level; while, in any case, there is
likely to be a degree of sampling and ob-
servational error.
-------
1878
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1879
By comparison with the fuller data for
1961-62, it would seem that the rapid decline
of those years continued into 1963, but that
the population then leveled off, and, at most,
has since shown marginal Improvement in
breeding success alone. On the other hand,
when data for each region are examined
separately, the population of Southern Scot-
land has shown evident improvement In
breeding success since 1963; in 1963, only 3
out of 19 inland territories visited had suc-
cessful pairs, whereas in 1966, 8 out of 24
reared young. M. Gilbertson (pers. comm )
also reports an apparent improvement in
Northern Ireland, where a total of only 5
young was reared in 14 territories examined
in 1964, compared with a total of 11 young
in 16 territories in 1966. These are the regions
closest to the Scottish Highlands, and there-
fore the ones in which any recovery of the
Peregrine population might be expected to
show first.
PESTICIDE RESIDUES
Although only 12 Peregrine eggs have been
analysed (by gas-liquid chromatography) for
organo-chlorine pesticide residues in 1965-66,
the results (Table II) are revealing. Despite
the higher levels, compared with 1963-64, the
sample is too small for the data to be re-
garded as valid evidence of an increase in
contamination. However, the figures suggest
that the voluntary restrictions on use of al-
drin, dieldrin and heptachlor, in 1964, have
(up to the spring of 1966) had no effect In
reducing the contamination of the British
Peregrine by residues of these pesticides.
The figures for heptachlor in particular indi-
cate that, despite statements to the contrary,
[p. 29003]
there was still a considerable local use of
this chemical during 1965-66.
Whilst only 5 egg analyses are available yet
for the central part of the South and East
Highlands, they show an appreciably lower
mean level of contamination than the 22 eggs
from Northern England and Southern Scot-
land, though the difference lies largely in the
DDE component of the residues. This
matches the differences between the first re-
gion and the second two in regard to both
state of the population and breeding success;
and it supports the earlier contention (Rat-
cliffe 1963, 1965) that contamination risk to
the Peregrine is lower in the South and East
Highlands than in most other parts of the
British Isles Even within the 5 Highland
eggs there are suggestive differences; the two
from Angus (within Peregrine reach of rich
arable farm land) contain appreciably higher
residues of DDE, dieldrin and heptachlor
expoxide than those from the three Inverness-
shire eyries, which were all remote from ag-
ricultural land.
The egg analyses for 1963-64 showed no
difference between those from eyries which
failed and those which produced flying young
from the remaining eggs (Ratcliffe 1965).
Now that more data are available, a slight
difference shows when all egg analyses are
thus separated; the figures are (total organo-
chlorine residues) 17.4 p p.m. for eggs from
failed eyries and 12.7 p.p.m. for eggs from
successful eyries. The difference is not sta-
tistically significant but it is suggestive.
In 1966, two eggs were examined for resi-
dues of mercury; one was blank (Table IIB,
1966/1) but the other (Table IIB, 1966/3)
contained 0 3 p.p.m.
BREEDING SUCCESS, BROOD SIZE AND REPLACEMENT
OF LOSSES
Of the 30 eyries which failed In 1965-66,
egg breakage or disappearance of eggs (usu-
ally one by one and apparently due to paren-
tal destruction) was the cause of failure in
26 Mean brood size in successful eyries has
continued to be low in regions south of the
Highlands (average of 1 8 young for 24 known
broods) and normal in the South and East
Highlands (average of 2 5 young for 28 known
broods).
I have recently been provided with data
collected by the late W. C. Lawrie at a regu-
lar Lakeland eyrie between 1910 and 1939
The history is incomplete, but the following
records are available of all successful nest-
ings in which the brood-size was definitely
known •
1913,
1914,
1920,
1922,
1924,
1925,
1926,
3 young
3 young
3 young
3 young
4 young
2 young
4 young
1927, 4 young
1928, 1 young
1930, 4 young
1931, 3 young
1936, 4 young
1939, 4 young
The mean of these 13 broods was 3.2 young,
an appreciably higher figure than the na-
tional pre-war average of 2.5 young. Un-
specified broods were also reared in several
other years and there are in existence several
clutches of eggs taken from this locality dur-
ing the same period. The haunt was never
known to be deserted between 1910 and 1939,
and the only cause of breeding failure Was
egg collecting, apart from one year in which
the birds deserted after being kept off the
nest for many hours. At least two different
females were involved during this period.
The recent history of occupation at this
same haunt is as follows:—
1961 3 eggs; two were later broken, the
third hatched but the chick died.
1962 3 eggs; all disappeared later, evidently
through parental destruction.
1963 3 eggs; one taken fresh for chemical
analysis (Table IIB, 1963, No. 3), the other
two hatched; one chick died and the other
fledged.
-------
1880
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1964 3 eggs; only one chick hatched and it
later died.
1965 3 eggs; one broken later, one bad
(Table IIB, 1965, No. 4) and the third
hatched; the single chick fledged.
1966 No trace of the birds.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1881
a
Ul
Z
DC
UJ
gg
z 3
°T
QJ O
o-J
— i S
1^
IS
s<
!
3
3
°s
if
s
0-0
•gg
$9
I
•c
2
.2
5
a
ex
o.
UJ
o
a.
a
UJ
a.
o.
&
3
a
z
*-
en n o *o
o •*
O i-< ^^ r-i '
O i-H
O
a, ^- to oo oo «
wj " w ! *
E S E •= «
S | S • |
r-i CM «-• «-H «
C
i
P> (D
O)
a
z
3
^
o
C/l
LU
t-
Z)
o
z
0
"
u
z
K
I
i
oc\i<-io>Lnuir-4(noo«toouiincooo
CMr^CO CM CM TH r-t i-t rH r-t r-
CM ^- i-t
-~" If) rH
^"" O
COo«o^
T3' £-'-'j=:
E_Q-Di;~'OTj3-O ^;-agi
u> £ .£"§ . .Jt . £ -fc5"S
5o 'ciai • -i2 • a *^ol
CO ^~
CD
»^ rH
o o
•= =
i i
CO rt
o> a>
rH t-H
-------
1882
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
•o
0)
3
c
'.M
C
p
CO
a
LU
LU
rt*
cs
SLU
O.
z
CO
LU
0
CO
LU
or
1-CHLORINE
\_i
or
?
LU
_l
CD
O V)
~~.
S|
E
o
L_ eo
O -a
II
§• *
3C
.c
2
CD
15
h-
0
0
Q.
LU
a
a.
a.
LU
Q
Q
Q.
a.
£•
c
3
O
ri
z
otnoomoofOr^(D'*o>inoo
ajrHcntoincMcncocooocNrx
CNrlrHCMCMCNCMCNr-ICNCMfH
•srcMcM^ -CM • • .careen
CM
COCMCMCOOC*)OOrHlT)rs,cn
^f ,-H rH i-H rH
LnLomcDooioco<£>cM
i-H r-t
f
^
£
^
•o
£
'ra
O
c
0)
1
3i >.
s?=
Ȥ
= s
.§ 01
1 §
12
0)
a*
i_ .
>. 0
QJ ^^
"5 »i
sl
S "
§ »
v> E
3 CO
W M
to
bO
CD
CM)
C
IE
'«
2
E
8
•D
CO
CO
£
bo
c
3
o
>\
rH
I S
— o
» -g
•f 1
3? £
1 .1
CD 03
w 5 eo
§ 2 S
CO F- -J
"~ ** w
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1883
While the two eggs containing total organo-
chlorine residues of 36 and 27 p.p m. (dleldrin
f heptachlor epoxide 5.2 and 1.4 p.p.m.) were
from clutches from which single young were
fledged, this level of contamination was as-
sociated with a marked reduction in brood
size, compared with pre-war years. This
haunt was one of only five (out of 30) once
regularly occupied territories in Northern
England which were continuously occupied
throughout the period 1960-65; and 1966 was
the first year since 1910 when Peregrines
were absent. Probably the same female oc-
cupied the haunt from 1961 to 1965, but it was
a different bird from that present in 1939.
The summarised figures in Table I conceal
the details of change occurring within a
population which as a whole remains stable.
For instance, in Southern Scotland, 27 terri-
tories were visited in both 1965 and 1966, and
16 were found occupied in each year, but
only 13 were occupied in both years. Since
1960, it is usual for this region and Northern
England to show small gains and losses in
any year, by comparison with the preceding
and succeeding years, so that fresh gaps are
still appearing as old ones are filled.
The output of young Peregrines annually
from the whole of the Scottish Highlands
would seem adequate to allow a slow recov-
ery, at least in occupation of territories, and
it is perhaps surprising that even in this re-
gion, about 47 per cent of territories visited
remained deserted or held by non-breeders
in 1966. However, the annual surplus has
also to fill gaps caused by mortality amongst
the established breeding population, and
when birds move away from their birthplace
to depleted areas, they are themselves in-
creasingly exposed to pesticidal contamina-
tion, with the implication of increased risks
of mortality and breeding failure. As not all
Peregrines are likely to reach sexual matu-
rity at one year old, many probably pass
their juvenile stage in country away from
breeding haunts and may then be more at
risk, as regards pesticides, than if they were
able to occupy a nesting place in their first
year.
Walpole-Bond (1914) noted that a barren
female Peregrine refused to mate or to allow
a prospecting pair to settle on her breeding
cliffs, but after she was shot, a new pair
soon appeared and nested. It could be that
many of the non-breeding Peregrines re-
cently holding territories also defend them
against potential breeders which arrive from
other areas. Cade (1960) has suggested that
the tenacity with which Peregrine eyries are
[p. 29004]
usually held over a long period depends on
the survival at all times of one bird of the
occupying pair, and that when both of the
pair die simultaneously, continuity is lost and
the haunt may then be left deserted for a
period Many Peregrine breeding haunts
south of the Highlands seem to have been
totally deserted for several years, and this
loss of continuity may be an additional fac-
tor working against their re-occupation.
Even so, rate of re-occupation of totally de-
serted haunts in Southern England was fairly
rapid after intensive human 'control' ceased
in 1945. The continued failure of the Pere-
grine to restore its previous breeding num-
bers is most likely to be explained by lack
of improvement in the adverse factor which
originally depleted the areas concerned.
CONCLUSIONS
The continued investigations of 1965-66 re-
inforce earlier conclusions (Ratcliffe 1963,
1965) that the persistent organo-chlorine
pesticide residues have been a causal factor
in the post-1955 decline of the Peregrine in
Britain. In view of the evident maintenance
of contamination levels in the environment,
it is not surprising that the breeding popula-
tion has shown no clear tendency towards
recovery Moreover, there would seem to be
no sign of general resistance to these chemi-
cals developing in this species.
SUMMARY
A sample census of about one-third of the
Peregrine breeding population of Great
Britain in 1965 and 1966 indicates that there
has been no significant change in proportion
of occupied territories or breeding success of
remaining birds during this period.
Comparison with earlier data suggests that
the Peregrine decline ceased after 1963, and
that the population has since remained rela-
tively stable, with occupied territories at
about 40 per cent of the pre-war level and
breeding success (pairs rearing young) vary-
ing between about 13 and 16 per cent of the
maximum possible level (former mean an-
nual number of pairs). Breeding success may
have improved marginally after 1963 on the
national scale, and more significantly in
Southern Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The geographical pattern is unchanged,
with population level, breeding success and
brood size lowest in England and Wales, and
highest in the South and East Highlands of
Scotland.
Analysis of Peregrine eggs gives no evi-
dence of a decrease in contamination by any
organo-chlorine residue since 1964. Eggs
from Northern England and Southern Scot-
land were more heavily contaminated than
those from the South and East Highlands
during the period 1963-66, though the differ-
ence lies mainly in the DDE component.
Failure of young Peregrines from success-
ful eyries to build up the breeding population
of depleted areas is probably a reflection pri-
marily on the lack of improvement in the
adverse factor which Initiated decline.
-------
1884
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ADDENDUM
Since this account was written, preliminary
data for 1967 have become available. They
indicate a slight recovery of population, in
both occupation of territories and breeding
success, in the east and central Scottish
Highlands, Northern England and Northern
Ireland. In the southwest Highlands and
Southern Scotland, breeding success was
lower than in 1966, but there was no decrease
in number of occupied territories Analysis
of ten eggs in 1967 shows a decrease in
organo-chlorine residue levels, especially of
dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide, compared
with 1956-66, and also confirms that residue
levels are significantly lower in the Central
Highlands than in other regions of the south.
Slight recovery of the population in more
northerly regions is thus consistent with a de-
crease in environmental contamination, at
least in these more marginal arable farming
districts, which were least affected by the
original population decline.
It has recently been shown (Ratcliffe 1967)
that the post-war prevalence of egg breaking
in the British Peregrine correlates closely
with a widespread decrease in eggshell
weight/size ratio (i e. probably thickness)
which appeared in 1947 and has persisted ever
since, except in some parts of the Central
Highlands The connections between these
phenomena, and their possible relationships
to contamination of the species by organo-
chlorine residue, are being examined.
PROBLEMS WITH DDT IN FISH CULTURAL
OPERATIONS
(J. P. Cuerrier, J. A. Keith, and E Stone)
ABSTRACT
Various concentrations of DDT and resi-
dues have been detected in eggs and fry of
speckled, rainbow, and cutthroat trout ob-
tained from local sources and from commer-
cial suppliers and handled at the Maligne
River Trout Hatchery, Jasper National Park,
Alberta. Concentrations of DDT and metab-
olites exceeding 400 ppb in eggs resulted in a
30 to 90 per cent mortality among the fry
60 fingerlings during the days following the
swim-up stage All commercial dry feeds
analysed contained DDT. Among ingredients
used in the manufacturing of trout feeds,
only brewer yeast was found almost free of
contamination.
INTRODUCTION
Because of the very wide distribution of
DDT, it would seem that all forms of life are
being exposed, directly or indirectly, to this
chemical insecticide. Extensive research has
been done on the toxicity of DDT to insects,
the primary target, but comparatively little
is known of the effects of secondary con-
tamination of animals, particularly during the
very early stages of development. The pur-
pose of this paper is to present data on DDT
contamination of trout in fish hatcheries.
Mack and co-workers (1964) found DDT
concentrations in whole fish ranging from 0.2
to 7 ppm; certain tissues or organs contained
up to 40 ppm. Burdick and co-workers (1964)
found as much as 500 ppm of DDT by weight
in ether-extracted oils from lake trout eggs
taken from Lake George, New York State.
They found that 90 per cent of lake trout eggs
containing 2.95 ppm of DDT and above died
at the fry stage. With landlocked salmon
at Sebago Lake, Maine, Anderson and Ever-
hart (1966) found that ovaries of three-year-
old salmon contained 0 87 ppm of DDT, while
TABLE 1—DDT AND METABOLITES IN PARTS PER 10' (PPB) WET WEIGHT IN EGGS AND FRY OF VARIOUS SPECIES
OF TROUT
catalog
B-477
B-479 . . .
B-480 . . .
B-726
B-727
B-728 . .
B-729
B-730
B-420
B-417
B-418
B-478 ....
Description '
. . RT eggs, commercial
. . . RT eggs, commercial . .
. . Cutth. T eggs domestic
RT f sp yolk fry
RT f sp yolk fry
. .. EBT fry, domestic
Concentration in
DDE o,p'
65
57
63
79
129
46
62
166
333
1 022
971
217
parts
DDT
8
19
29
(3)
(')
(4)
44
54
16
per 10»,
DDD p
23
28
33
26
11
6
378
294
178
51
ppb, wet
,p'-DDT
25
44
53
21
7
23
201
weight
Total
123
148
178
79
176
64
68
567
1 140
485
(percent)
— 15
— 15
30
90
' Abbreviations: RT equals rainbow trout; f.sp. equals fall spawning, EBT equals eastern brook or speckled
trout, Cutth T. equal cutthroat trout.
1 Losses during the 2-month period following the swim-up stage.
1 Indicates undetected, the limit of detection being 1 ppb.
4 Indicates traces In the range of 1 to 5 ppb.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1885
ovaries of older salmon showed 6 0 ppm of
DDT.
Mortality at the yolk-sac stage of lake
trout in George Lake and other waters in the
State of New York, and of the landlocked
salmon in Sebago Lake, has been ascribed to
DDT contamination.
For many years, gill diseases were thought
to cause mortality at different stages of de-
velopment of the various trout species raised
at the Maligne River Trout Hatchery, Jasper
National Park, Alberta Recent investiga-
tions by the Pathology Section of the
Canadian Wildlife Service, with the co-
operation of the US. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, have revealed the oc-
currence of such diseases as "cold-water
disease", infectious pancreatic necrosis, and
"kidney disease", in addition to gill diseases.
Mortality has also been caused by dissolved
copper and zinc from pipes and valves in the
hatchery. In spite of these hazards and the
Damocles sword ever present in fish culture
operations, in 1966 the Maligne River Hatch-
ery produced more than one and one-half
million trout of various species and sizes for
plantings in the Mountain Park waters.
However, some mortality could not be ex-
plained by viral or bacterial infections and
DDT contamination was suspected. Samples
of eggs, alevins, and commercial dry feeds
were analysed All analyses were performed
under contract by Dr. D J. Ecobichon,
Pharmacology Division, University of Guelph,
using electron capture gas chromatography
and the extraction procedure of Saschen-
brecker and Ecobichon (1967).
TROUT EGGS AND ALEVINS
Trout eggs handled at the Maligne River
Trout Hatchery come from various sources:
(a) local collections from wild stocks origi-
nating from annual hatchery plantings; (b)
local collections from domestic stocks held
at the hatchery, (c) commercial suppliers
located in the United States; and (d) pro-
vincial and federal fisheries agencies. Table
1 presents data on DDT and metabolite levels
found in eggs and alevins of various species
of trout.
In view of the preliminary and exploratory
nature of this report, no attempt is being
made to establish a relationship between the
levels of each type of residue found in the
various samples. However, in samples with
levels of total DDT and residues below 200
ppb, residues of DDT and metabolites appear
in the following order: the lowest levels are
of o,p'-DDT, followed by ODD, p,p,'-DDT,
and DDE. DDE was the major component,
with about twice as much of it as of the other
residues combined.
Eggs collected from wild rainbow trout in
Lake Edith, Jasper National Park, where an-
nual plantings are carried out, showed a total
level of 123 ppb of DDT and metabolites.
Losses during the 60 days following the
swim-up stage were less than 15 per cent.
Spring-spawning rainbow trout eggs from
commercial sources contained levels ranging
from 64 ppb to 178 ppb. Losses in alevins
from these eggs were less than 15 per cent
during the 60 days following the swim-up
stage. Losses of this magnitude are consid-
ered normal for that stage. However, cut-
throat trout fry resulting from eggs purchased
from a commercial supplier showed a total
concentration of 567 ppb of DDT and metab-
olites; losses were about 30 percent.
Eastern brook trout fry resulting from eggs
[p. 29005]
extracted from a domestic brood stock held
at the Jasper Hatchery had a mortality of 70
per cent. The total level of DDT and metabo-
lites was 464 ppb.
Rainbow trout yolk-sac fry from an
autumn-spawning strain obtained from a
commercial supplier contained 996 ppb of
DDT and 236 ppd of ODD for a total of 1,285
ppb of DDT and metabolites. Losses
amounted to close to 90 per cent in the two-
month period which followed the swim-up
stage. Similar heavy losses were experi-
enced with brook trout fry resulting from
eggs obtained from a domestic brood stock
held by a government agency. The concen-
tration of total DDT and metabolites was 485
ppb, mostly DDE and p,p'-DDT.
The fish with high levels of mortality were
not exposed to disease more than the others,
but during the period of this study, mortality
above 25 per cent seemed to be associated
with comparatively high levels of DDT and
its metabolites Therefore, we conclude that
insecticide residues were responsible for this
high mortality. In their paper on chronic
effects of DDT on cutthroat trout, Allison
and coworkers (1964) stated that "there was
a critical period shortly after hatching when
mortality was noticeably higher in offspring
of the high-dosage lots".
The relationship between mortality, level
of DDT contamination of the eggs, and tem-
perature of the water during yolk-sac absorp-
tion is under experimental study. Incubation
and hatching during the winter and spring
seasons at the Maligne River Trout Hatchery
take place at a water temperature of 40° F
Brook trout fry and alevins which experi-
enced a 90 per cent mortality at our Maligne
River Trout Hatchery had less than 15 per
cent mortality at the hatchery where the
eggs came from. At that establishment,
incubation of trout eggs is carried out at
a water temperature ranging from 32° F. to
36D F.
COMMERCIAL TROUT DRY FEEDS
Fry are fed with commercial dry feeds after
reaching the advanced swim-up stage. Sam-
ples of dry feeds were analyzed. Results are
-------
1886
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
presented in Table 2 but for obvious reasons,
brand names and sources are not given.
Analyses revealed the presence of DDT In all
samples, with levels ranging from 2 ppb to
234 ppb. One sample also contained 17 ppb
of dieldrin.
TABLE 2.—DDT AND METABOLITES IN PARTS PER 10'
(ppb) WET WEIGHT IN MANUFACTURED DRY FEEDS
FOR TROUT
Sample
catalog
number
Concentrations in parts per 10', ppb
DDE o,p'-DDT ODD p,p'-DOT Total
473-476 104
483-476 45
491-493 45
B-1348 71
B-1349 » 59
B-1351 75
B-1352 56
B-1456 44
B-407 2
B-408 2
B-490 16
B-723 19
B-724 33
B-1166 125
B-1456 44
B-146 60
27 38
19 42
35 38
(') 33
(') 20
(') 67
(') 47
(') 96
(') 26
50 67
126 249
(') 96
(') 67
65 234
54 160
78 196
46 150
28 107
54 196
39 132
214
4
4
(3) 16
9 54
238 388
157 657
74 214
24 151
74
2
2
1 Indicates undetected, the limit of detection being
1 ppb.
J This feed also contained 17 ppb dieldrin.
' Indicates traces in the range of 1 to 5 ppb.
Presence of metabolites, from low to high
levels, is as follows: o,p'-DDT, DDD, p,p'-
DDT, and DDE. This same order was ob-
served with the samples of rainbow trout
eggs with low levels of DDT and metabolites.
Some ingredients utilized in the manufac-
turing of dry feeds were analysed for DDT
residues. Data obtained indicated that of
all the ingredients examined, only brewers'
yeast contained residues no higher than 5
ppb; soybean meal and fish meal contained
less than 100 ppb.
CONCLUSION
Various levels of DDT and residues have
been found in brook, rainbow, and cutthroat
trout handled at the Maligne River Trout
Hatchery in Jasper National Park. When
levels of DDT and metabolites exceeded 400
ppb in eggs, mortality in the resulting fry
ranged from 30 per cent to 90 per cent in the
60-day period following the swim-up stage.
All commercial dry trout feeds analysed
were found to contain chlorinated hydro-
carbons. Of several ingredients used, only
brewer's yeast was found to be almost free
of contamination.
From operational observations, It would
seem that DDT in manufactured trout food
is detrimental to the growth of trout raised
under hatchery conditions, when DDT and
metabolites in the eggs and fry exceed cer-
tain levels.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. B., and W. H. Everhart, 1966.
Concentrations of DDT in landlocked Salmon
(Salmo solar) at Sebago Lake, Maine. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 95: 160-164.
Burdick, G. E., E. J. Harris, H. J. Dean,
T. M. Walker, Jack Skea, and David Colby,
1964. The accumulation of DDT In Lake
Trout and the effect on reproduction. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 93: 127-136.
Mack, G. L. et al. The DDT content of
some fishes and surface waters of New York
State. N.Y. Fish and Game Journal, 11(2):
148-153.
Saschenbrecker, P. W., and D. J. Ecobichon,
1967. Extraction and gas chromatographic
analysis of chlorinated insecticides from
animal tissues, J. Agric. Food Chem. (in
press).
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS AND EGGSHELL
CHANGES IN RAPTORIAL AND FISH-EATING
BIRDS
(Abstract. Catastrophic declines of three
raptorial species in the United States have
been accompanied by decreases in eggshell
thickness that began in 1947, have amounted
to 19 percent or more, and were identical to
phenomena reported in Britain. In 1967, shell
thickness in herring gull eggs from five states
decreased with increases in chlorinated hy-
drocarbon residues.)
New perspectives on the role of chlorinated
hydrocarbon insecticides in our environment
have come into focus in recent years. Suc-
cessive discoveries have demonstrated that
these compounds are systematically concen-
trated in the upper trophic layers of animal
pyramids (1). Raptorial bird populations
have simultaneously suffered severe popula-
tion crashes in the United States and Western
Europe (2, 3, 4). These involve reproductive
failures which, at least in Britain, are char-
acterized by changes in calcium metabolism
and by a decrease in eggshell thickness re-
sulting in the parent birds' breaking and
eating their own eggs (4, 5, 6). Such a de-
rangement of calcium metabolism or mobili-
zation perhaps could result from breakdown
of steroids by hepatic microsomal enzymes
induced by exposure to low dietary levels of
chlorinated hydrocarbons (7).
We have examined the possibility that the
eggshell changes reported in Britain (6) have
also occurred in the United States and that
the raptor population crashes in Europe and
North America may have had a common
physiological mechanism. The population
changes are without parallel in the recent
history of bird populations (8). They Include
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1887
the pending extirpation of the peregrine fal-
con (Falco peregrinus) in northwestern
Europe, the complete extirpation of the
nesting population of this species in the east-
ern half of the United States, and simultane-
ous declines among other bird- and fish-eating
raptors on both sides of the Atlantic.
We examined 1729 blown eggs in 39 mu-
seum and private collections. Shells were
weighed to the nearest hundredth of a gram.
In 29 percent of these, we were able to insert
a micrometer through the hole drilled by the
collector at the girth of the shell and to take
four measurements of thickness 7 mm from
the edge of the blow hole; these were then
averaged to the nearest 0.01 mm for each
shell. Thickness in each case then repre-
sented the shell itself plus the dried egg
membranes. Peregrine falcons, bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and ospreys
(Pandion haliaetus) were selected as having
one or more regionally declining populations;
golden eagles (Aquila. chrysaeetos), red-
tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and great
horned owls (Bubo virginianus) were se-
lected as representative of reasonably sta-
tionary populations that may be slowly
declining as their habitats are gradually de-
stroyed by man, but for which widespread
reproductive failures are currently unknown.
In addition, 57 eggs of the herring gull
(Larus argentatus) were collected from five
colonies in 1967. The shells of these Were
dried at room temperature for 4 months be-
fore being measured, and residues of the
entire egg contents were analyzed by the Wis-
consin Alumni Research Foundation for
chlorinated hydrocarbons but not for poly-
chlorinated biphenyls. Analytical procedure
followed that outlined by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (9). Analyses were
conducted on a gas chromatograph (Barber
Coleman, model GC 5000, and Jarrell-Ash,
model 28-700) with electron-capture detec-
tors. The glass column (0 6 cm by 1.2 m)
was packed with 5 percent DC 200 (12,500)
on Cromport XXX. The column temperature
was 210'C, and the nitrogen flow rate was
75 cmVmin. Each portion of the ground and
dried samples was extracted for 8 hours or
more in a Soxhlet apparatus with a mixture
of ether and petroleum ether (70:170). Por-
tions of the extracts were further purified by
putting them through a Florisil column.
In California, where the peregrine falcon
population is in "a serious condition (10),
a change of 18 8 percent in shell weight oc-
curred from 1947 to 1952. Ratcliffe (6) found
a corresponding decrease of 18.9 percent in
Britain. The change in California involved
a decrease in shell thickness and had no
precedent in the previous 57-year recorded
history of the peregrine in that state (Fig. 1).
In the eastern United States, where the nest-
ing population of peregrines has now been
wiped out (3), fragmentary data indicate that
the same change took place (Table 1).
Broken eggshells in a North American per-
egrine eyrie were observed for the first time
in 1947 by J. A. Hagar 60 miles (6.9 km) from
the Massachusetts eyrie cited in this table
(II). They were next inferred in Quebec in
1948 when egg-eating was observed at the
same site in 1949 (32), and were observed in
Pennsylvania in 1949 and 1950 (13). Chlo-
rinated hydrocarbon data for this now-ex-
tinct regional population are completely
absent. For nine surviving adult peregrines
in Canada's Northwest Territories in 1966, the
data are reported to have averaged 369 parts
per million (ppm) (fresh weight) in fat (14).
For four adults in another migratory popula-
tion in northern Alaska, values were even
higher (35).
For the five other raptorial species we have
studied, the data do not permit a precise de-
lineation of the onset of the change in cal-
cium metabolism or mobilization, but the
decrease (Table 1) in shell weight (and
hence thickness) has involved only declin-
ing populations and not stationary ones
Change in shell thickness occurs in poultry
as a result of dietary deficiencies and age
(36, 37). This phenomenon would probably
[p. 29006]
not occur simultaneously on two continents
1 year after the chlorinated hydrocarbon in-
secticides came into general usage. Other
chemicals affect shell thickness in poultry
(37), but the finding of high concentrations
of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the eggs of
wild populations of raptors and the time
correlation of shell changes with the intro-
duction of DDT [l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-
chlorophenyl) ethane] tend strongly to
suggest that chlorinated hydrocarbons are the
major contributing cause, although it is not
unlikely that other chemicals could be con-
tributory.
-------
1888 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
TABLE 1.—WEIGHTS OF RAPTOR EGGSHELLS IN MUSEUM AND PRIVATE COLLECTIONS
Region
Red-tailed hawk: California (23)1 ....
Golden eagle. California (23)
Bald eagle (24a):
Brevard County Fla.
Osceola County Fla . . ...
Osprey (24b):
Maryland-Virginia
New Jersey
Peregrine (25):
British Columbia
California (23)
New Hampshire to New Jersey3
Vermont
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Great horned owl:
California (23)
Period
1885-1937
1943-44
1953-67
1889-1939
1940-46
1947-65
1886-1939
1947-62
1901-44
1959-62
1890-1938
1940-46
1955
1880-1938
1957
1915-37
1947-53
1895-1939
1940-46
1947-52
1888-1932
1946
1947
1950
1886-1936
1948-50
Number
386
6
8
278
28
33
56
12
25
g
152
21
3
117
6
29
15
235
49
31
56
3
3
3
154
12
Weight (g)
Mean + S.E.3 Change
6.32 + 0.032
6.09±0.237
6"9J-P214
13.03+0.083
12.70 + 0.161
1341 + 0.232
12.15 + 0.127
9.96±0.280
12.32 + 0.240
9.88 + 0140
7 05 + 0 054
691 + 0.164
6.85
7 08 + 0 069
5.30 + 0.446
4 24 + 0 061
4.18±0.081
4 20 + 0 031
4.07± 0.038
3.41 + 0.084
4 38 + 0 034
4.30
3.47
3.24
4 50 + 0 033
4.62±0.119
(percent)
-36
+2.7
-2.5
+2.9
-18.0
-19.8
-2.0
-2.8
-25.1
-1.4
-3.1
-188
-1.8
-20.8
-26.0
+2.4
Population
reproduction)
Stationary.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Declining
Do.
Stationary.
Do.
Do
Declining.
Stationary.
No data.
Declining.
Stationary.
Extirpated.
Do.
Stationary.
1 Citations (23-25) refer to the data for the population trend.
2 S.E., standard error of the mean.
3 Including Vermont and Massachusetts.
In order to test the hypothesis that these
recent changes of thickness in raptor egg-
shells were the result of differences in expo-
sure to chlorinated hydrocarbons we ana-
lyzed 10 to 14 eggs taken in 1967 from each
of five colonies of the herring gull (Larus
argentatus) Mean shell weight and thick-
ness in 55 eggs collected in the same five
states prior to 1947 disclosed no geographic
gradients or significant differences The
1967 mean thicknesses for each colony were
therefore compared to mean levels of resid-
ual DDE |l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chloro-
phenyl) ethylene] on a fresh-weight basis,
with the result shown in Fig. 2, the r value
being significant, with P=r.001. The resi-
dues of polychloiinated biphenyls (18) have
not been studied in these ecosystems, but
DDE has been consistently high in the Lake
Michigan birds, averaging (fresh weight)
1925 ppm (SE 274) in the fat of 12 healthy
adults collected in 1963-64 (19).
Reproduction in these gull colonies was
generally normal In 1967 except perhaps In
Wisconsin. At the latter colony where an 11
percent mean decrease in shell thickness oc-
curred, some egg breakage and shell flaking
was evident in 1967, although not at the fre-
quency seen in previous years. Excessive re-
productive failure occurred at this site In
1964 when about 18 percent of eggs lost
about one-third of the shell due to flaking,
when clutch size decreased and embryonic
mortality was high, and when DDE residues
averaged 202 ppm (S.E. 34) In nine eggs
(20). (If linear extrapolation of the 1967
values is carried out to 202 ppm, the shell
thickness in 1964 could be estimated as hav-
ing decreased by about 32 percent ) The
effectiveness of DDE in the enzymatic me-
tabolism of amlnopyrine has been reported
by Hart and Fouts (22), and our data sug-
gest that this compound, because of its preva-
lence, has played a major role in Inducing
the hapatic microsomal metabolism of ster-
oids that in turn resulted In the eggshell
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1889
changes we have encountered In museum
collections. Without doubt DDE is the com-
monest insecticide or insecticide analog now
being found in avian tissues (22). In 1966, it
was found to average 284 ppm (S.E. 62) in
the fat of nine arctic-breeding peregrine
falcons (14) and about 414 ppm in four others
on a wet-weight basis (15). Concentrations
of this compound and other chlorinated hy-
drocarbons In the peregrine populations that
crashed farther south can be assumed to have
been as high—and they may have been much
higher.
From the above evidence and that accu-
mulated by others (2, 4, 6, 8), we have
reached these conclusions: (i) many of the
recent and spectacular raptor population
crashes in both the United States and Western
Europe have had a common physiological
basis; (ii) eggshell breakage has been wide-
spread but largely overlooked in North
America; (iii) significant decreases in shell
thickness and weight are characteristic of the
unprecedented reproductive failures of raptor
populations in certain parts of the United
States; (iv) the onset of the calcium change
1 year after the introduction of chlorinated
hydrocarbons into general usage was not a
random circumstance; and (v) these persist-
ing compounds are having a serious insidious
effect on certain species of birds at the tops
of contaminated ecosystems.
JOSEPH J. HICKEY,
DANIEL W. ANDERSON,
Department o] Wildlife Ecology, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, Madison.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. E. G. Hunt and A. I. Bischoff, Calif. Fish
Came 46, 91 (1960); review in R. L. Rudd,
Pesticides and the Living Landscape (Univ.
of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1964), pp.
248-264.
2 C. Demandt, Ornithol. Mitt. 7, 5 (1955);
P Linkola, Suomen Luonto 18, 3, 34 (1959);
P. Linkola, ibid. 19, 20 (1960); P. Linkola,
ibid. 23, 5 (1964); K. Kleinstauber, Falke 10,
80 (1963); C. Kruyhooft, in Working Con-
ference on Birds of Prey and Owls (Inter-
national Council Bird Protection, London,
1964), p. 70; J. F. Terrasse, tbtd., p. 73
3. D. D. Berger, C. R. Sindelar, Jr, K. E.
Gamble, in Peregrine Falcon Populations:
Their Biology and Decline, J. J. Hickey, Ed.
(Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1968),
p 165
4 D A Hatcliffe, Bird Study 10, 56 (1963).
5. , Brit. Birds 51, 23 (1958).
6. , Nature 215, 208 (1967).
7. D B. Peakall, ibid. 216, 505 (1967); L. G.
Hart, R. W. Shulties, J. R. Fouts, Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol. 5, 371 (1963); A. H. Con-
ney, Pharmocol. Rev. 19, 317 (1967); D.
Kupfer Residue Rev. 19, 11 (1967).
8. J. J. Hickey, Ed., Peregrine Falcon Pop-
ulations: Their Biology and Decline (Univ.
of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1968).
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Pesticide .Analytical Manual, vol. 1 [U.S.
bept. of Health, Education, and Welfare,
FDA Adm. Publ. (1963, revised 1964 and
1965)].
10. B. Glading, in Hickey (8), p. 96.
11. J. A. Hagar, in Hickey («), p. 123.
12. G. H. Hall, Brit. Birds 51, 402 (1958).
13. J. N. Rice, in Hickey («), p. 155.
14. J. H. Enderson and D. D. Berger,
Condor 70,149 (1968).
15. T. J. Cade, C. M. White, J. R. Haugh,
ibid., p. 170.
16. A. L. Romanoff and A. J. Romanoff, The
Avian Egg (Wiley, New York, 1949), pp. 154-
157.
17. T. G. Taylor and D. A. Stringer, In
Auian Physiology, P. D. Sturkie, Ed. (Cornell
Univ. Press, Ithaca, N.Y., ed. 2, 1965), p. 486.
18. D. C. Holmes, J. H. Simmons, J. O'G.
Tatton, Nature 216, 227 (1967).
19. J. J. Hickey, J. A. Keith, F. B. Coon, /.
Appl. Ecol. 3 (suppl.), 141 (1966).
20. J. A. Keith, J. Appl. Ecol. 3 (suppl.). 57
(1966).
21. L. G. Hart and J. R. Fouts, Arch Exp.
Pathol. Pharmakol 249, 486 (1965).
22. E. H. Dustman and L. F. Stickel,
Amer. Soc. Agron, Spec. Publ. 8, 109 (1966).
23. J. B. Dixon, B. Glading, W. C. Hanna, E.
N. Harrison, S. B. Peyton, personal commu-
nication.
24a. A. Sprunt, IV, personal communica-
tion.
24b. W. A. Stickel In Hickey (8), p. 337.
25. Except for the California data (23) the
data on population trends are given in (8)
by F. L. Beebe for British Columbia; by W. R.
Spofford for Vermont; by J. A. Hagar for
Massachusetts; and by D. D. Berger et al. for
New Jersey.
26. Research carried out under contract
with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of
Interior. W. H. Drury, J. T. Emlen and M. E.
Slate provided gull eggs for analysis. E. N.
Harrison, W. C. Hanna, and many other oolo-
gists greatly facilitated our measurements of
eggshells. We thank D. A. Ratcliffe for
advice throughout the entire study.
16 July 1968
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
have an amendment at the desk and I ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLEHK.
The Senator from Wisconsin proposes an
amendment, on page 73, line 24, insert
the following new section:
SEC. 109. Section 1705 (h) of Public Law
-------
1890
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
90-448 Is amended by striking the word "or"
where it appears before the word "domitory"
and by inserting after the word "domitory"
the following: ", water, or sewer".
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969
which the Senate is considering today is
mainly concerned with the control of pol-
lution whether by oil, sewage flow, acid
mine drainage, or related pollutants into
our rivers and harbors. This bill would
authorize appropriations to alleviate pol-
[p. 29007]
luted conditions and to provide for bet-
ter coordination between Federal, State,
and local water pollution control pro-
grams. I congratulate the distinguished
Senator from Maine for the excellent
leadership he has shown on environmen-
tal policy. His work on the Water Qual-
ity Improvement Act is but one example
of his continuing efforts over the years
to combat air and water pollution.
I understand that the Public Works
Committee will later consider legislation
on the very important subject of pro-
viding additional financing to State and
local governments for the construction
of needed water and sewer facilities. In
1968, State and local governments bor-
rowed nearly $3 billion to provide capital
for financing water, sewer, and conser-
vation programs. The Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1968 was passed by
the Senate, but \vss not enacted into law
because time ran out in the 90th Con-
gress before differences in the House and
Senate versions could be resolved This
1968 act would have enabled State and
local government units to raise between
$6 and $7 billion in capitsl by means of
municipal bond issues in order to pay for
needed construction.
The amendment I offer today would
afford to the State and loc?l government
units access to the capital market now
enjoyed by State and local governments
when they issue bonds for housing, uni-
versity, and dormitory purposes. Hav-
ing access to a competitive capital market
will enable the State and local govern-
ments throughout the country to borrow
money for water and sewer construction
at the lowest possible cost. It is my be-
lief that in view of the astronomically
high interest rates which are now being
paid, it is more imperative that new
water and sewer construction be paid for
by raising capital under the most advan-
tageous conditions. Furthermore, as I
mentioned earlier, the fact that the Pub-
lic Works Committee has not yet con-
sidered legislation relating to financial
assistance by the Federal Government
for the raising of such capital is an ad-
ditional reason why it is important at this
time that every advantage of a compet-
itive market be given for State and local
borrowing for water and sewer needs.
Mr. President, the Committee on
Banking and Currency has considered
this amendment in some detail and hear-
ings have been held on it. The Senator
from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) is familiar
with the action taken, as he serves as a
member on that committee. It has also
been discussed on the floor before, and
I would hope, as it is discussed now with
the distinguished Senator from Maine,
that he will be able to accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sup-
port the adoption of the amendment of-
fered by my distinguished colleague
from Wisconsin. The Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution has given con-
siderable thought and study as to how
capital is to be available to our hard-
pressed States and cities for the con-
struction of waste treatment facilities. I
believe that every Member of Congress is
aware of the acute need in every State
and community for such facilities. Many
different financing proposals have been
considered by the subcommittee and by
the full Public Works Committee. The
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966
authorized $3.5 billion for substantial
Federal grants for this purpose. How-
ever, appropriations have fallen far short
of the authorized amounts. This situa-
tion will be partially rectified this year
if the Congress appropriates the amounts
included by the House Appropriations
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1891
Committee in the Public Works appro-
priations bill.
In the meantime, State and local gov-
ernment units have continued to raise
the capital for both their share and the
Federal share of a project cost by the
issuance of bonds. They will continue to
raise needed State and local capital by
this method in the future. The amend-
ment now under consideration would en-
able the public issuers to have access to
the same capital markets now available
for Federal financing thereby insuring
that they may borrow in a competitive
market at the lowest cost.
Mr. President, for many reasons the
amendment is thoroughly consistent
with the objectives of the committee,
struggling against budgetary restrictions
over the past 3 or 4 years, to find alter-
native ways to make it possible for States
and communities to find the capital to
build these facilities.
I compliment the Senator for offering
his proposal. It has been heard by com-
mittees. It is demonstrably sound on the
basis of the hearings held, and I am de-
lighted to take the amendment into the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Wis-
consin.
The 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 assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be re-
scinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
[p. 29008]
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 7) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 217
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment, No. 217, offered on
behalf of myself and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and the
amendment will be printed in the REC-
ORD at this point.
The amendment offered by Mr. STEV-
ENS is as follows:
At the end of the bill Insert the following:
"TITLE IV—ALASKA VILLAGE SAFE
WATER FACILITIES
"SEC. 401. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Is amended further by inserting
at the end thereof a new section as follows:
"ALASKA VILLAGE SAFE WATER FACILITIES
"SHORT TITLE
"SEC. 23. (a) This section may be cited as
the 'Alaska Safe Water Facilities Act'.
"FINDINGS OF FACT
" (b) The Congress hereby finds and de-
clares that—
"(1) in numerous villages in the State of
Alaska there are presently no facilities for
the provision of safe water and hygienic
sewage disposal;
"(2) because of the absence of such water
and sewage facilities in such villages and
the attendant insanitary conditions stem-
ming from such absence, there is a wide-
spread incidence of sickness and disease
which is responsible for serious, and in some
instances, permanent impairment or even
death to the residents of such villages; and
" (3) it is the responsibility of the Federal
Government, in providing for the health and
general welfare of Indian and native Alaskan
citizens of the United States, to take appro-
priate measures to protect the lives and
health of residents of such villages by en-
abling them to enjoy the benefits of safe
water and hygienic sewage disposal facilities.
"DECLARATION OF POLICY
"(c) It is therefore the policy of this sec-
tion to establish a special emergency program
designed to provide safe water and hygienic
sewage disposal facilities in Alaskan villages
which presently do not have such facilities.
-------
1892
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"PROVISION or FACILITIES
" (d) (1) In order to provide safe water and
hygienic sewage disposal facilities in villages
in Alaska which presently do not have such
facilities, the Secretary of the Interior
(hereinafter in this section referred to as
the 'Secretary') is authorized to Institute and
carry out a program designed to provide for
the installation of such safe water and hy-
gienic sewage disposal facilities in Alaskan
villages as are necessary to assure that there
will be at least one facility for safe water and
hygienic sewage disposal in each village.
"(2) (A) Any facility constructed under
this subsection shall be available for use by
the general public and be housed in a suit-
able structure, designed to assure year-round
use of such facility, and shall include, at a
minimum, a source of clean water (such as
a well with pumping facilities or utilization
of surface water treated so it is safe and
healthy for use), shower bath facilities, an
adequate means of hygienic sewage disposal,
and facilities for the washing of clothes. The
building housing any such facility shall, if
the Secretary determines it to be feasible and
appropriate, also contain suitable quarters to
be used as a community health service office.
"(B) The location of any facility con-
structed under this subsection shall be de-
termined after consultation with the village
council (or other comparable governing
body) of the village in which such facility
is located, as well as with appropriate public
agencies (such as, but not limited to. the
Alaska State Housing Authority and the Fed-
eral Field Committee for Development Plan-
ning in Alaska), in order to achieve
maximum coordination in public develop-
ment plans and activities affecting the com-
munity in which the facility is to serve.
"(3) (A) The Secretary shall provide for
the construction of facilities under this sub-
section in the most expeditious manner feas-
ible, and is authorized to provide for such
construction by contract or through grants
to public agencies or private nonprofit organ-
izations, or otherwise. No contribution to-
ward the cost of the construction of a facility
will be required from the users thereof.
"(B) Payments of any grants made under
this subsection may be made in advance or
by way of reimbursement and subject to
such conditions as the Secretary may impose
to assure that the purposes of this section
will be properly carried out.
"(C) In the construction of any facility
under this subsection, there shall be utilized
to the maximum extent feasible workmen
from the village in which such facility is
being constructed.
"(4) It shall be the responsibility of the
village council (or other comparable village
governing body) to maintain and operate
the safe water and hygienic sewage disposal
facility constructed therein under this sub-
section, and, upon completion of such fa-
cility, the Secretary shall execute such
transfers of title as may be necessary to vest
complete ownership of such facility in such
council or body. The Secretary shall not
construct under this subsection any facility in
any village unless he first receives satisfac-
tory assurances from the village council (or
other comparable governing body) thereof
that such council or body will, upon com-
pletion of such facility, accept ownership
thereof and will accept responsibility for the
operation and maintenance thereof.
"(5) For purposes of carrying out the pro-
visions of this subsection, there is author-
ized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the
next three fiscal years thereafter. Funds ap-
propriated for any fiscal year under this
paragraph shall remain available until ex-
pended and be utilized for both construction
of the facilities and for the engineering and
administrative costs necessary to design and
plan such construction.
"(e)(l) The Secretary shall conduct
through the health aide, in each community
wherein there is located a safe water and
hygienic sewage disposal facility provided
under subsection (d), an appropriate edu-
cational and informational program designed
to familiarize the residents of such commu-
nity as to the health advantages to be
achieved by their full utilization of such
facility.
"(2) Whenever the Secretary determines
that the village council (or comparable gov-
erning body), which has accepted ownership
and responsibility for operation and mainte-
nance of a facility provided under subsec-
tion (d), has financial resources which
(when combined with the financial assist-
ance available to it from the village, State,
or other sources) are less than the amount
necessary to enable such council or body
properly to operate and maintain such fa-
cility, then the Secretary may make grants
to such council or body in amounts which
(when combined with the amounts avail-
able from other sources) will be sufficient
to enable such council or body properly to
operate and maintain such facility.
"(f) The Secretary of the department ac-
tually administering the provisions of this
section shall for the fiscal year which ends
June 30, 1970, and for each of the succeed-
ing three fiscal years, submit to the Congress
a full and complete report of the activities
undertaken pursuant to the authority con-
tained in this section, which report shall
indicate each of the villages wherein safe
water and hygienic sewage disposal facilities
under subsection (d) have been established,
the extent to which such facilities are being
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1893
utilized, and the contribution made toward
such utilization by the educational and In-
formational program established pursuant to
subsection (e) (1). The report of such Sec-
retary for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, shall be submitted not later than July
30, 1970, and the report for each of the three
succeeding fiscal years shall be submitted
not later than the July 30 which immedi-
ately follows the close of such fiscal year.
"(g) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, and for each succeeding fiscal year.
such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of
this section.
"(h) In order to prevent duplication of ef-
fort and to promote economy of adminis-
tration, the Secretary shall to the maximum
extent feasible utilize the facilities of the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare or the facilities of other appropriate
[p. 29046]
public agencies in the administration of the
provisions of this section."
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we
have offered this amendment to bring to
the attention of the Senate the great
problem of pollution in the rural areas
of Alaska, particularly in the native and
Indian areas.
I accompanied the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) on his hear-
ings in our State during the early part of
this year. As a result of that trip, our
staffs collaborated and prepared this
amendment to S. 7 as an approach that
would be feasible, in our opinion, to deal
with the pressing problems in these
areas.
In 178 villages, only 8 percent of the
homes, as I pointed out yesterday, have
any kind of inside sewage or water
facilities.
The purpose of the amendment would
be to attempt to bring into each village a
safe water facility as quickly as possible.
We realize, after our trip through
these areas, that it would be impossible,
from a financial point of view, to put
water and sewage facilities into every
one of these village homes, which are
substandard, and which we are trying
to replace. It would be uneconomical to
attempt to put sewage and water facil-
ities into each home, as we would envi-
sion replacing the homes under the
remote housing program and the Bartlett
housing program.
I am indebted to the Senator from
Massachusetts for his support and also
to the chairman of the committee for his
consideration.
I have discussed this matter with the
chairman and I understand the position
he is prepared to explain in connection
with the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Alaska yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. During the spring of
this year, when the Subcommittee on
Indian Education traveled through
Alaska, our prime interest and responsi-
bility was to try to review in some detail
the educational opportunities, or, more
accurately, the lack of educational op-
portunities, for the native population,
Indian as well as Eskimo.
During the three and a half days of ex-
tremely comprehensive travel through-
out the State of Alaska, in which we
were joined by the distinguished Senator
from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS), the subcom-
mittee was constantly reminded not only
of the inadequacy of education, but also
of one of the greatest impediments in
the pursuit of education; namely, the
lack of basic and fundamental sanitary
conditions.
This appeared to me as a condition
which I never realized could exist in this
country of ours, a country which has
such extraordinary affluence and wealth.
Upon visiting many smaller, and even
moderate-sized villages, we found abso-
lutely no kind of sanitary facilities at all.
Children were drinking polluted water,
and from this contracting a variety of
diseases which prohibited their even at-
tending school. Eighty-five percent of
the native children there had ear infec-
tions, which directly affect their whole
learning process. Nearly 15 percent of
native children were hospitalized by seri-
ous sicknesses last year.
In our conversations with a number of
schoolteachers, they pointed out that
-------
1894
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
many of the native children, Eskimo and
Indian children, were not learning well
because they suffered from hearing de-
ficiences.
In talking with Public Health officials,
we found that the principal reason for
their suffering was lack of clean and ade-
quate water supplies. As a result of us-
ing polluted water to bathe and wash in,
and even drink, they were contracting
diseases peculiar to Alaska, particularly
the southwestern part of that State.
We could elaborate, and I know the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS)
could elaborate, on the details of the
conditions we found there, but they were
some of the most desperate I have seen,
including those in the barrios of Latin
America and the hovels of Asia.
It seems to me that an important step
which should be made—and could be
made—is providing fundamental kinds
of sanitary facilities to many of the
smaller communities and villages. I
think it would go a long way toward
permitting these people to live in some
kind of human dignity.
I want to say how much I appreciated
working with the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. STEVENS) on this problem. We
realized full well we have not had the
kinds of extensive hearings on this
measure that perhaps a measure of this
kind should have; but the reason why we
are moving in this way is the emergency
nature of the situation. It exists today.
We know that this measure, S. 7, pro-
vides us with knowledge from members
of the committee who have a profound
knowledge and understanding of this
kind of legislation. If we do not get ac-
tion at this time, another year will pass
by, and any kind of progress will be
interminably delayed. We feel that this
is no time for delay.
So we are extremely hopeful that some
benefit will come from what I think is
an emergency measure. We have seen
how the Senate can act in times of emer-
gency, whether it be a hurricane in
Louisiana or the tragedy of an earth-
quake in Alaska. We are talking about a
human tragedy which deserves as much
expeditious consideration as natural dis-
asters do.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator
from Massachusetts for his comments.
One of my colleagues asked yesterday
why Alaska, with its new-found wealth,
did not finance this program. I would
like to point out that this is Federal
land. These are villages which are under
the supervision of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and our Public Health Service is
responsible for their health. The meas-
ure contemplates a working relationship
between the Secretary of Interior and
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. There are less than 500 acres
of land in private ownership in this area,
which is twice the size of California.
The reason why the State cannot move
in that area is that it does not own the
land. It has no way to get security for
the advancement of any funds. There is
no way for the State of Alaska to
deal with this problem today. The Fed-
eral Government has both the title to
the land and supervision over the people.
They are wards of the Government until
there is action taken on the Alaska na-
tive land claims settlement bill. This is
another reason for the urgency of the
matter.
The State is now in a position where
it can move ahead and try to improve
the lot of the people through better hous-
ing conditions, schools, and roads, but
until the State has some legal right to
do it, we must rely upon the Federal
Government. I feel we must move into
this area now with a bold program to try
to prevent the rapid increase in the
death rate.
Yesterday I pointed out that one-fifth
of the children in this area die in the
first year of their life, and those who
survive have a life expectancy of 34^
years. These are most appalling statis-
tics.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield on the point of the
infant mortality rate?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1895
Mr. KENNEDY. The infant mortality
rate for Alaskan native children is the
highest of any group in this country.
Mr. STEVENS. It is 10 times higher
than any other group.
Mr. KENNEDY. Once again, it can be
directly related, I think, as was brought
out in our conversations with the Public
Health personnel there, to the question
of basic and fundamental sanitary con-
ditions. That is one of the prime reasons
for that condition, as we heard from the
Public Health personnel who were there
dealing with this problem and have made
many, many surveys of the health prob-
lems.
On another point, as the distinguished
Senator from Alaska pointed out, these
are Federal land areas. I think all of us
realize we have additional kinds of re-
sponsibility, not only in the field of
Indian education, for example, where the
Federal Government has had an oppor-
tunity and unfortunately has reneged on
that responsibility, but in trying to pro-
vide Ihe kinds of facilities which are es-
sential to a decent kind of existence.
The statistics given by the Senator
from Alaska are most dramatic in terms
of human misery. Once again, I think
they reinforce the emergency nature of
our proposal.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. I
pointed out that this is not something
that is impossible. Each one of the vil-
lages has a school run by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, in which the children
can use hot and cold running water and
showers. The trouble is they go from
their 20th century daytime schoolhouse
into their stone age home at night. They
go into homes which have one room, in
which 10 to 20 people live, with no kind
of water or sanitary facilities.
There is great difficulty in teaching
[p. 29047]
these children who have no continuity
in life. They have the highest school
dropout rate. They have the lowest at-
tainments in terms of educational levels.
And one of the basic problems they face
is polluted water. Safe water is one thing
we can make available to them now.
I know the chairman of the subcom-
mittee would like to comment on this
matter, but first I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment we have
offered show that it is cosponsored by
Senators McGovERN, MONDALE, HUGHES,
WILLIAMS of New Jersey, YOUNG of North
Dakota, YOUNG of Ohio, and SMITH of
Illinois, who have joined the Senator
from Massachusetts and me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield first to the ma-
jority leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may be in-
cluded as a cosponsor of the proposal
by the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have,
as the Senator from Alaska has indi-
cated, discussed this matter with him.
May I say at the outset that I sympa-
thize completely with the Senator's
objectives, and I compliment the distin-
guished Senator from Alaska and the dis-
tinguished Senator from Massachusetts
for developing the facts relative to this
situation and bringing them to the at-
tention of the Senate, first at the time
this amendment was introduced last
spring and then this morning. I think
this part of the record is important.
I point out that when the amendment
was submitted last spring, on May 20,
the committee had already completed
its hearings on S. 7, and, indeed, we had
already embarked on executive sessions,
which stretched from March until late
June, undertaking to work out the pro-
visions of the bill which are now pend-
ing before us.
We entertained the hope at that time
that before this session was ended, we
would get to additional hearings on the
-------
1896
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
problems of financing waste treatment
plants. So last spring we indicated to
the Senator from Alaska that, in con-
nection with those hearings which we
hoped to hold, we would have hearings
on his amendment, with a view to de-
veloping a viable solution to the problem.
Unfortunately, other developments in
connection with the funding of waste
treatment plants have taken place or are
underway in Congress this year. I have
high hopes that, with the assistance of
the able and distinguished Senator from
Louisiana, the funding level can be
raised through the appropriations proc-
ess. For that reason, and in order to sub-
mit our efforts on the appropriations
process this year, we did not get into the
questions of alternative means of fund-
ing waste treatment plants; and as a
consequence, we have not gotten to hear-
ings on the Senator's proposal.
But because of the obvious merit and
urgency of the problem, I have agreed
with the Senator to take his amendment
to conference, if the Senate approves, for
the purpose of bringing it to the atten-
tion of the House of Representatives as
well as the Senate. I would not predict
what the conference result may be, but at
the very least, I think, by this procedure
we can alert the House of Representa-
tives to the urgency of the problem and
lay the basis for further and perhaps
more effective consideration by our com-
mittee later on.
So I am willing to take this amend-
ment on that basis.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for
his comments. I am sure that the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts and I under-
stand the problem that is involved in the
committee's consideration, and we are
grateful to the chairman for his com-
ments and his appreciation of the prob-
lem and his willingness to work with us
to try to solve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment to the substitute committee amend-
ment
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute is open to further amend-
ment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, yester-
day there was some discussion of the
oil pollution liability section of S. 7; and
in view of the comments made on the
insurability of the liabilities set forth in
the bill, I should like to briefly to dis-
cuss the considerations which led the
committee to conclude that the reverse
burden of proof—limited negligence
concept would not adequately protect
the U.S. Government in the event of a
catastrophic oil spill.
These provisions in the legislation, Mr.
President, sparked a great deal of con-
troversy. A number of representations
have been made to members of the Com-
mittee on Public Works and other Sen-
ators by representatives of the British
insurance industry, the international
merchant marine, and the American
merchant marine, recommending the
adoption of negligence liability, with
limits of $100 per gross ton or $10 mil-
lion, whichever is lesser.
I should like briefly to discuss why
this concept, which was included in the
House passed bill, was not accepted.
The Committee on Public Works did
not ignore the need to protect the ability
of the United States to transport oil by
vessel. It was for precisely this reason
that the committee established the lim-
itation of liability at $125 per gross ton,
or $14 million, whichever is lesser, for
any oil spill which was not the result of
negligence or a willful act. It was also
for this reason that the committee pro-
vided certain exceptions suggested, I
might say, by the industry, which, if
proved by the owner or operator of the
discharging vessel, would relieve the
vessel from liability.
In other words, if the owner cleans up
the spill and is later able to prove that
the discharge was caused solely by one
of the four exceptions which the com-
mittee included in the bill, the U.S. Gov-
ernment will reimburse the owner for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1897
his costs up to $14 million.
Mr. President, I think it is important,
at this point, to suggest some facts rela-
tive to the risks which are involved from
this kind of spill and discuss the rela-
tionship of liability to those risks.
The House bill would limit the liabil-
ity of a vessel owner or operator to $100
per gross ton or $10,000,000, whichever
is lesser. That bill would provide that,
regardless of how willful or how negli-
gent the discharge happened to be, the
innocent beach owner, the innocent boat-
owner, or the innocent commercial fish-
erman would have to pay those cleanup
costs in excess of $100 per gross ton of the
discharging vessel even though that
beach owner, that fisherman, that boat-
owner had absolutely no responsibility
for the spill.
Mr. President, this approach would
greatly reduce the capacity of the United
States to collect cleanup costs for the
discharge of oil from a major super-
tanker. Today, $100 per gross ton would
provide maximum liability coverage for
a 100,000-gross-ton vessel. However, we
are approaching the era of the super-
tanker. The recent success of the tanker
Manhattan in breaching the Northwest
Passage for commercial purposes will
cause construction of immense super-
tankers which will transport oil from
Alaska's north slope to the east coast of
the United States. Already one oil com-
pany has ordered two supertankers to
move oil from the north slope of Alaska
to California.
If the committee's figures are accurate
and they were almost all supplied by
the oil companies and the insurance in-
dustry, a disaster on the order of the
Torrey Canyon, in which the vessel was
lost, cost approximately $118 per gross
ton to clean up based on the settlement
figures.
If a 200,000 gross ton tanker were to
break up off the coast of the United
States and if the cost of cleanup were to
be only $118 per gross ton, the cost to
the United States would be $23.6 million.
Under H.R. 4148, the United States would
be out of pocket $13.6 million even if
negligence was proved. Under the leg-
islation proposed by the committee the
major oil company which will own that
supertanker would be liable for the en-
tire cost of cleanup if the U.S. Govern-
ment were able to prove negligence. If
that discharge occurred without fault
on the part of the discharging vessel, the
oil company would be liable for a maxi-
mum of $14 million. If the oil company
owning the vessel could prove that the
discharge was solely the result of an act
of God, an act of war, an act of third
party or an act of U.S. Government neg-
ligence there will be no liability what-
soever. In fact, if the oil company which
owned the vessel cleaned up the spill and
later proved that the discharge was a
result of one of the exceptions that oil
company could be reimbursed by the
United States for the cost of cleanup.
Mr. President, in a matter of equity
as between the discharging vessel and
[p. 29048]
the American public, I have to choose for
the American public. I firmly adhere
to the position taken by the committee
that the negligence on the part of any-
one involved in the operation of the
vessel should remove liability limits and
the cost of cleanup should be borne by
the vessel, not the innocent beach owner,
fisherman or boatowner.
I ask unanimous consent that there
be included in the RECORD at this point
a letter commenting on the liability pro-
visions of S. 7, from Allan I. Mendelsohn.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.
September 26,1969.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: In a recent New
York Times article, George Home described
several of the current efforts by the British
marine underwriters, joined by the American
shipowners, to oppose your legislation revis-
ing and modernizing the archaic limitations
of liability that have up to the present time
-------
1898
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
protected foreign and U.S. flag tanker owners
in the event of oil spills causing extensive
pollution damage to the beaches and sea
coasts of this country.
As a former treaty negotiator for the
United States Government on this and
similar limitation subjects and as former
Chairman of the joint United States Govern-
ment-industry committee on international
maritime law, I believe I might be of some
help to you in presenting the other and public
side of this controversy.
The British marine insurers, together with
the American flag shipowners, have tradi-
tionally and consistently opposed every effort,
domestic as well as international, to raise
the archaic United States limitations of ship-
owner liability up to realistic amounts It is
scandalous that, by reason of the limitations
of liability enacted by the United States Con-
gress in 1851, a Torrey Canyon disaster oc-
curring off the coast of Miami or Cape Cod
would result in no recoveries for the Amer-
ican citizens whose fishing, wildlife, hotel and
beachfront Interests are seriously damaged.
It is even more scandalous that if the 1851
limitation law, as amended in 1936, is applied
to the survivors of the 90 victims of the 1965
Yarmouth Castle disaster, no survivor would
recover more than $2,700 per victim.
Yet, each time some effort is made to mod-
ernize these limits, the marine insurers and
the shipowners join together in opposition.
As is the case with your bill, one of their
usual arguments is that the capacity of the
insurance market is incapable of meeting the
risks that could be involved if high limits are
adopted. In short, the marine insurance mar-
ket does not have enough money or enough
avenues by which this money can be obtained.
But this argument is plainly inadequate. I
do not believe it is necessary, in this respect,
again to point your attention to the many
inconsistencies that appeared in the testi-
mony of the British insurers on the several
occasions they testified before your Com-
mittee In an article to be published in next
month's issue of the George Washington
University Law Review, I describe and
analyze these inconsistencies in some detail,
pointing up how their testimony changed
in each of the successive hearings held by
the House Committees and your Subcommit-
tee. Suffice it to say now, however, that each
time they appeared, market capacity seemed
to shrink and costs seemed to increase finally
to the point even of doubling for halved
limits.
For my part, I have no doubt whatever
that if your bill were to pass with no limita-
tions of liability much less the limitations
now proposed in your bill, the marine insur-
ance industry would find the necessary mar-
ket capacity within at most a 6 month pe-
riod—if only to be able to continue today's
lucrative oil tanker trade. One need only
mention, in this respect, that when limita-
tions of liability for international airline
crashes were raised in 1966 from $8,300 to
$75,000, the international aviation insurance
market discovered the capacity almost over-
night even though prior to the event they
too had argued, like the marine underwriters
today, that the capacity was not there. In
domestic aviation, where there are no limita-
tions of liability the U.S. airlines are pres-
ently gearing up for potential liability, with
the new 747 jumbo jets, of upwards of $100
million per aircraft per accident Yet the
British marine underwriters can argue that
their market cannot absorb even a limit as
low as $15 million.
Moreover, one questions the role of the
oil companies in this controversy. It is a
fact that 7 major American oil companies
own almost half of the total tanker tonnage
operating under the American flag. It is also
a fact that the 7 oil companies operating the
largest amounts of American flag tanker ton-
nage also happens to be among the 9 oil com-
panies enjoying the largest allocations under
this country's oil import quota system. It
is still further a fact that the oil companies
and tanker owners have realized immense
savings with the introduction of the giant
tankers ranging anywhere from 200,000 to
,500,000 dead weight tons. A 200,000 ton
tanker alone can carry upwards of roughly
55,000,000 gallons of crude oil. Certainly,
with the profits realized through these auto-
mated and, indeed, subsidized (by way of the
import quota system) operations, oil should
and must be expected to pay its way by as-
suring that the insurance market capacity is
in fact adequate. For if the oil tanker and
oil industry do not pay their way, that way
will necessarily be paid through lower, inade-
quate recoveries by private American citizens
who fall victim to future pollution disasters
To be sure, I am not enamored of all the
provisions of your bill. For example, I fail to
see why, if there is to be a limit at all, there
should be any exceptions to liability. Under
modern legal principles, such as exist in
international air law today, a limitation may
be accorded to the carrier but only in return
for that carrier's accepting absolute liability.
If a carrier can avoid liability by proving, for
example, that the accident resulted not from
his fault but rather from acts of God, war,
or third parties (the present exceptions in
your bill), then, failing such proof, he should
be entitled to no limitations of liability and
thus be liable for damages in full. This latter
situation prevails today in domestic United
States aviation. Yet, in your bill, the carrier
enjoys the exceptions but still has a limited
liability. Moreover, even if absolute liability
is adopted, I fail to see any persuasive reason
why an overall ceiling must be included.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1899
It is enough to provide only a per ton limit
and, indeed, I might add that this was the
system that appeared in your Committee
Print No 3. To change that system by in-
corporating an overall ceiling of $10 million
or $14 million does no more than protect
the largest tanker owners who presumably
need this protection the least.
Moreover, the most significant failing of
your bill is that it covers only clean-up costs
of government and does not at all change
the repressive 1851 limitations as they apply
to suits by private citizens. I realize, of
course, that this failing is not of your doing
and that you, together with the members of
your Committee, would have preferred to
have broadened the bill but were unable to
under the circumstances.
But with all these defects in the bill, It
still remains the first major and long overdue
breakthrough in this country's maritime lim-
itation law. If the British insurers, the oil
industry, and the American shipowners suc-
ceed, by imposing their groundless appre-
hensions on you, in blocking the passage of
even this first step of progress, I fear for
the consequences to the American public in
all of the future steps of progress that are
so necessary in our maritime limitation law.
It is for these reasons and despite its de-
fects that I vigorously support your bill and
offer you my assistance in any way towards
its enactment. The only compromise that
should be acceptable—and one that I would
personally prefer—is an unbreakable limit
(notwithstanding negligence or willful mis-
conduct) of $150 per ton, no overall limit,
and a system of absolute liability with only
one exception, namely, the unique case where
the Government itself causes or contributes
to the causing of the accident. Adoption of
such a system would be fully in accord with
modern tort law principles which predicate
liability not on grounds of fault or negligence
but on ability to absorb and distribute risk.
Perhaps in view of the present circum-
stances, the various concerned industries
might be more prone to accept this proposed
compromise system than the one presently In
your bill. If so, this system, with all of its
legal and practical advantages in offering
certainty and avoiding litigation, should be
adopted. But if not, your bill is the next
best alternative and, despite the objections
traditionally heard from the insurers and
shipowners, it should be enacted forthwith.
Sincerely yours,
ALLAN I. MENDELSOHN.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I fully
concur with the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee in his description
of the liability provisions of S. 7; par-
ticularly the position that in the final
analysis the provisions of S. 7 establish
the principle that as between the public
and an owner or operator, the owner or
operator shall bear expenses associated
with cleanup.
I would like to add only a few points.
A paramount concern of the commit-
tee is a desire to apply a uniform stand-
ard of liability. To do so it was necessary
to adopt an approach that would enable
the relevant courts to decide issues of
liability with as little reference as possi-
ble to State law. Consequently, the
committee adopted a standard of
liability that would give complete and
sufficient guidance to the Federal courts
in deciding basic issues. The only de-
viation from this pattern is where an
exception is made from limitation of
liability where the United States can
prove negligence. In considering an al-
legation by the United States of such
negligence, the Federal court, of course,
would refer to relevant State law.
The basic liability standard, however,
avoids immediate reference to State law
by adopting liability in the nature of ab-
solute liability, then providing exceptions
from this liability where an owner or
operator can prove that a particular dis-
charge was caused solely by an act of
war, act of God, or negligent act of the
Government or the act of a third party.
It is hoped that the exceptions are suffi-
ciently clear in the bill so that, along
with the report language, a Federal court
will be able to decide the issue of liabil-
ity with a minimum, reference to State
[p. 29049]
law and thus achieve as close to a uni-
formly applied standard as is possible.
The bill defines an act of God to mean
an act occasioned exclusively by violence
of nature without the interference of
human agency. This does not mean,
therefore, a common law or statutory
definition of act of God that exists under
State law. This language provides a
higher standard, and one that means a
violent act of nature that could not have
been avoided by the exercise of foresight
-------
1900
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and prudence. In the words of the testi-
mony of the American Petroleum Insti-
tute this would include an event such as
an earthquake or tidal wave in an area
without any prerecorded history of such
event.
The remaining exceptions are clear on
their face and should enable a Federal
district or other court to determine all
issues with little reference to State law.
S. 7 has been written to avoid a full
range of controversy that is inherent in
any reference in a statute to burden of
proof or prima facie case. The record
should show that there is no such thing
as a simple reversal of the burden of
proof and as responsible legislators we
should avoid such a procedural trap.
If we used language of burden of proof
we could not describe what burden we
are talking about for such matters are
properly matters of State law. To use
such language, therefore, would raise
the same problems we are attempting to
avoid in refraining from using negli-
gence as the basic test of liability.
Burden of proof is a variously defined
concept. It can mean the burden of
going forward with the proof, or the
burden which disappears with any proof
to the contrary or one that requires
substantial proof to overcome the pre-
sumption, or even an irrebuttable
presumption.
If we get into the procedural aspects
of presumptions and reversal thereof, it
seems to me we have sown the seeds of
very extensive litigation.
That there is in fact the manner in
which burden of proof language would
be interpreted let me quote from a brief
filed by the Maritime Law Association on
this very point:
Further, the liabilities imposed by the
two bills are comparable neither in theory
nor application The prima facie case estab-
lished in Section 17 (e) (2) oj H R. 4148 would
be satisfied by proving that one's acts or
omissions did not proximately cause the dam-
age. This initial burden oj evidence being
satisfied, the plaintiff Government, as other
plaintiffs, would properly proceed with its
burden oj proof as to the proximate cause of
a spill.
It is exactly this procedural quagmire
we seek to avoid in S. 7.
Mr. President, a question has been
raised concerning the applicability of
cleanup liability provisions to facilities to
receive supertankers currently being de-
signed and constructed beyond 3 miles of
the coast of the United States.
It is my understanding, and I think
shared by members of the Committee on
Public Works that to the extent liability
is not established by other provisions of
law the liability established by this act
shall apply if any essential part of such
facility, such as a pipeline, passes
through the navigable waters of the
United States. Under the definition of on
or offshore facilities of section 12 (a) (11)
a facility includes "related appurte-
nances". As used in that definition "re-
lated appurtenances" should not be
interpreted as meaning only those ap-
purtenances occurring in the navigable
waters but to include all essential parts of
a particular facility no matter where lo-
cated. Therefore, a terminal facility be-
yond 3 miles that has the pipeline or
other necessary part passing through the
navigable waters can be included in the
liability provisions of S. 7.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to
the desk an amendment in the nature of
a substitute to title II of S. 7.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute
will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection it is so ordered, and the amend-
ment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute for title II is as follows:
On page 74, beginning with line 1, strike
out all through line 21 on page 80, and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
"TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
"SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the
'Environmental Quality Improvement Act of
1969'.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1901
"FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES
"SEC. 202. (a) The Congress finds—
"(1) that in the pursuit of social and
economic advancement man has caused
changes in the environment;
"(2) that the degree of such changes en-
dangers a harmonious relationship between
man and his environment;
" (3) that population increases and urban
concentration contribute directly to pollu-
tion and the degradation of our environment,
increasing the severity of the physical, social,
psychological, and economic problems of our
society; and
"(4) that changes in the environment
should be restricted, insofar as possible, to
avoid adverse effects on man, other species
and the environment itself.
"(b) The Congress declares that there is a
national policy for the environment ennun-
ciated in laws relating to air, water and land
pollution which—
"(1) provides for the enhancement of
the quality of our air, water, and land
environment;
"(2) recognizes the primary responsibility
for implementation of this policy rests with
State and local governments; and
"(3) encourages and supports implementa-
tion of this policy through appropriate re-
gional organizations.
"(c) The purposes of this title are—
"(1) to assure that each Federal depart-
ment or agency conducting or supporting
public works activities which affect the en-
vironment shall implement the policies es-
tablished under existing law and by the
President pursuant to this title; and
"(2) to authorize and to provide staff for
an Office of Environmental Quality.
"OFFICE OF ENVIBONMENTAL QUALITY
"SEC. 203. (a) There is established in the
Executive Office of the President an office to
be known as the Office of Environmental
Quality (herein referred to as the "Office").
There shall be in the Office a Director and
a Deputy Director who shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
" (b) The compensation of the Director and
the Deputy Director shall be fixed by the
President at a rate not in excess of the an-
nual rate of compensation payable to the
Director and the Deputy Director of the Bu-
reau of the Budget.
"(c) The Director is authorized to employ
such officers and employees as may be nec-
essary to enable the Office to carry out its
functions under this title.
"(d) In carrying out the provisions of this
section the Director shall—
"(1) provide assistance to th« President
on policies and programs of the Federal
Government, including review of existing
and proposed projects, facilities and activi-
ties, which affect environmental quality, and
recommended priorities thereon;
"(2) provide staff and support for any
board, council or committee established by
the President or authorized by the Congress
to coordinate Federal activities which affect
policies and programs established to protect
and enhance environmental quality;
"(3) review the adequacy of existing sys-
tems for monitoring and predicting environ-
mental changes in order to achieve effective
coverage and efficient use of research facili-
ties and other resources;
"(4) promote advancement of scientific
knowledge of the effects of actions and tech-
nology on the environment and encourage
the development of the means to prevent or
reduce adverse effects that endanger the
health and well-being of man;
"(5) assure evaluation of new and chang-
ing technologies for their potential effects
on the environment prior to their implemen-
tation;
"(6) review and comment on the coordi-
nation of the programs and activities of Fed-
eral departments and agencies which affect,
protect, and improve environmental quality;
"(7) review and comment on the develop-
ment and interrelationship of environmental
quality criteria and standards established
through the Federal Government; and
" (8) collect, collate, analyze, and Inter-
pret data and information on environmental
quality and issue reports thereon, as he
deems appropriate;
"(9) develop and maintain an inventory of
existing and future natural resource develop-
ment projects, engineering works, and other
major projects and programs contemplated
or planned by public or private agencies or
organizations which make significant modi-
fications in the natural environment;
"(10) establish a system of collecting and
receiving information and data on ecological
research and evaluations which are in prog-
ress or are planned by other public or
private agencies or organizations, or individ-
uals; and
"(11) perform such other duties and func-
tions as directed by the President.
"(e) In carrying out the provisions of this
section, the Director is authorized to con-
tract with public or private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and with in-
dividuals, without regard to sections 3648
and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 USC. 5) for research and surveys
regarding any potential or existing problem
of environmental quality.
"EFFECT ON EXISTING AUTHORIZATIONS
"SEC. 204. The policies and goals set forth
in this title are supplementary to existing
authorizations of Federal agencies.
"AUTHORIZATION
"SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to
-------
1902
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
be appropriated for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1969, and for each of five succeeding
fiscal years, such amounts as may be neces-
sary for the purposes of this title."
[p. 29050]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will ask
for the yeas and nays on the substitute
both as an indicator of the Senate's inter-
est in this proposal and as instructions
to the Senate conferees to support the
agreed-upon compromise language for
S. 1075.
The statement I am about to make on
title II involves title II of S. 7 and S. 1075,
sponsored by the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Interior and Insu-
lar Affairs (Mr. JACKSON) . The Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) will
make a statement to the same effect,
which is the essence of our agreement on
these two bills.
The substitute amendment for title II
of S. 7 is largely similar to the title as
reported by the committee. The justifi-
cations as discussed in my remarks and
the committee report still exist without
modification. The language has been
modified to assure minimum of overlap
or conflict with the proposed version of
S. 1075.
The substance of title II remains the
same: all Federal and federally assisted
public works projects would be directed
to implement environmental policies es-
tablished by the President and existing
air, water, and land pollution laws; and
there would be established in the Execu-
tive Office of the President, an Office of
Environmental Quality to assist the Pres-
ident in review and development of en-
vironmental programs and policies.
As revised, title II of S. 7 no longer
provides for establishment of advisory
committees by the Director of the Of-
fice of Environmental Quality, nor is
the Director authorized to conduct a
biennial forum on environmental prob-
lems. Both of these functions would be
transferred to S. 1075 as activities more
properly conducted by the Board of
Environmental Quality Advisers.
As revised, the Office of Environmental
Quality would be available to provide
staff support to the Board of Environ-
mental Quality Advisers, the President's
Council on Environmental Quality and to
the President directly.
Also, the Office would carry on certain
data collection and analysis functions
previously included in S. 1075. This on-
going monitoring function would provide
a means of developing needed informa-
tion to determine potential environ-
mental changes which are caused or
could be caused by any activity in which
the Federal Government is involved.
The report required under title III of
S. 1075 would be transmitted in whole or
in part to the committees which tradi-
tionally have exercised jurisdiction over
the environmental subject matter con-
tained therein. For example, if such a
report discusses the problems of air
quality, either that section of the report
or the report in its entirety would be
referred to the Committee on Public
Works as well as other committees which
might have interest in other portions of
the report. This type of distribution to
the appropriate congressional commit-
tees will provide maximum participation
in the development of a meaningful leg-
islative response to the problems posed
by this report from the President.
The revisions included in this substi-
tute essentially would clarify the staff
role of the Office of Environmental Qual-
ity while leaving to Senator JACKSON'S
proposed Board of Environmental Qual-
ity Advisers the function of independent
oversight of Federal policies and pro-
grams which affect the environment.
Because Senator JACKSON will discuss the
board's function in some detail, I will
confine my remarks to the compromise
version of S. 1075 as it relates to title I,
the so-called national policy statement.
Mr. President, at this point, I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the
revised version of S. 1075 be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1903
S. 1075
A bill to authorize the Secretary of the In-
terior to conduct investigations, studies,
surveys, and research relating to the Na-
tion's ecological systems, natural resources,
and environmental Quality, and to estab-
lish a Council on Environmental Quality
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States o/
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1 That this Act may be cited as
the "National Environmental Policy Act of
1969".
PURPOSE
SEC. 2. The purposes of this Act are: To
declare a national policy which will encour-
age productive and enjoyable harmony be-
tween man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate dam-
age to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to
the Nation; and to establish a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers
TITLE I
DECLARATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing
that man depends on his biological and
physical surroundings for food, shelter, and
other needs, and for cultural enrichment as
well; and recognizing further the profound
influences of population growth, high-density
urbanization, industrial expansion, resource
exploitation, and new and expanding tech-
nological advances on our physical and bio-
logical surroundings and on the quality of
life available to the American people; hereby
declares that it is the continuing policy and
responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources to
the end that the Nation may—
(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each gen-
eration as trustee of the environment for
succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all Americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and cultur-
ally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degradation,
risk to health or safety, or other undesirable
and unintended consequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national heritage,
and maintain, wherever possible, an environ-
ment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit high
standards of living and a wide sharing of
life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable re-
sources and approach the maximum attain-
able recycling of depletable resources.
(b) The Congress recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and that
each person has a responsibility to contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment
SEC. 102. The Congress authorizes and di-
rects that the policies, regulations, and public
laws of the United States, to the fullest ex-
tent possible, be interpreted and adminis-
tered in accordance with the policies set forth
in this Act, and that all agencies of the Fed-
eral Government—
(a) utilize to the fullest extent possible a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural
and social sciences and the environmental
design arts in planning and in decisionmak-
ing which may have an impact on man's
environment;
(b) identify and develop methods and
procedures, subject to review and approval
of the Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers established by Title III of this Act,
which will insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decision
making along with economic and technical
considerations;
(c) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment, a
detailed statement by the responsible official
on—
(i) the environmental impact of the pro-
posed action;
(ii) any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided should the proposal
be implemented;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;
(iv) the relationship between local short-
term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity; and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable com-
mittments of resources which would be in-
volved in the proposed action should it be
implemented.
Prior to making any detailed statement,
the responsible Federal official shall consult
with and obtain the comments of any estab-
lished agency which has jurisdiction by law
or special expertise with respect to any en-
vironmental impact involved. Copies of such
statement and the comments and views of
the appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, including those authorized to de-
velop and enforce environmental standards,
shall be made available to the President,
-------
1904
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Board of Environmental Advisers and
to the public as provided by 5 U S C. 552
and shall accompany the proposal through
the existing agency review processes.
(d) study, develop, and describe appro-
priate alternatives to recommended courses
of action in any proposal which involves un-
resolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
of available resources;
(e) recognize the worldwide and long-
range character of environmental problems
and lend appropriate support to initiatives,
resolutions, and programs designed to max-
imize international cooperation in anticipat-
ing and preventing a decline in the quality
of mankind's world environment; and
(f) review present statutory authority, ad-
ministrative regulations, and current policies
and procedures for conformity to the pur-
poses and provisions of this Act and propose
to the President such measures as may be
necessary to make their authority consistent
with this Act.
SEC. 103. Nothing in section 102 shall in
any way affect the specific statutory obliga-
tions of any Federal agency (a) to comply
with criteria or standards of environmental
quality, (b) to coordinate or consult with
any other Federal or State agency, or (c)
to act, or refrain from acting contingent
[p. 29051]
upon the recommendations or certification
of any other Federal or State agency.
SEC. 104. The policies and goals set forth
in this Act are supplementary to existing
authorizations of Federal agencies.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. To carry out the purposes of this
Act, the Board of Environmental Quality Ad-
visers is hereby authorized—
(a) to conduct investigations, studies, sur-
veys, research, and analyses relating to eco-
logical systems and environmental quality to
the extent that such activities do not over-
lap or conflict with similar activities author-
ized by law and performed by established
agencies;
(b) to document and define changes in
the natural environment, including the
plant and animal systems, and to accumu-
late necessary data and other information for
a continuing analysis of these changes or
trends and an interpretation of their under-
lying causes; and
(c) to evaluate and disseminate informa-
tion of an ecological nature to public and
private agencies or organizations, or individ-
uals in the form of reports, publications,
atlases, and maps.
SEC. 202. To carry out the purposes of this
Act, all agencies of the Federal Government
in conjunction with their existing programs
and authorities, are hereby authorized—
(a) to make available to States, counties,
municipalities, institutions, and individuals,
advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of
the environment;
(b) to initiate and utilize ecological in-
formation in the planning and development
of resource-oriented projects;
(c) to conduct research and studies within
natural areas under Federal ownership
which are under the jurisdiction of the Fed-
eral agencies, and
(d) to assist the Board of Environmental
Quality Advisers established under title III
of this Act and any council or committee es-
tablished by the President to deal with en-
vironmental problems.
SEC. 203. There is hereby established in the
Office of Science and Technology an addi-
tional office with the title "Deputy Director
of the Office of Science and Technology."
The Deputy Director shall be appointed by
the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall perform such
duties as the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology shall from time to time di-
rect, and shall be compensated at the rate
provided for level IV of the Executive
Schedule Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
TITLE III
SEC. 301. (a) There is created in the Execu-
tive Office of the President a Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers (hereinafter
referred to as the "Board"). The Board shall
be composed of three members who shall be
appointed by the President to serve at his
pleasure, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. Each member shall, as a re-
sult of training, experience, or attainments,
be professionally qualified to analyze and in-
terpret environmental trends of all kinds and
descriptions and shall be conscious of and
responsive to the scientific, economic, social,
esthetic, and cultural needs and interest of
this Nation. The President shall designate
the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Board from such members.
(b) Members of the Board shall serve full
time and the Chairman of the Board shall
be compensated at the rate provided for
Level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates
(5 U.S.C. 5313). The other members of the
Board shall be compensated at the rate pro-
vided for Level IV of the Executive Schedule
Pay Rates (5 U.S.C. 5315).
SEC. 302. (a) The primary function of the
Board shall be to study and analyze environ-
mental trends and the factors that effect
these trends, relating each area of study
and analysis to the conservation, social, eco-
nomic, and health goals of this Nation. In
carrying out this function, the Board shall—
(1) report at least once each year to the
President on the state and condition of the
environment;
(2) provide advice, assistance, and support
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1905
to the President on the formulation of na-
tional policies to foster and promote the
improvement of environmental quality; and
(3) obtain information using existing
sources, to the greatest extent practicable,
concerning the quality of the environment
and make such information available to the
public.
(b) The Board shall periodically review
and appraise Federal programs, projects, ac-
tivities, and policies which affect the quality
of the environment and make recommenda-
tions thereon to the President.
(c) It shall be the duty and function of
the Board to assist and advise the President
in the preparation of the annual environ-
mental quality report required under section
303.
(d) The Board shall carry out its duties
under the provisions of this Act at the direc-
tion of the President and shall perform what-
ever additional duties he may from time to
time direct.
SEC. 303. (a) The President shall transmit
to the Congress, beginning June 30, 1970, an
annual environmental quality report which
shall set forth: (a) the status and condition
of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation; and (b)
current and foreseeable trends in quality,
•management, and utilization of such en-
vironments and the effects of those trends on
the social, economic, and other requirements
of the Nation
(b) Such report shall be referred in whole
or in part to the committees of each house
of the Congress which have exercised juris-
diction over the subject matter contained
therein.
SEC 304 (a) In order to obtain assistance
and independent advice in the development
and implementation of the purposes of this
title, the Board may from time to time es-
tablish advisory committees Committee
members shall be selected from among rep-
resentatives of various State, interstate, and
local government agencies, of public or
private interests concerned with population
growth, environmental quality, and planning
for the future, and of the other public and
private agencies demonstrating an active in-
terest, as well as other individuals in the
fields of population, biology, medical sciences,
psychology, social sciences, ecology, agricul-
ture, economics, law, engineering, and po-
litical science, who have demonstrated
competence with regard to problems of the
environment.
(b) The members of the advisory commit-
tees appointed pursuant to this title shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate to
be fixed by the Board, but not exceeding $100
per diem, including traveltime, and while
away from their homes or regular places
of business they may be allowed travel ex-
penses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, as authorized by section 5703 of
title 5 of the United States Code for per-
sons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
(c) The Board shall organize and convene
a biennial forum on current problems and
issues concerning environmental quality,
population, and the future, and publish the
proceedings thereof, and participants in such
forums shall be selected from among repre-
sentatives of various State, interstate, and
local government agencies, of public or pri-
vate interests concerned with population
growth, environmental quality, and planning
for the future, and of other public and pri-
vate agencies demonstrating an active inter-
est, as well as other individuals in the fields
of population, biology, psychology, medical
sciences, social sciences, ecology, agriculture,
economics, law, engineering, and political
science who have demonstrated competence
with regard to problems of the environment.
SEC. 304. The Board may employ such offi-
cers and employees as may be necessary to
carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Board may employ and fix the
compensation of such experts and consul-
tants as may be necessary for the carrying
out of its functions under this Act, in ac-
cordance with section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code (but without regard to the last
sentence thereof).
SEC. 305. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated $1,000,000 annually to carry
out the purposes of this title.
Amend the title so as to read; "A bill to
establish a national policy for the environ-
ment; to authorize studies, surveys, and re-
search relating to ecological systems, natural
resources, and the quality of the human
environment; and to establish a Board of
Environmental Quality Advisers."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as Sen-
ators are aware, the Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution has been ex-
amining specific air, water, and solid
waste pollution problems since its cre-
ation in 1963. It is worthy of note that
the subcommittee has heard over 1,100
witnesses and accumulated 15,877 pages
of testimony in the past 6 years on en-
vironmental matters. Prior to that time,
and as far back as 1899, the Committee
on Public Works and its predecessors
have initiated or handled pollution con-
trol legislation.
The fact that the Nation has a capac-
ity to deal with air pollution, water pol-
lution, and to a lesser extent, solid
-------
1906
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
wastes, is due in a large part to the ac-
tivities of this subcommittee and the
continued, unanimous support of the
Committee on Public Works.
The legislation which has been en-
acted on these subjects is indicative of
two important trends in the Nation's
concern for the quality of its environ-
ment; first, that we are willing to make
a commitment of our financial resources
to finding and applying solutions to dif-
ficult pollution problems; and second,
that there is a need for orderly pollution
control procedures, both in identifying
the extent of control required and in
establishing implementation programs.
The philosophy of air and water qual-
ity legislation has been first to develop
the criteria which indicate the effects
of pollutants on the various aspects of
the public health and welfare and then
to apply available, feasible control tech-
nology. This philosophy has been based
on two elemental concepts—that only
those measures which were designed to
enhance air and water quality would be
acceptable and that local and State gov-
ernment have the prime responsibility
to implement those measures.
It was against this background of
study, hearings, discussion and legisla-
tion that members of the subcommittee
became concerned with the potential in-
terpretation of title I of S. 1075, as passed
by the Senate. Section 102(c) of the bill
would require every Federal agency to
include as a part of any legislative pro-
posal, report on legislation or any major
action, which has a significant effect
on the quality of the environment, a
finding of environmental impact, adverse
[p. 29052]
environmental effects, commitments of
resources, and other potential justifica-
tions for the legislation or activity.
The concept of self-policing by Fed-
eral agencies which pollute or license
pollution is contrary to the philosophy
and intent of existing environmental
quality legislation. In hearing after
hearing agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment have argued that their primary
authorization, whether it be maintenance
of the navigable waters by the Corps of
Engineers or licensing of nuclear power-
plants by the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, takes precedence over water quality
requirements.
I repeat, these agencies have always
emphasized their primary responsibility
making environmental considerations
secondary in their view.
It is for this reason that the legisla-
tion pending before the Senate includes
a provision which would require water
quality compliance by Federal agencies
in both their own activities and the ac-
tivities in which they are involved. Sec-
tion 16 of S. 7 would require water
quality compliance as a precondition of
Federal activities; it would not leave the
determination of water quality effects to
the polluter. By requiring compliance
certification from the water pollution
control agency, section 16 would assign
policing responsibility to those agencies
most qualified to make an environmental
decision and not to those committed to
carrying out some other function at
minimum cost.
The proposed compromise language
developed for section 102 (c) clearly in-
dicates the extent to which the polluter
is involved in determining environ-
mental effects. This language eliminated
the requirement that a "finding" be made
but provides that environmental impact
be discussed as a part of any report on
legislation, or any decision to commence
a major activity. The requirement that
established environmental agencies be
consulted and that their comments ac-
company any such report would place
the environmental control responsibility
where it should be.
Other provisions of the compromise
on S. 1075 include elimination of the re-
quirement that the President designate
a lead agency to conduct data collection
and make grants to carry out the pur-
poses of the act. To a large extent these
functions are either presently delegated
to existing agencies or would be carried
on by the office of environmental quality.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1907
Mr. President, S. 1075 brings into focus
the Senate's continuing concern for the
quality of the Nation's environment. S.
1075 focuses attention on an environ-
mental need which is not included in
either bill pending before the Senate to-
day and is only covered in part by exist-
ing legislation.
The Clean Air Act and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act provided for
specific development of criteria which
define the impact of water and air pol-
lutants on health and welfare. Pending
solid waste legislation would require the
same type of systematic analysis of the
relationship of pollutants to the land
environment.
On the basis of these criteria, stand-
ards of environmental quality have been
and are being developed. But obviously
criteria and standards designed to pro-
tect and enhance the quality of our air
and water and enhance our ability to
deal with our solid wastes in an orderly,
efficient, and healthful manner do not
provide an effective or orderly manner
to consider all forms of environmental
degradation. For example, there are no
criteria which indicate the various lev-
els of noise which affect the health and
welfare of people nor are there criteria
on which local or even national esthetic
judgments can be based.
We need to begin to focus our atten-
tion on developing legislation which will
provide for the development of criteria
which would indicate the effects of a
nuclear test on a wildlife refuge or the
effects of development of a permafrost
region on the ecology of the area.
We cannot afford to fight out environ-
mental battles on a crisis-by-crisis basis
not can we afford to shut down tomor-
row on the basis of today's fears. By de-
velopment of meaningful methods of
measurement of environmental impact,
through development of standards-set-
ting procedures at the local level,
through careful analysis of existing and
future land uses, we can begin to order
our progress without environmental
chaos.
Mr. President, it is in the spirit and
with this approach in mind that the dis-
tinguished Senator from Washington
(Mr. JACKSON) , the ranking Republican,
the distinguished Senator from Colorado
(Mr. ALLOTT) , the distinguished Senator
from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) and myself
from the Public Works Committee, as
well as the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) , the chairman of the full
committee, have undertaken to resolve
our differences with respect to the re-
lationship of S. 7 and S. 1075.
I think that we have succeeded in do-
ing so in a way which does violence to
neither and which advances the broad
objectives which we both seek to serve.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I fully
agree with the purposes of section 16 (c)
of S. 7. It is my understanding that
there was never any conflict between
this section and the provisions of S. 1075.
If both bills were enacted in their present
form, there would be a requirement for
State certification, as well as a require-
ment that the licensing agency make
environmental findings.
The compromise worked out between
the bills provides that the licensing
agency will not have to make a detailed
statement on water quality if the State
or other appropriate agency has made a
certification pursuant to section 16(c).
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I com-
mend the Senator from Maine for bring-
ing out this bill; it goes a long way
toward cleaning up some forms of stream
pollution with which we are afflicted.
What I particularly wish to ask him is,
am I correct in assuming that under the
new section 16, all nuclear powerplants
are covered, but only some of the con-
ventional fuel powerplants are covered?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. As
conventionally fueled powerplants in-
crease in size, they will be increasingly
subject to certificate by reason of the
need to obtain a permit from the Corps
of Engineers for one reason or another.
I think the Senator from Vermont
might like me to read into the RECORD at
this point testimony by Mr. Ramey,
-------
1908
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Commissioner of the Atomic Energy
Commission, on this point.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. This testimony reads
as follows:
We have been informed that a substantial
percentage of conventionally fueled plants of
the larger sizes—sizes comparable to the cur-
rently popular sizes of nuclear plants—need
some sort of Federal permission.
For example, we understand from an ex-
amination of data developed by the Corps of
Engineers that during 1967, 12 conventionally
fueled plants over 400 megawatts—electrical
—in size went on the line.
Of these 12 relatively large sized plants,
eight or 66% percent, required and had se-
cured a Federal permit.
Seven of the plants required a permit from
the Corps of Engineers because their con-
struction plans included structures on navi-
gable waters; one plant had intake and
outfall structures located on U.S.-owned land
and required a permit.
One additional plant was built by the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority and did not require
a permit.
This suggests, I think, some of the
reasons why the proposed legislation
might apply to some of the larger fossil
fuel plants but might not apply to all
of them.
Mr. AIKEN. I think that is a sound
explanation. It is well to go as far as the
bill goes in that direction. I am sorry it
cannot cover all of the smaller fossil fuel
plants.
The real reason I asked the question is
that we hear various kinds of propaganda
which is designed to alarm the people
and cause them to believe that only
atomic powerplants create thermal pol-
lution. That, of course, is not true. Ac-
cording to information furnished by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration there were 10 cases of fish kill
caused by discharge from power gener-
ating plants during the years 1962 to
1968. Every one of them was from a con-
ventional powerplant. To date, to my
knowledge, there has been no case what-
ever of fish kill being caused by thermal
discharges from a nuclear powerplant. I
wanted to make that clear.
Yesterday I submitted two amend-
ments in somewhat of a hurry, and they
were printed. Upon further study of the
situation, I realized that probably the bill
which the Senator from Maine is now
sponsoring would go as far as it is pos-
sible to go legislatively at this time
and therefore I will not call up these
amendments.
I have one other question. It is about
a matter which disturbs me consider-
ably, in that apparently the certification
procedure in the bill does not cover all
industrial plants. We have had experi-
ences in my State with paper mills, tan-
neries, and other types of industrial
plants which contribute heavily to the
pollution of our lakes and rivers. To
what extent, if any, will the bill cover
that type of pollution?
Mr. MUSKIE. It will cover it in one
possible respect and in another clear re-
[p. 29053]
spect. To the extent that any large in-
dustrial plant might require a permit
from the Corps of Engineers because of
intrusion upon navigation, that permit
will make the industry subject to sec-
tion 16.
But beyond that, the procedures es-
tablished by the Water Quality Act of
1965, the Secretary of the Interior is in
a position to assume leadership by re-
quiring the setting of standards by the
States to deal with thermal pollution
from all sources. That authority is on
the books. The States are required,
under that legislation, to set standards.
I think this RECORD might be a good
place in which to urge the Secretary to
use his mandate and begin tightening
these standards.
As the Senator from Vermont probably
knows, water quality standards have
been set pursuant to the Water Quality
Act of 1965. We have used the section 16
approach in order to put the Federal
Government's house in order. This, we
hope, will be followed by the States, in
order to enforce their own water quality
standards.
Mr AIKEN. I think some of the Fed-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1909
eral agencies can stand some improve-
ment in this respect. The reason why I
have raised the question at this time is
that there are so many different types of
industrial plants which I do not believe
are covered.
For a long time there has been a paper
mill on the New York side of Lake
Champlain. Vermont has, I think, pretty
good water quality standard laws. New
York has only recently tightened its
standards. But before anything was
done, probably the lower quarter of
Lake Champlain had become so con-
taminated that the people who live on
the Vermont side could not use the water
for domestic purposes. Of course, for a
long time the Vermont standards were
much higher than they were across the
lake, in New York.
Now the paper company on the New
York side of Lake Champlain is building
a very large mill, just up the lake from
the old mill. Their representatives have
told me that they will use about a thou-
sand cords of hardwood a day. That is a
very sizable mill. When the paper com-
pany representatives came to see me
they told me that they can control, and
plan to control the waste and contamina-
tion from the mill which would other-
wise, as it did from the old mill, have
emptied practically untreated into the
lake. They now plan to recover the fi-
ber, and possibly the chemicals, and
other matter which contribute to pollu-
tion. I do not know how far they will
go, and I hope they are right. I am
watching the situation closely.
The new mill has been granted a
license by the Corps of Engineers to con-
struct an intake and outfall pipe into
Lake Champlain.
One thing which caused me to be a
little apprehensive was that in looking
at the plans, I found that the discharge
pipe from the paper mill empties on the
Vermont side of the lake. I wanted to be
sure that this bill could correct a situa-
tion like that, in the event that the mill
does not control all the pollution which
it will create.
Mr. MUSKIE. These discharges would
be controlled by the Water Quality Act
and the standards that have been set
under that act by both States. If those
standards are not adequate, I should
think that the appropriate State agen-
cies ought to review and revise them.
Mr. AIKEN. Assuming that the pollu-
tion is not controlled and that it is emp-
tied on the Vermont side of the lake or
the New York side for that matter, what
recourse would Vermont have then? Of
course, it is Federal water anyway, but
how could the State control any possible
pollution? Under the Senator's bill,
would the Federal Government enter the
picture and require the enforcement of
the law?
Mr. MUSKIE. The enforcement pro-
visions of the 1965 act would be appli-
cable.
Mr. AIKEN. I hope the Senator is
correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The bill now before us
would not be needed to deal with that
situation.
Mr. AIKEN. The paper company offi-
cials insists that they will have the sit-
uation under control so that the amount
of pollution will be almost zero. It will
be a great step forward if that is done.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Ver-
mont and I have had considerable expe-
rience with this kind of situation in the
past. I think the best point in time at
which to make sure is before the plant is
built.
Mr. AIKEN. Many of the people of
Vermont depend on the water of Lake
Champlain for domestic purposes. We
have large water systems which draw
water from the lake for distribution to
many farms and homes.
I shall not insist on offering my
amendments because, frankly, I do not
know how far the Senator's bill will go.
But I hope it will go a long way toward
correcting situations which never should
be permitted to exist.
Mr. MUSKIE. The bill represents
what we believe is a meaningful first
step in dealing with thermal as well as
-------
1910
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
other pollution, and we intend to con-
sider future amendments to cover sit-
uations included in the Senator's
amendments, to the extent they may not
now be covered.
Mr. AIKEN. Let me assure the Sen-
ator from Maine that I will be delighted
to cooperate with him in securing effec-
tive legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator
from Vermont.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, first of
all, I compliment the able and distin-
guished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUS-
KIE) for his very fine statement. He has
indicated that we have been able to work
out the differences—in which I concur—
in a way which is satisfactory to both
committees. More important, of course,
is the fact that this agreement will be
extremely helpful in seeing to it that ap-
propriate legislation is enacted in this
all-important area of environment ad-
ministration.
I express my appreciation to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maine, the
chairman of the subcommittee, who has
been handling these matters. I also want
to express my appreciation to the chair-
man of the full committee, the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) , who
has taken a keen interest in this matter.
We have had a number of discussions
on the minority side with the able and
distinguished Senator from Colorado
(Mr. ALLOTT) , the ranking minority
member, who has followed all this
closely and has been extremely helpful,
especially to the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in
trying to work out an appropriate solu-
tion to this problem. I express to him
my deep appreciation for his support.
Mr. President, a number of questions
have been raised in recent days regard-
ing the relationship between S. 1075, the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, which was passed by the Senate
on July 10 and by the House on Septem-
ber 23, and title II of S. 7, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969 now
before the Senate.
All of these questions have been care-
fully considered by the respective chair-
men and by other concerned members of
the Public Works Committee and the In-
terior and Insular Affairs Committee.
As a result of a review and a compari-
son of the two measures it has been
agreed that an effort will be made to
modify the provisions of title II of S. 7
by offering an amendment in the nature
of a substitute. In addition, it has been
agreed that the Senate conferees of S.
1075 will seek to have certain changes
incorporated into the provisions of S.
1075 when that measure is considered by
the conference committee.
The agreement on this matter was
made after it was discovered that the In-
terior Committee and the Senate had
acted and that the Senate was about to
act upon different, but, in some respects,
parallel legislative proposals which in-
volve the creation of new governmental
institutions for the overview and admin-
istration of Federal programs related to
the management of the Nation's en-
vironment. This duality of effort by the
two committees does not, as I understand
it, involve any direct conflict in purpose
or intent. Both measures can, however,
be improved in some respects by adop-
tion of the agreed-upon changes. For
the most part, these changes are designed
to insure that duplication of effort does
not occur and that congressional direc-
tives to the executive branch in the two
proposals are consistent.
The proposed changes are reflected in
the amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute to title II of S. 7 which has been
introduced, and in a copy of S. 1075
which will be printed in the RECORD when
the motion is made later today to dis-
agree to the amendments of the House
to S. 1075 and to agree to the conference
requested by the House.
Mr. President, this rather unusual pro-
cedure is, in part, the outgrowth of some
basic and still unresolved questions re-
lating to the jurisdiction of the standing
committees of both Houses of the Con-
gress on legislative matters relating to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1911
Federal policies on preserving and main-
[p. 29054]
taining the quality of man's environ-
ment. The historic committee jurisdic-
tion on routine legislation—air and water
pollution legislation, outdoor recreation
proposals, minerals policy, rivers and
harbors projects, and so forth—has been
long established and, insofar as I am
aware, is not challenged.
In new and emerging areas of legis-
lative concern, however, the die has not
been cast, and many different commit-
tees of the Congress have quite properly
expressed interest. Examples here in-
clude weather modification, national
land-use planning, the establishment of
policies for the resources of the Outer
Continental Shelf, some areas of water
resource policy, and policies related to
the management of man's environment.
In these areas, jurisdiction is either
shared by committees or it has gravitated
by the force of precedent to the com-
mittee or committees which have ac-
tively participated in hearings on the
particular subject matter involved.
With respect to legislation related to
"pollution control" it is clear that the
Public Works Committee has exercised
jurisdiction and will continue to have
jurisdiction over future proposals related
to air, water, and solid waste pollution.
Legislative jurisdiction over "pollution
control" does not, however, mean that
the Public Works Committee—or any
other committee—has jurisdiction over
all matters which relate to maintaining
and improving the quality of the human
environment. Maintaining and improv-
ing the quality of the surroundings and
the quality of life enjoyed by the Ameri-
can people is a basic and fundamental
task of all the committees of Congress
and of all of the agencies of the executive
branch.
The Committee on Interior and Insu-
lar Affairs has historically played a very
large and a very important role in this
area. The legislation handled by the
committee and enacted by the Congress
over the past 10 years shows the scope of
the Interior Committee's role and the
diligence with which it has been pursued.
The committee has approved the fol-
lowing general legislation in recent
years: the National Water Commission
Act, the Water Resources Planning Act,
the Water Resources Research Act, the
Federal desalting program, the Federal
Water Projects Recreation Act, the land
and water conservation fund, the Public
Land Law Review Commission Act, the
reclamation program, the Wilderness
Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and
many other general measures related to
resource, environmental, and land use
policies.
In addition, over the past few years,
the committee has approved measures to
set aside for future generations four new
national parks, eight new national recre-
ation areas, nine new national seashores
and lakeshores, almost 100 new wilder-
ness areas, national monuments and his-
toric sites. All of these measures relate
to the quality of the human environment.
The committee's legislative activities
over the past 10 years in the area of new
governmental institutions and policies
for resource and environmental manage-
ment are set out in the legislative history
section of the committee's report on S.
1075.
The important role played by the
Interior Committee in preserving, pro-
tecting, and improving the quality of the
environment does not, however, give the
Interior Committee predominant juris-
diction in this area.
The concept of "environment," like
that of "economics" cuts across the juris-
diction of all congressional committees.
Actions taken by the Finance Committee,
for example, on depreciation, charitable
contributions, foundations, and the
taxation of trusts will have a major im-
pact on the future role private enterprise
and individual action will play in pre-
serving our environment for future gen-
erations. The same may be said with
respect to other committees: the Com-
merce Committee's action on the devel-
-------
1912
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
opment of an estuarine program, a
transportation policy, and an alternative
to the internal combustion engine; the
Agriculture Committee's actions on pes-
ticide control, soil erosion, and the devel-
opment of new opportunity in rural
America; the Banking and Currency
Committee's activities in the develop-
ment of urban programs; and the ac-
tivities of many other committees of the
Congress.
It is clear that all committees have
an important role to play in this area.
The Legislative Reference Service tabu-
lated over 100 bills in the 90th Congress
which were directly concerned with en-
vironmental issues. In the present Con-
gress there are even more. Recent
reports indicate that of the 16 standing
committees of the Senate, eight have
broad jurisdiction in this area. Of the
21 House standing committees, 11 are
similarly involved.
On a subject so pervasive, broad, and
important as "environment" and the
"quality of life," no committee may
exercise exclusive jurisdiction. It is also
clear that there is a need to give spe-
cialized and regularized consideration to
these subjects. Because of this need, I
have proposed, and I plan to join with
other Members of the Senate and, I hope,
Members of the House of Representa-
tives, to sponsor and to advance legisla-
tion to establish a nonlegislative joint
committee on the environment.
The enactment of S. 1075 and S. 7 will
give the Nation an environmental policy
as well as appropriate governmental
structures in the executive branch to im-
plement the policy. The next logical
step, in my view, is to insure that the
legislative branch has an institution
equally well adapted to provide contin-
ued oversight on environmental matters.
A joint committee would provide such an
institution.
During my service on the Interior
Committee, I have found that the lack
of an overall national policy on the en-
vironment often frustrates efforts to pre-
serve, protect and to improve man's
surroundings. A recent example may be
seen in connection with the water sup-
ply and jet airport controversy which
currently threatens the existence of the
Everglades National Park. Under pres-
ent law, the Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Transportation appar-
ently do not have a clear statutory man-
date to see that the environmental and
natural values found in the park are not
damaged or endangered by their flood
control and transportation activities.
It is my belief, based on extensive
committee hearings, that the problems
associated with the Everglades could
have been avoided if there had existed a
clear statement of goals and procedures
designed to make clear that all Federal
agencies have a responsibility for the
preservation and protection of environ-
mental values. S. 1075, as passed by the
Senate, clearly states the Nation's goals
and the responsibilities of all Federal
agencies with respect to the maintenance
of a safe, healthy, productive and
esthetically pleasing environment. En-
actment of S. 1075 will prevent many of
the environmental problems caused by
Federal agencies and their activities.
The Interior Committee has experi-
enced similar problems in other contexts.
The controversy over the construction
of dams in the Grand Canyon, for ex-
ample, could have been resolved at a
much earlier date if the Department of
the Interior had been required to pre-
sent Congress with alternative proposals
where, as in that case, there were unre-
solved major environmental conflicts.
Section 102 (d) of S. 1075 would go far
toward resolving such problems by
requiring the development and presenta-
tion of alternatives in all future legisla-
tive reports on measures involving major
unresolved environmental conflicts.
Other basic provisions of S. 1075 are
also designed to minimize the conflict
between resource development and the
maximization of environmental values.
Subsection 102 (a) requires all agencies
to utilize the expertise and learning of
all relevant disciplines in planning and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1913
decisionmaking on actions which may
have an adverse impact on man's en-
vironment. Subsection 102 (b) requires
the development of procedures designed
to insure that all relevant environmental
values and amenities are considered in
the calculus of project development and
decisionmaking. Subsection 102 (c) es-
tablishes a procedure designed to in-
sure that in instances where a proposed
major Federal action would have a sig-
nificant impact on the environment that
the impact has in fact been considered,
that any adverse effects which cannot be
avoided are justified by some other
stated consideration of national policy,
that short-term uses are consistent with
long-term productivity, and that any ir-
reversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of resources are warranted.
The agreed-upon changes mentioned
previously would change the language of
some of these requirements, but their
substance would remain relatively
unchanged.
The provisions of S. 1075 are designed
to establish a policy and a set of planning
procedures which will prevent instances
of environmental abuse and degradation
caused by Federal actions before they
get off the planning board. It is my hope
that the House will accept these pro-
visions in conference committee on S.
1075.
If enacted, titles I and II of S. 1075
[p. 29055]
will give all agencies a mandate, a re-
sponsibility, and a meaningful tool to
insure that the quality of America's fu-
ture environment is as good or better
than today's. Departments such as the
Departments of Defense, Transportation,
Commerce, and Housing and Urban De-
velopment will then no longer have an
excuse for ignoring environmental values
in the pursuit of narrower, more imme-
diate, mission-oriented goals. Agencies
such as the Atomic Energy Commission
which now contend they have no legisla-
tive authority to consider environmental
values will be given the authority, the
responsibility, and a directive to do so.
In view of the recent public concern
over AEC activities in connection with
Project Bronco and the Amchitka test,
it is time that AEC be given a larger
mandate against which to weigh the en-
vironmental impact of its planned and
proposed activities. The same is true of
many other agencies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a comparison of the present
provisions of S. 1075 as passed by the
Senate, S. 7 as reported by the Public
Works Committee, and S. 1075 as
amended by the House be printed in
the RECORD at the conclusion of my re-
marks. I also ask unanimous consent
that a memorandum discussing the
agreed-upon changes in S. 1075 and title
II be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibits
1 and 2.)
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, the
purpose of the agreed-upon changes is to
avoid duplication and to avoid any in-
consistent directives to agencies in the
executive branch. Some of the changes
insure that there will be coordination be-
tween agencies and that appropriate
agencies will be given an opportunity to
comment upon activities of other agen-
cies which may have adverse environ-
mental consequences. A new proposed
section 103 in S. 1075 would be added to
make explicitly clear that section 102
does not in any way affect the specific
statutory obligations of Federal agencies
to comply with environmental standards,
to coordinate their activities, or to con-
dition their actions upon and State or
Federal certifications now required by
law or which may be required by
law. The language of this section is de-
signed to insure that the provisions of
section 16, and particularly section 16 (c)
of S. 7 are consistent with the require-
ments of section 102 of S. 1075. Section
16 (c) of S. 7 would have the effect of
exempting the Corps of Engineers, the
Atomic Energy Commission, and some
other agencies from the requirement in
-------
1914
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
S. 1075 for a detailed statement on the
environmental impact of proposed ac-
tions involving any discharge into the
navigable waters of the United States.
Under the terms of section 16 (c) of S. 7
as now drafted, the State or other ap-
propriate organization would be charged
with certifying that any discharge in
substantial compliance with appropriate
water quality standards. This certifica-
tion would be a condition precedent to
obtaining any Federal license or permit
required by law before making any dis-
charges into the navigable waters of the
United States.
Mr. President, the major precepts of
an environmental policy are not contro-
versial though, as we have found over
the past few weeks, the specific language
may be difficult to draft. What is in-
volved is a declaration that we do not
intend, as a government or as a people,
to initiate actions which endanger the
continued existence or the health of
mankind. That we will not intentionally
initiate actions which will do irreparable
damage to the resources which support
life on earth.
An environmental policy is a policy
for people. Its primary concern is with
man and his future. The basic principle
of the policy is that we must strive, in
all that we do, to achieve a standard of
excellence in man's relationships to his
physical surroundings. If there are to be
departures from this standard they will
be exceptions to the rule and the policy.
And as exceptions they will have to be
justified in the light of public scrutiny.
S. 1075 as passed by the Senate, and
with the changes which have been
agreed upon, will provide the American
people with a policy that is in the best
interests of present and future genera-
tions. I am hopeful that the major pro-
visions of this policy will emerge from
the conference committee.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1915
"
K
e
<
K
EXHIBIT 1
VIKONMENTAL QUALITY
Z
w
Cu
o
a
K
<
04
S
I
£
It
«
"5" **
1 s
z, "S
ro S *^
•" S L,
w •$ QI S
N ^3 >r
rt » S
a < h S
3 m 13
Ki g
« &
~ 0
1
c
<
4->
5
*s
'c
s. 7
Title
Quality Improvem<
'c
QJ
g
'>
c:
W
s. 1075
Title
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
£
"3
3
O1
3
c
01
e
C
O
(_,
>
c
H
c
o
Council
*H
0
0)
H
Ol
CD
O
?)
.0
s .
a >>
o1 J?
te o
o a
S ...
^
*S c
8 S
Q S
J
«
»
0 Q g -
i i
. E ^
« S
a §5^
-ff S a,
of environmental rig]
'ederal agencies as foil
agencies are directed
;ies established by thi
the Act (Sec. 203).
Jtt. "-SO
c ° S o **
•a § «sft-H
S3 ll^§
• o > .2 p 5 g
~ s s t .a - g
£« a KS g a
O £ 3 C *»
? ^ Qf^ S g
C >~< 4J
ni D, *o
Recognition of environmental rights
Congress recognizes right of persons to
.ealthful environment (sec. 101 (b) ).
Directions to Federal agencies as follows:
Congress authorizes and directs all Federal
gencies to perform functions and make cer-
ain findings in support of the policy (sec
02).
.C CO ^ i.
.e
u
g
R,
R,
ti
5)
fe
e
T|,
I,
IS C
•si
"1
a
o
Z
Zisciplinary approach
£ c
e o
1-1 '»
"I
ft
O
Z
All agencies shall :
1 . Interdisciplinary approach
1 . Utilize interdisciplinary approach to
lanning and decision-making (sec. 102 (a)).
cu
Of
3
'e
£
"^
1
pe
1
3«
. o
N •£
2
a
0
Z,
nronmental values
5
Wri
. O
"3
g
a
o
Z
2. Environmental values
2. Develop methods to include presently un-
uantified values in decisions (sec. 102 (b)).
o1
a
e
1
S=s
Q)
£>
Jl
^ .
c
provisio
o
z
Make findings
fi .
c
o
3
e
a
o
Z
3. Make findings
3. Must make findings in connection with
roposals and decisions that:
a
a. environmental impact
(a) Environmental impact has been
ansidered.
u
b. adverse effects
(b) Adverse effects are justified.
[p. 29056]
-------
1916
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
s. 7 — Continued H.R. 12549 — Continued
(S. 1075 AS AMENDED)
s. 1075 — Continued
c. short-term uses
;§
"e
(c) Short-term uses are consiste]
long-term productivity.
d. irreversible commitments
i
S
m
3
(d) Irreversible commitments are j
I
a
3
•**'
8
•8
a
^
•*$
4. Alternatives
1
w
o
2
1
S
a,
o
2
V
t<
>
4. Study and present alternatives
conflicts occur.
«
f
1
|
2
vj
s
%
1=1
u
•3
1
a
S
"0
5. International effects
i
ft
o
I
8
a
g
V
£
IH
£
5. Support international programs
environment.
-t
O
a
•w
1
t»
&;
to
.f
o
1
6. Present authority
irities No provision. No provision.
m to
o ^
•& .9.
6. Review existing statutory au1
and recommend legislation to coni
this Act.
-S
3
.O
a
g
CD
•S
w
•M
§
I
S
%
a
e
2
A
I
i
&
•w
6
U
R,
M
bg
1
Supplement to existing enabling c
isting No provision. Nothing in act shall change existing au.
agen- thorities (sec. 9).
V en
Act is made supplementary to
mandates and authorizations of Feden
cies (sec. 103) .
Data collection and dissemination Data collection and dissemination
£
Data collection and disseminatic
ollect No provision. No provision.
jlogi-
us
Federal agencies are authorized to
and disseminate environmental and
cal data (sec. 201).
o
fe,
•M
1
O
!
-4-1
!
Grant program
gnate Contract authority vested in office (sec. No provision.
204 (e)).
"i
The President is authorized to d'
agencies to :
1
$
1. Administer a grant program (i
(a)(l)).
Project inventory Project inventory
. 202 No provision. No provision.
V
Project inventory
2. Inventory resource projects (s
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1917
Ecological research
ivision.
o
tH
P,
o
Ecological research
ision.
>
o
t<
a
o
fc
Ecological research
llect ecological research data (sec. 202
i .
o
U g
" *£
v~*'
Assistance to States
Assistance to States
Assistance to States
"M"
r-
si
u
-4-T
5
§
U
i!
.2 ?
> c
S g
0.3
S"
rH
ions.
will consult, sec. 204 (c)
w r
'> n
o u
° e
A§
O '-'
fc
Tj<
rt
i
CM
CJ
S
P,
0
2
Technology
lishes new Deputy Director In OST
3).
.Q 0
ra •»
of Environmental Quality
(Council, Office)
•> a Council of Environmi
xecutive Office of Presid
5 members appointed b;
•u ^ W o ^
§CTJ -H jvj
m 2 -S •§ "
U^I»
>^ tn 1 fl 1 ^-v
e S | S 1 5 5
J S 01 ., B s. ^i
p §o|i|s
5 1 SlS*
f Environmental Quality
(Council, Office)
an Office of Environmer
ive Office of President
:y appointed by Preside]
consent of Senate. Co
salary of Director and !
3ureau of the Budget (s
0 -B 3 - - .
•g |3|Tg3'S-
B SXQB.at.-0
« fi^sl^
.3 g > x S S
i of Environmental Quality Aduisors
(Council, Office)
es a 3-man Board in the Executive
f the President. Appointed by Presi-
th advice and consent of Senate (sec.
C ti ° 5
rt (O [5
0 V V * .
05 5§gg
O T3 01
•M
g
E . Annual report to Presid
-t-j
g
Annual report to Presid
1. Annual report to President
CO
u
(L)
•"
innual report to President
TO
0
1
§
W
'>
O
S-(
p.
o
z
ke annual report to the President (302
Co "*^
^ 3
rt S
1
=3
1
2. Assist President
•are reports as Preside
1).
ffi
n* «
d, «
"1
S
N
U
0)
«
2. Assist President
e and Assist Presidenl
w
"> ^
<^-
r-l
M -^
^J
2. Assist President
vise, assist, and support President
(2)).
^ -^
<5
. w
N§
s
V]
W
•c
o
a
3. Collect data
ier data and prepare re
is
3 •
O ^
" £
w
3. Collect data
ision.
>
S
a.
0
2;
3. Collect data
lect and disseminate information on
mental quality (sec. 302 (a) (3)).
o C
<3 2
"1
V
s
4. Review; Federal actiuiti
CO
(U
. Review Federal actiuiti
•^
4. Review Federal activities
3
w
VI
V
>
u
CO
1
t4
w
s
a
01
CO
2
a
a
< ^.
•* 2
Ifl
g s g
SaS
Ms
S§5
w, appraise, and make
i proposed projects, faci
icies and activities of ce
204 (c) (3)).
" R 'o •
o i? o
> a 5
KC in •*—
s e
•f 3 B g
o >5 .8
T3 M u
/iew, appraise and make recom-
ions concerning Federal programs,
, activities, and policies (302 (b) ) .
v ^ £
«•§ Si
•*' §'s
S a
-------
1918
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
-
cq
elop policies
g
Q
£
P .
mend priorities
g
§
«
rH
revision.
a
o
fc
ate techniques
_s
'o
a
t)
c«i
*-<
revision.
&
o
2
inate programs
•g
0
>
J3
•o
<1>
u
2
•3
0)
3
T)
S
5 ^
° S'
u? rg
el
7. Support Cabinet Coun<
7. Support Cabinet Council
r Cabinet
,p
Provide staff and support 1
incil (sec. 204 (c) (2)).
^ g
U
^
S
Federal agencies (sec. 201
5
r^
g
u
8. Review monitoring syst
g
8. Review monitoring systei
i
I
CO
C
Review existing environme
ng system (sec. 204 (c) (4)).
06 '£
s
g
N
a
w
esident designates agency
i .
£«
m
9. Promote knowledge
9. Promote knowledge
scientific
)).
Irt
, Promote advancement of
iwledge and methods (204 (c) (
01 a
.S
^
1?
I Federal agencies (sec. 201
<
oi
10. Develop policies
10. Develop policies
I
I
CO
K
W)
z
a<
I
»
OJ
y
'o
a
a
o .
'aS "^
£§
p ~
. y
S§
CJ
s
M
8
10
oard to assist President
).
a ~
(N
o ^
rt n
S
11. Recommend prioritii
11. Recommend priorities
P
u
S
CV]
1. Recommend priorities (sec.
r-\
o provision.
fc
i~i
H
12. Evaluate technique
12. Evaluate techniques
chnologies
ft
2. Assure evaluation of new 1
c. 204(c) (8)).
-H HI
' — '
.Q
I
si
w
[A
CJ
1
be
CO
<
N
a
13. Coordinate program
13. Coordinate programs
ordination
o
3. Review and comment on c
programs (sec. 204 (c) (9)).
HH
O
^
3"
I
M
oard reviews programs (sec
n
ri
14. Review criteria
14. Review criteria
5
S
"S
4. Review and comment on en
ndards (sec. 204 (c) (10)).
rt 3
in
~
£
g
oard reviews policies (sec. '.
n
rf
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1919
id local government
5=
a
asult with state
f>
t
O
"a
OJ
>»
re
T3
L^
(B
O
ffl
Appropriations
r grant programs, $500,000 fir
on each successive year (sec.
r Board— $1 million annually
£§£
s
Biennial forum
provision.
o
Advisory committees
provision.
o
-------
1920
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
EXHIBIT 2
AGHEED-UPON CHANGES IN S. 7 AND S 1075
TITLE II OF S. 7 AND THE AMENDMENT IN
THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
The amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute would make the following changes in
Title II of S. 7 as reported by the Public
Works Committee.
1. Section 202 (b) would be stricken and
new language inserted. This section had
declared that is a national policy for the
environment found in certain Acts previously
considered by the Public Works Committee.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute
states that there is a policy and states this
policy in general terms as being "the en-
hancement of the quality of our air, water
and land environment."
2. Section 202(c) is rewritten to state that
the purposes of this title are to assure that
each Federal agency supporting public works
activities which affect the environment im-
plement existing policies and policies estab-
lished by the President pursuant to this title.
3. Section 203 is stricken and its substance
is incorporated into section 202 (c).
4. Section 204 is changed to Section 203.
This section establishes an Office of Environ-
mental Quality.
Subsection (d) of section 203 which sets
forth the duties of the Director of the Office
has been substantially revised. The purpose
of these revisions is to insure that the duties
and functions performed by the Office and
the Board of Advisers established by title
III of S. 1075 are consistent and do not result
in duplication, over-lap or conflict.
Subsections 203 (d) (3), (6), (7), and (11)
have been deleted because these duties are
more appropriately functions to be performed
by the Board of Environmental Advisers es-
tablished by S 1075. Subsections 203 (d) (1)
and (2) have been rewritten to clarify the
type of assistance, staff and support the Office
would give the President and other councils
or committees charged with environmental
responsibilities, Subsections 203(d) (2) recog-
nizes that Congress may soon establish a
Board of Environmental Advisors as proposed
in title III of S. 1075.
The new subsection 203(d) (8) was drawn
from subsection 203 (f) which would be
stricken.
Subsections 203 (d) (9) and (10) were
taken from subsections 202 (a) (2) and (3)
of S. 1075 These functions of data collection
and inventory systems are more appropriately
duties of an Office than of a semi-independent
Board of Environmental Advisers.
5. Subsection 204 (f) and Section 205 of Title
II of S 7 are deleted and the authority to
convene a biennial forum on environmental
problems and to establish advisory commit-
tees is vested with the Board of Advisers es-
tablished by Title III of S 1075.
6. A new section 204 making the provisions
of this Act supplementary to existing au-
thorizations of Federal agencies is inserted.
This language parallels language found in
title I of S. 1075.
PROVISIONS SENATE CONFEBEES WILL SUPPORT IN
CONFERENCE ON S. 1075
The Senate Conferees will support in Con-
ference Committee certain agreed-upon
changes in S. 1075 which are designed to
avoid any inconsistency or duplication with
provisions of Title I and with Title II of S. 7.
The major agreed-upon changes are briefly
described below.
1 The directive to the agencies set out in
Section 102 (b) is made subject to the review
and approval of the Board of Environmental
Advisers.
2. The requirement for a "finding" by the
responsible official in Section 102 (c) is
changed to a requirement for a "detailed
statement."
The directives to the responsible official
which are set out as subsection 102 (c) (i)
through (iv) of S. 1075 are revised.
New language is added to Section 102(c)
which will require the responsible official to
consult with and obtain the views of other
agencies having jurisdiction or special ex-
pertise with respect to the particular environ-
mental impact involved in the proposed
action. Language is also added requiring that
copies of the responsible official's statement
and the comments of other agencies be made
available to the President, the Board and the
public.
3. A new Section 103 is added to make ex-
plicitly clear that section 102 does not in any
way effect the specific statutory obligations
of Federal agencies to comply with environ-
mental standards, to coordinate their activi-
ties, or to condition their actions upon any
State or Federal certifications now required
by law or which may be required by law.
The language of this section is designed to
insure that the provisions of law such as
Section 16 (c) of S. 7 not affected by the
requirements of Section 102 of S 1075. Sec-
[p.29058]
tion 16(c) of S. 7 would have the effect of
exempting the Corps of Engineers and the
Atomic Energy Commission and some other
agencies from the requirement for a detailed
statement on the environmental impact of
proposed actions involving any discharge Into
the navigable waters of the United States.
Under the terms of Section 16 (c) of S 7 as
now drafted, the State or other appropriate
organization would be charged with certi-
fying that any discharge is in compliance
with water quality standards. This certifi-
cation would be a condition precedent to ob-
taining any Federal license or permit required
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1921
by law before any discharges into the navi-
gable waters of the United States.
4. Title H of S. 1075 would be revised to
make clear that the functions set out in sub-
sections 201 (a), (b), and (c) are functions
to be performed by the Board of Environ-
mental Advisers.
5. The remaining functions set out in Sec-
tion 201 would continue to be functions all
Federal agencies are authorized to undertake
under a new section 202.
6. Section 202 would be deleted and part
of the authority would be transferred to the
Office of Environmental Quality established
by Title II of S. 7.
7. Portions of Section 203 would be deleted
in recognition that under title II of S. 7 the
Office of Environmental Quality would pro-
vide staff and support for the President's in-
terdepartmental Council on the Environment.
8. Section 303 would be revised to explicitly
provide that the annual environmental qual-
ity report would be referred in whole or part
to any or all of the Committees of each House
of the Congress having jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the report.
9. New language would be added to Title
III authorizing the Board of Environmental
Advisers to establish advisory Committees
and to organize and convene a biennial forum
on environmental problems. This language
was taken from Title II of S. 7.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, today
the decisions reached by the Senate on
legislation pertaining to the quality of
our environment, in my judgment,
marks an important milestone in the
life of every American. I want to espe-
cially commend the junior Senators from
Washington and Maine, Mr. JACKSON and
Mr. MUSKIE, for their leadership and
great personal contribution in the efforts
of Congress toward improving the qual-
ity of the life of all of our citizens. I
believe that the amendments to title II
of S. 7 and the proposed revision of S.
1075, now ready for conference, display
the skill and creative leadership of these
two Senators in resolving what is admit-
tedly a very special problem of over-
lapping committee jurisdiction. But
rather than seeking to delay and argue
over jurisdiction, both Senators have
commendably, and I might add, charac-
teristically, reasoned and resolved any
differences by the time-honored method
of legislative compromise.
It is especially crucial that all levels of
government move as quickly as possible
toward wiser management of our envi-
ronment. The public interest demands
that we act wisely and with all deliberate
speed. Time is growing short. It is no
longer safe to substitute words in lieu
of action to implement the needed
remedies to this growing national prob-
lem. I think that the efforts today on
the pending bill and the forthcoming
consideration of S. 1075 will have the
overwhelming support of the American
people. I believe our citizens are more
aware than ever before that we of this
generation are trustees of our Nation's
resources and of our total environment.
We must assume our duty to preserve
and enhance our habitat as we prepare
to pass it along to future generations. As
a member of the Senate Interior Com-
mittee, I will be honored to serve as a
conferee on S. 1075. In my judgment,
this far-reaching legislation is one of the
most important conservation-environ-
mental measures that has been consid-
ered by the Congress of the United
States in many years. It marks an effort
for the first time to impress and implant
on the Federal agencies an awareness
and concern for the total environmental
impact of their actions and proposed
programs. This awareness will be built
into the agencies' planning processes at
the lowest levels, where, as we all know,
most decisions are formulated and even
finalized. In the future it may be pos-
sible to avoid conflicts of one program
objective with others through the mech-
anisms provided in this bill.
It is good and necessary legislation
which should be written into law as
quickly as possible.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to
associate myself with the remarks of the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) in
his discussion on the amended language
of title II, the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1969. These
changes, together with the changes to
S. 1075, create a necessary resolution of
a very real controversy. This is a con-
troversy that goes beyond the jurisdic-
-------
1922
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tional interests of various committees in
this vital field of environmental en-
hancement and extends to the very defi-
nition of the words "environment" and
"pollution."
A policy of environmental quality
cannot be segregated from a policy for
pollution control, for they are inevitably
linked. We would not today consider
important issues of pollution if pollution
did not damage our environment. We
would not be considering environmental
quality policy today if our environment
were not endangered by pollution.
It is my position, and I believe the
position of the membership of the Pub-
lic Works Committee, that a national
policy for the environment has been laid
down in legislation already in existence.
This policy dates to nearly the creation
of the Public Works Committee in 1946.
A number of water pollution control
bills have been reported by the Public
Works Committee, and enacted into law.
In 1948, the Congress passed the Water
Pollution Control Act, Public Law
80-845. Four years later it adopted an
extension of the Water Pollution Control
Act, Public Law 82-579. In 1956, the
Congress adopted the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, Public Law
84-660. Congress amended the Water
Pollution Control Act in 1961 with Pub-
lic Law 87-88. Each of these bills, as
well as the water pollution legislation
passed in 1965 and 1966, was reported
to the Senate floor by the Public Works
Committee.
The Public Works Committee's con-
cern for the field of air pollution and its
impact on the environment, has been as
strong. In 1955, the Congress passed a
bill to provide research and technical
assistance relating to air pollution con-
trol, Public Law 84-159. This legisla-
tion was reported to the Senate floor by
the Public Works Committee. In 1959,
with the signing of Public Law 86—365,
Congress extended the life of the air
pollution legislation, and 2 years later
adopted legislation that was to become
Public Law 87-761. In 1963, at the urg-
ing of the Public Works Committee, the
Congress adopted the Clean Air Act,
Public Law 88-206, and since then has
amended the law twice and in 1967
passed the Air Quality Act.
Another pervasive form of pollution is
the solid wastes that clutter our cities
and landscapes. The Public Works
Committee pioneered in this field, with
the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.
The committee as recently as last week
held 4 days of hearings in the considera-
tion of a bill, S. 2005, to extend and aug-
ment the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Clearly, a national policy already ex-
ists to create a quality environment in
America. The new language of title II
reiterates and reinforces this policy, and
augments its implementation through
the creation of an Office of Environ-
mental Quality. This office will serve as
an important adjunct to the President's
Environmental Quality Council.
I do not wish to detain the Senate any
longer in its deliberations. However, I
would like to state my personal thanks
to the committee chairman (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH), the chairman of the subcom-
mittee (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON) and the other
members of the Public Works and In-
terior Committees for their efforts
toward achieving an America with a
quality environment. I commend this
amended language to my colleagues.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the remarks of both the distin-
guished junior Senator from Maine and
the distinguished chairman of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs on
this matter. I have not actually been a
participant in any of the discussions that
have gone on between the two Senators,
but the chairman of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, I believe,
has kept me informed of the progress of
these matters for some time.
Before commencing a short statement,
I note that on page 36 of the report No.
91-351, the Air and Water Pollution Sub-
committee of the Committee on Public
Works held extensive hearings on title I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1923
of S. 7. These hearings included state-
ments from various agencies of the Fed-
eral Government. The administration
testified through the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Transpor-
tation, and the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion. However, my review of the report
fails to disclose any information con-
cerning hearings on title II. Since title
II creates a new office within the Execu-
tive Office of the President, I would be
most interested in learning what the
administration's reactions and comments
were with respect to this title.
Therefore, I would direct this question
to the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, if he would direct me to
[p. 29059]
the appropriate reference in the report
concerning the administration's views
on title II of S. 7.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the dis-
tinguished Senator that we did not have
specific hearings on title II. May I point
out that the 1-day hearing on S. 1075
was on a different version of S. 1075 than
was reported. I do not recall that there
were hearings on title I of S. 1075. I am
not sure about title II, but I have now
reviewed S. 1075 with that in mind.
S. 1075 in its present form was intro-
duced in the Senate on May 29 of this
year. The 1 day of hearing on April
16 was on a bill that was introduced in
February. So both the provisions of
title II of S. 7 and S. 1075 might be
faulted in their provisions, in their floor
version in that they were not subject to
hearings.
But may I say that title II of S. 7 was
extracted from S. 2391, which I intro-
duced in July of this year with 42 Sen-
ate cosponsors. Title II is taken from
that bill.
That bill was the product of some 6 or
7 years of hearings we held on such
environmental matters as air quality and
water quality and solid waste.
Title II was developed as representing
subjects, problems, points of view that
had been discussed in those hearings
over that period. Those hearings in-
cluded some 1,100 witnesses, some 16,000
pages of testimony, much of which is
relevant to title II.
The accurate answer to the Senator's
question is that there is no specific testi-
mony in the hearings this year on title
II. I repeat that the same point can be
made with respect to many of the pro-
visions of S. 1075.
Mr. ALLOTT. I cannot agree with the
last statement. I would like to ask the
Senator—
Mr. MUSKIE. May I suggest that
there be included on this point the text
of the bill (S. 1075), as it existed at the
time of the hearing on April 16 this
year?
Mr. ALLOTT. I have no objection to
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the text of
the bill was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S. 1075
A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct investigations, studies,
surveys, and research relating to the Nation's
ecological systems, natural resources, and
environmental quality, and to establish a
Council on Environmental Quality
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America- in Congress assembled, That it is
the purpose of this Act to promote and foster
means and measures which will prevent or
effectively reduce any adverse effects on the
quality of the environment in the manage-
ment and development of the Nation's natural
resources, to produce an understanding of
the Nation's natural resources and the en-
vironmental forces affecting them and re-
sponsible for their development and future
well-being, and to create and maintain con-
ditions under which man and nature can
exist in productive harmony and fulfill the
social, economic, and other requirements of
present and future generations of Americans,
through a comprehensive and continuing
program of study, review, and research.
TITLE I
SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Interior
(hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary"),
in order to carry out the purposes of this
title, is authorized—
(a) to conduct investigations, studies, sur-
-------
1924
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
veys, research, and analyses relating to eco-
logical systems and environmental quality;
(b) to document and define changes in the
natural environment, including the plant and
animal systems, and to accumulate necessary
data and other information for a continuing
analysis of these changes or trends and an
interpretation of their underlying causes;
(c) to develop and maintain an inventory
of existing and future natural resource de-
velopment projects, engineering works, and
other major projects and programs contem-
plated or planned by public or private agen-
cies or organizations which make significant
modifications in the natural environment;
(d) to establish a system of collecting and
receiving information and data on ecological
research and evaluations which are in prog-
ress or are planned by other public or private
agencies or organizations, or individuals;
(e) to evaluate and disseminate informa-
tion of an ecological nature to public and
private agencies or organizations, or individ-
uals in the form of reports, publications,
atlases, and maps;
(f) to make available to States, counties,
municipalities, institutions, and individuals,
advice and information useful in restoring,
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the
environment;
(g) to initiate and utilize ecological infor-
mation in the planning and development of
resource-oriented projects;
(h) to encourage other public or private
agencies planning development projects to
consult with the Secretary on the impact
of the proposed projects on the natural
environment;
(i) to conduct research and studies within
natural areas under Federal ownership which
are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
and which are under the jurisdiction of other
Federal agencies; and
(j) to assist the Council on Environmental
Quality established under title II of this Act.
SEC. 102 In carrying out the provisions of
this title, the Secretary is authorized to make
grants, including training grants, and enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements with
public or private agencies or organizations,
or individuals, and to accept and use dona-
tions of funds, property, personal services,
or facilities to carry out the purposes of this
Act.
SEC. 103. The Secretary shall consult with
and provide technical assistance to other
Federal agencies, and he is authorized to ob-
tain from such departments and agencies such
information, data, reports, advice, and assis
tance as he deems necessary or appropriate
and which can reasonably be furnished by
such departments and agencies in carrying
out the purposes of this Act. Any Federal
agency furnishing advice or assistance here-
under may expend its own funds for such
purposes, with or without reimbursement by
the Secretary.
SEC. 104. The Secretary is authorized to
participate in environmental research in sur-
rounding oceans and in other countries in
cooperation with appropriate departments or
agencies of such countries or with coordinat-
ing international organizations if he deter-
mines that such activities will contribute to
the objectives and purposes of this Act.
SEC. 105. Nothing in this Act is intended to
give, or shall be construed as giving, the Sec-
retary any authority over any of the
authorized programs of any other department
or agency of the Government, or as repealing,
modifying, restricting, or amending existing
authorities or responsibilities that any depart-
ment or agency may have with respect to the
natural environment. The Secretary shall
consult with the heads of such departments
and agencies for the purpose of identifying
and eliminating any unnecessary duplication
of effort.
SEC. 106. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be neces-
sary to carry out the purposes of this title.
TITLE II
SEC. 201. There is created in the Executive
Office of the President a Council on Environ-
mental Quality (hereinafter referred to as
the "Council"). The Council shall be com-
posed of three members who shall be ap-
pointed by the President to serve at his
pleasure, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. Each member shall, as a result
of training, experience, or attainments, be
professionally qualified to analyze and inter-
pret environmental trends of all kinds and
descriptions and shall be conscious of and
responsive to the scientific, economic, social,
esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of
this Nation The President shall designate
the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Council from such members.
SEC. 202. (a) The primary function of the
Council shall be to study and analyze en-
vironmental trends and the factors that effect
these trends, relating each area of study and
analysis to the conservation, social, economic,
and health goals of this Nation. In carrying
out this function, the Council shall—
(1) report at least once each year to the
President on the state and condition of the
environment;
(2) provide advice and assistance to the
President on the formulation of national
policies to foster and promote the improve-
ment of environmental quality;
(3) obtain information using existing
sources, to the greatest extent practicable,
concerning the quality of the environment
and make such information available to the
public.
(b) The Council shall periodically review
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1925
and appraise new and existing programs and
activities carried out directly by Federal
agencies or through financial assistance and
make recommendations thereon to the
President.
(c) It shall be the duty and function of
the Council and the Secretary of the Interior
to assist and advise the President in the
preparation of the biennial environment
quality report required under section 203.
SEC. 203. The President shall transmit to
the Congress annually beginning June 30,
1970, an environmental quality report which
shall set forth (a) the status and condition
of the major natural, manmade, or altered
environmental classes of the Nation, Includ-
ing, but not limited to, the air, the aquatic,
including marine, estuarine, and fresh water,
and the terrestrial environment, including,
but not limited to, the forest, dryland, wet-
land, range, urban, suburban, and rural en-
vironment; and (b) current and foreseeable
trends in quality, management, and utiliza-
tion of such environments and the effects of
those trends on the social, economic, and
other requirements of the Nation.
SEC. 204. The Council may employ such
officers and employees as may be necessary
to carry out its functions under this Act. In
addition, the Council may employ and fix the
compensation of such experts and consultants
as may be necessary for the carrying out of
its functions under this Act, in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code (but without regard to the last sentence
thereof).
SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums as are necessary
to carry out the purposes of this title
Mr. ALLOTT. Of course, it was
changed from the time it was introduced.
[p.29060]
Mr. MUSKIE. And so was S. 7.
Mr. ALLOTT. But we had hearings
on S. 1075.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be glad to put
in the RECORD an analysis of the points
in the present bill, S. 1075, that were not
covered in the hearings of April 16.
Mr. ALLOTT. Then, I understand the
Senator's reply to be that there is noth-
ing in the record from the administra-
tion commenting upon title II of S. 7.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought I had already
answered the Senator's question. There
is no comment.
Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the last thing I would
want to do would be to try, even if I
could, to reflect on the work that any
Senator has done in any given field or
area; and the Senator from Maine is
well known for his work in this area,
particularly in the field of water and air
pollution, and he has been acting in this
field for many years now.
I think I should make it clear that
while the distinguished Senator from
Maine, chairman of the subcommittee,
and the chairman of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs do have a
clear understanding about how they
want to handle the matter, I person-
ally am not a party to that agreement.
I think the Senator will agree with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was not aware of that
fact, but I accept the Senator's state-
ment. The Senator has participated in
the discussions, and I just assumed he
was a party to it, but if he wishes to
disassociate himself from it, I have no
objection, and it will make no difference
in my attitude.
Mr. ALLOTT. I shall disassociate
myself from it in a moment. The only
discussion I have ever participated in
with the Senator from Maine was for
about 10 minutes in the Democratic
cloakroom yesterday afternoon. I think
he will agree to that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I was present for that
time. It was my impression that the
Senator from Colorado was present for
longer than that time. But I am inter-
ested in the fact that we have under-
taken to achieve an agreement and now
I understand the Senator does not sup-
port it.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I just
want to make my position clear. The
Senator from Washington, our chairman,
has always known that I had some res-
ervations about this particular matter.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield
for a question?
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is a very important
question. It relates to what the Senator
has just said. As I say, I am not trying
to impose a position on the Senator.
That is not my responsibility; it is his.
-------
1926
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
But an important part of this compro-
mise was the assurance I had from the
distinguished Senator from Washington,
the Senate conferees on S. 1075, who will
include the Senator from Washington
and the Senator from Colorado, will do
their best to see that the compromise
provisions of S. 1075 are accepted by
the conference. I take it, from what the
Senator from Colorado is saying, that
this may not be correct with respect to
him. If it is not, then 1 hope he will
make it clear, because that might change
my view of this compromise.
Mr. ALLOTT. If the Senator will
permit me to continue, I will make my
position clear.
I have stated before, and I should not
have to state this again, that the chair-
man of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs has kept me faithfully
informed of all of the discussions that
have gone on about this matter, so I
cannot say that I am uninformed in any
respect about the discussions, and I do
not pretend to be, nor am I trying to
insinuate in any sense that the Senator
from Colorado was not made fully aware
of the discussions that have led to this
point.
I do not know why this should be
necessary, but I will say that whatever
the Senate does here today with respect
to the appointment of conferees, the
Senator from Colorado will fulfill his
obligation to the Senate just as much as
the Senator from Maine or any other
Senator would. I want to make that
very clear. I do not think any Senator
will accuse the Senator from Colorado of
ever having done less.
The thing that I wish to discuss—and I
am sorry that we got the discussion off
on this basis—is the situation in which
we find ourselves here today.
Both houses of Congress have passed
S. 1075, which is intended to halt the
rapid degradation of our environment;
and believe me, there is no one on this
floor, and no one in the United States,
for that matter, who has an exclusive
concern with our environment. Today
we are considering S. 7, a bill which,
according to its title, is also intended to
halt this degradation of the environment.
I should like to take just a moment to
explore the consequences of the impend-
ing vote, as I see them.
The adoption of title II of S. 7, together
with the enactment of S. 1075, in my
opinion, will create an administrative
two-headed monster. It is two-headed
because of the duplication of functions
of both the proposed new high level
environmental organizations, and a
monster because of the problems which
that duplicity will create.
The President created a Council on
Environmental Quality earlier this year.
The Senate's version of S. 1075 adds an
Environmental Quality Board of three
persons, and title II of the pending bill,
S. 7, creates an Office of Environmental
Quality within the Executive Office of
the President.
As I look at it, Mr. President—and I
have analyzed these bills very carefully,
and have had my staff working on them
for a long time—these organizations are
both new and separate creations within
the Executive Office of the President.
Both organizations are high level crea-
tions in the President's Office and let me
explain what I mean when I say high
level.
The three board members created by
S. 1075 are all subject to Senate con-
firmation, and the chairman is to be re-
munerated at level 2 of the executive
pay schedule. The Director of the Office
of Environmental Quality is also subject
to Senate confirmation, and his salary
may be set at the same level as that of
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
which means that these two officers are
at a very high level of governmental
employment.
Both organizations have as their main
goal and purpose to advise and assist the
President on problems of environment.
Both organizations are to prepare
reports and make recommendations to
the President on the problems of
environment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1927
Both organizations are authorized to
employ experts and consultants.
Both organizations will deal with the
same subject matter, that is, the envi-
ronment, and both will be reviewing
Federal and other public programs
which affect the environment.
Mr. President, I think there is a little
too much of a tendency, probably not in
the committees involved here, but on the
part of the public, to regard environ-
ment as involving only air pollution and
water pollution. That is probably be-
cause these two problems have become
so prevalent, and therefore are on the
minds of the people of this country today
perhaps more than some of the other
environmental problems which may
come to the fore in the future.
In our studies of this matter, I believe
we determined that there are some
20 or 21 agencies of the Government
which are directly involved with prob-
lems which affect the environment. For
example, it is impossible to think about
future environments without thinking
about the Department of Housing and
Urban Development of our Government.
It is impossible to think of them without
thinking of HEW, because the environ-
ment does not involve only water and
air as suggested by the distinguished
Senator from Maine, it involves noise—
and we are all becoming acutely con-
scious of this factor. More and more as
time goes on—environmental questions
will also involve land distribution, land
planning for the future, what kind of
future cities we will plan, and what we
will do about the ghettos—for the ghet-
tos are a part of the environmental pic-
ture, and, as a responsibility of HUD, are
also a part of this question.
We could go on endlessly, bringing in
the various departments and agencies of
Government which, sooner or later if not
now, will be actively engaged in prob-
lems and fields which do involve the
environment.
To sum up, I simply wish to repeat that
the environmental situation is not one
which is confined merely to air, water,
and noise. The degradation of our en-
vironment can occur in all these ways.
It can even occur from the improper
farming methods of those who erode and
waste our soil. So the Department of
Agriculture could be a part of this
movement. It also plays a part in pre-
serving the environment through its
supervision of our forest lands. As I
have said, I could continue almost end-
lessly to discuss the environmental
problems which the great pressure of
population in this country has brought
on us and will continue to bring on us.
I am, therefore, no less concerned than
the Senator from
[p. 29061]
Maine and have given the population
and food problems considerable study
as they affect the future environment
of our country.
Although I have never spent much
time in the State of the Senator from
Maine, I am aware that it is a great and
beautiful State. I am certainly aware of
the beauty of my own State and of the
State of Washington and of other States.
I think that some of us who are fortu-
nate enough to come from such beau-
tiful places are aware of the threats
from environmental impairment—and I
use the words "environmental impair-
ment" in the whole context of which I
am speaking. I am aware of the threats
that come from environmental degrada-
tion. We who are fortunate enough to
live in places that are relatively free
from such degradation appreciate what
the dangers to our environment are
probably as much as those who are now
directly afflicted with, for example,
acute water pollution, acute air pollu-
tion, or acute noise pollution.
So it seems to me that with respect to
the matter that we are discussing today,
instead of the application of Parkinson's
law and the natural propensities of bu-
reaucracy to create agencies and to ad-
vise and assist the President, when the
President has not been asked to com-
ment on the provisions of title II of S. 7
we have placed the President in the
-------
1928
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
position of being an arbitrator between
the two agencies. In addition, the
President has already created the En-
vironmental Quality Council, which he
considers to be of such great importance
that he retains the chairmanship of it
himself.
I wish to say one concluding word on
this subject. Since the understanding
has been reached between the distin-
guished chairmen of the two committees,
the chairman of the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs and the chair-
man of the subcommittee, I have not
indicated to any Senator how he should
vote on this question; but I feel so
strongly that our population pressures
and the changes in our country in the
next few years will create environ-
mental problems, some of which we are
not even aware of now, and some of
which we can only surmise in our minds,
that we should create a clean-cut type
of organization to handle it.
The President's council now exists;
and now, title II of S. 7 will authorize
the Office of Environmental Quality; and
S. 1075 will create the Board of Envi-
ronmental Quality Advisers. I am
afraid we are creating something that is
administratively unsound. Therefore, I
shall be compelled to vote against the
motion, which I believe is the parlia-
mentary situation, to agree to the
amended version of title II. I should
think, as I look at the situation, that
I would be fulfilling less than my duty
as a Senator, having analyzed and
studied the proposal in the manner that
I have, if I did not cast my vote against
it.
I am sure that the motion to adopt
the amendment will be agreed to over-
whelmingly. Nevertheless, I shall sup-
port the bill even if the amendment is
included, because I feel that the subject
of title I is of such importance to the
Nation that Congress must deal with it
quickly and effectively. Whatever other
Senators may do is for them to decide,
and I have made no effort to proselytize
other Senators. But I feel strongly that
we are going to have to face up to
the problem and provide administrative
structure that is really workable. I
should much prefer, for my own part,
however, to have a single office created
in the executive branch—as the focal
point—to deal with the problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a great
deal of labor has gone into developing
a resolution of the relationship between
S. 1075 and S. 7. I have no desire to
indulge in provocative or argumentative
statements and upset that settlement.
Nevertheless, I think, in the light of the
comments made by the Senator from
Colorado, that in order to assure as
complets a record as I can make, I
should make some points.
First, with respect to title II of S. 7, in
common with all of S. 2391, of which it
was part: it is the product, in a real,
evolutionary ssnse of some 7 years of
hearings held by the Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution, involving some
16,000 pages of testimony and 1,100 wit-
nesses.
Second, title II is extracted almost
bodily, as it was reported to the Senate,
from S. 2391, which was cosponsored by
42 Senators. The bill was introduced
on June 12, 1969, and all the executive
agencies were solicited for comments.
We have received none as of this point.
The next point I would like to make
is that with respect to the Board of En-
vironmental Quality Advisers, provided
by S. 1075, on which a 1-day hearing
was held on April 16, Secretary of the
Interior Hickel said this:
It is our belief that the proposed new En-
vironmental Quality Council makes unneces-
sary the kind of council proposed in S. 1075.
The Secretary further said:
It is our recommendation that legislation
such as that contained in Title I of S. 1075
not be enacted until the new council has had
a full opportunity to address itself to this
need.
I may say this in addition: I have
been involved in environmental pollu-
tion control legislation for many years.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1929
We have always listened responsively
and constructively to recommendations
of the executive branch under President
Kennedy, under President Johnson, and
under President Nixon. We have un-
dertaken to support such recommenda-
tions as stood up after hearings. But
we have never been reluctant, and we
are not reluctant now, to initiate legis-
lative proposals ourselves. We regard
this as a part of the prerogatives of the
legislative body.
Every piece of legislation in the air
and water quality field that we have
reported to the Senate has the unmis-
takable mark of the Committee on Public
Works and the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, standing independently
of presidential recommendations. This
was true of the Clean Waters Restora-
tion Act of 1966. It was true of the Air
Quality Act of 1967. It was true of the
automobile exhaust legislation in 1965,
which the administration opposed to-
tally when we held our hearings. But
we formed our own judgment, reported
it to the Senate, and the Senate ap-
proved.
I think that record of approval sug-
gests the confidence in which the Senate
cErne to hold our recommendations.
S. 7 is a similar piece of legislation.
We have responded to executive testi-
mony whenever it was available, but we
did not hesitate to incorporate in legis-
lation ideas that our judgment indicated
were sound, and everything in S. 7 bears
that stamp.
I am not holding against S. 1075 Sec-
retary Hickel's adverse comment on the
Board of Environmental Quality Act-
v'sars. Whatever reservation I may have
had about the process under which S.
1075 was considered, I took it to be the
considered judgment of Senator JACK-
SON and his committee that they thought
this to be a sound proposal.
So when we got down to the task of
meshing these two bills, I did not re-
prove them and have not reproved them
on the Senate floor because they did not
do what Secretary Hickel asked them
to do, and I do not reprove them now.
He opposed it. They disagreed with him
and reported it to the Senate.
What I have undertaken to do, with
Senator JACKSON, is to marry the two
into a viable organizational structure.
I think we have done that, and I have
no apologies for the result.
The Senator from Colorado is privi-
leged to vote as he pleases on this mat-
ter, and I do not consider him bound to
any other vote than that dictated by
his own convictions; but I thought that
these additions to the record were es-
sential if the record is to have some
semblance of balance on these points.
I am ready to vote.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this
discussion permits me the privilege of
indicating that I believe that the Mem-
bers of the Senate—yes, of the House
of Representatives, as well—have often
failed in their responsibility to write
legislation on Capitol Hill rather than
just to pass measures which have been
forwarded from the agencies of the ex-
ecutive branch of the Government.
I think we have failed ofttimes in our
responsibilities to do what we should
do—that is, to write legislation as well
as to pass it.
In broad concept, any administra-
tion has the responsibility to forward to
Congress the outlines and the policies of
the administration, and the proposed
legislation is then referred to the re-
spective committees.
I call attention to our failure to act
effectively and responsibly in such situ-
ations as that referred to by Senator
MUSKIE—when we determine, on the
basis of testimony and considered study
and judgment, that committee action
must depart from the legislative recom-
mendations of the executive branch.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
[p. 29062]
-------
1930
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I return to my
basic belief that if the Committee on
Public Works, or the Committee on the
Interior, or any other committee, is in
disagreement with the administration,
then we in good conscience have the re-
sponsibility to work our will as elected
Members of Congress. There can be
comity between the legislative and exec-
utive branches of our Federal Govern-
ment. However, there must not be
capitulation.
Mr. President, with respect to the
specific matter of the agreed upon lan-
guage modifying S. 1075 and title II of
S. 7, I ask unanimous consent to include
in the RECORD at this point a telegram
I recently received from the major con-
servation organization.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Senate Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
The undersigned commend you for your
continuing leadership in the field of environ-
mental quality that brings us close to an
early major policy and legislative enactment.
We trust there will be full discussion on the
floor of the Senate in conjunction with S.
1075 to the end that the strongest and best
measure will be agreed to and reported
promptly by the Senate-House conference
committee. This is a unique opportunity for
the country to take a major step forward in
protection of environmental values.
Joseph W. Penfold, Izaak Walton League
of America; Dr. Ira Gabrielson, Wild-
life Management Institute; Stewart M.
Brandborg, Wilderness Society; Thomas
L. Kimball, National Wildlife Federa-
tion; William E. Towell, American For-
estry Association; Dr. Elvis Stahr,
National Audubon Society; Dr. Spencer
Smith, Citizens Committee on Natural
Resources; and Lloyd Tupling, Sierra
Club.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the
proposed modifications of S. 1075 and the
committee substitute language for title II
of S. 7 are the product of many hours of
conferences between the staffs as well as
the members of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works and the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs. These conferences
resulted in, I believe, a strengthened
version of S. 1075 and a further clarifi-
cation of title II of S. 7.
Taken together these two measures
represent a major step forward in co-
ordination and strengthening of our ef-
forts to improve the quality of the en-
vironment. Taken together these two
measures represent the accord between
the two principal committees in the Sen-
ate dealing with environmental prob-
lems. The conferences and the language
agreed on have resolved difficult prob-
lems between the two committees stem-
ming from differing viewpoints on the
substance of this legislation and from the
jurisdictional ambiguities inherent in a
field as broad as the environment.
Members and the staff of the two com-
mittees are to be commended for reach-
ing a constructive resolution of these
problems. Especially to be commended
are the able chairman of the Commit-
tee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Mr.
JACKSON) , and the knowledgeable chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution (Mr. MUSKIE) , for their
reasonable and cooperative approach to-
ward a difficult and complex situation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BYRD of Virginia in the chair). The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Maine.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
*****
The result was announced—yeas 77,
nays 6, as follows:
*****
So Mr. MUSKIE'S amendment to the
substitute committee amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to be reconsidered.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1931
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I com-
mend the distinguished Senator from
Maine for the fine work that he and
his Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution have done in reporting this
bill. I was in communication with him
while the bill was still in committee and
voiced some reservations about certain
provisions that were contained in an
earlier version of the bill. As revised
and reported, I believe the sections of
the bill of particular interest and con-
cern to me—dealing with water pollution
control by Federal agencies—have been
substantially improved. They are not
100 percent what I would like them to be,
but they are sufficiently close to the
mark to permit me to support their
passage.
Among the bill's new requirements is
one that any applicant for a Federal
license or permit to conduct any activity
which may result in any discharge into
the navigable waters of the United
States must provide to the Federal li-
censing agency involved certification
from the State in which the discharge
will originate that there is reasonable as-
surance the activity will comply with
applicable water quality standards.
Without the required certification such
Federal agency cannot issue the license
or permit.
Moreover, if the certification is ob-
tained and the license or permit is is-
sued, it must contain any conditions
which the Secretary of the Interior finds
necessary to insure compliance with the
water quality standards of any down-
stream States which might be adversely
affected by discharges from the licensed
facility.
The Atomic Energy Commission and
the Corps of Engineers are prime ex-
amples of the Federal agencies affected
by this legislation. In the case of the
AEC, while the legislation does not im-
pinge upon or in any way interfere with
the AEC's comprehensive regulatory
controls over the radiological effects of
source, byproduct, and special nuclear
material, except as certain of these au-
thorities may be transferred to qualified
States, it does have the effect of assuring
that, in addition to the AEC's exhaustive
radiological health and safety review,
the design of nuclear powerplants will
be reviewed by appropriate State and
Federal authorities from the standpoint
of their thermal effects upon adjoining
waters.
Nuclear plants are, of course, already
subject to water quality standards
adopted by the States and approved by
[p. 29063]
the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
to the Water Quality Act of 1965. Now,
however, we will have the added pro-
tection of a prelicensing review to as-
sure that the plants have been designed
in such a way as to assure compliance
with applicable water quality standards.
At least as to those activities subject
to Federal approvals, this will add an
important ounce of preventive medicine
to the curative measures already avail-
able. My chief regret is that not all non-
nuclear powerplants will be subject to
these new controls. As I understand the
bill, only coal, oil, and gas-fired power-
plants that occasionally require a Fed-
eral license or permit will be covered
by the bill. Unfortunately, even this
limited coverage was opposed by rep-
resentatives of the coal industry dur-
ing the subcommittee's hearings on the
legislation.
Another principal regret relates to
proposed new section 16(a) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. As a
member of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, I find this section somewhat disturb-
ing. I would require that each Federal
agency take whatever measures were
needed to insure that property and ac-
tivities under its jurisdiction shall com-
ply with applicable water quality
standards and the purposes of the act.
-------
1932
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The subsection would also authorize ap-
propriations of "such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of
this section."
I notice that S. 7, as reported by the
committee, is silent with relation to an
exception being made in connection with
Federal agencies in the case where the
interests of the United States might be
involved either as to national defense or
other important national activities,
whereas the House passed bill, H.R. 4148,
explicitly makes such an exception.
I prefer the House version for reasons
that are obviously understandable in the
national interest.
I do not propose an amendment at this
time to insert such an exception in S. 7
but would strongly suggest and recom-
mend to the conferees that this matter
be exhaustively discussed in conference
and that the House version be given all
possible weight in the national interest.
On this point, I should like to ask my
distinguished colleague what his off-the-
cuff reaction is to the statement I have
just made with regard to the national
interest, in making an exception in cases
of that kind.
Let us assume, for example, that we
are in a state of war. I am wondering
how much the Government will be obli-
gated to comply with some of these
provisions if the national interest is
paramount to the prevailing subject or
issue at hand. Take the Hanford pro-
duction reactor, for example, which pro-
duces material for the national defense.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator address-
ing himself to the impact of section 16?
Mr. PASTORE. Yes. Section 16(a),
and in large measure section 16(b) as
well.
I do not want to press the Senator too
much, but the House committee went
into this matter to quite some extent. It
is going to be in conference, and I hope
the Senator, as usual, will lend a very
attentive ear to the arguments made in
that regard.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will do so.
In other portions of the bill, dealing
with other questions, we have recog-
nized the point the Senator has raised.
For example, in the application of the
vessel pollution requirements as to ships
of war, we have recognized this point
and have made provision for it; and I
assure the Senator that we will look into
this point as well.
Mr. PASTORE. Under the pending
bill considerable autonomy is given to
the States in regard to operation of Fed-
eral facilities. In effect activities being
carried on for Federal purposes will be
subject to water quality standards
adopted by the States in which they are
located. The grassroots public opinion,
more or less, is given a say in the matter
of thermal effects, and I think that is
proper, because, after all. they are the
people who have to bear the brunt. And,
insofar as thermal effects are concerned,
I believe the States are fully and well
qualified to set such standards.
But sometimes a State could be obsti-
nate in the case of an emergency, and
there ought to be an overriding con-
sideration in the case of an emergency.
I am not saying a willy-nilly situation;
but in one in which the national interest
is involved, I think we ought to make
some provision. The House has done it,
and the Senator from Maine has not said
one way or the other whether we should
or should not, but I would hope that he
would consider that very seriously in
conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator of
my interest, and we will do that.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, over
the last several months the coastline and
estuaries of Massachusetts has been rav-
aged by one oil spill after another. From
January through mid-July, the shore-
line of the Bay State has been hit on six
different occasions by oil slicks that have
killed fish and birdlife, closed beaches
and caused property damage to docks
and pleasure craft. Three weeks ago, a
seventh spill dumped more than 134,000
gallons of home heating oil into the
waters and shoreline of eastern Buzzards
Bay. From this disaster, the Smithso-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1933
nian's Center for Shortlived Phenome-
non has documented the destruction of
more than 25 different varieties of the
areas of marine life. This oil spill has
denuded one of Cape Cod's finest striped
bass fishing grounds. Not even the Cape
Cod National Seashore, a national land-
mark and tourist attraction offering
some of this Nation's most beautiful
beaches, has been immune to the dese-
cration of negligent and thoughtless
tanker captains, who use the first oppor-
tunity of open water to eliminate resi-
due oil from their ballast tanks and
bilges. This oil covers the beach like as-
phalt, leaving it unusable by anyone.
In the final analysis, I doubt that we
can ever eliminate the threat of oil pol-
lution entirely. The opportunity for ac-
cident is simply too great. Of the ships
involved in trade along the Atlantic
coast, one vessel in every five carries oil
as its principal cargo. As long as tank-
ers and barges ply our coastal and inland
waterways there will be navigational er-
rors, faulty towlines, and untrained cap-
tains. New England, because she has
no pipeline for the transportation of her
oil products from the refineries located
to the south, must rely on ships and
barges to supply a large percentage of
these petroleum products.
It might even be said that the threat
of oil pollution is a byproduct of our
own advancing industrial development.
Nowhere is the demand for oil of every
grade and variety greater than in the
industrial areas which depend on our
great port cities such as Boston, New
York, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston,
and many others. The ever-expanding
demand for oil in these areas has in-
creased the chance of accident and the
possibility of disastrous oil spillage. The
cost of cleaning up one barrel of the
type of oil used to run a power turbine
might run as high as $75. Most coastal
tankers carry hundreds of thousands of
barrels of oil. If we are to protect our
environment against this undesirable
side effect of industrial development, we
must have strong oil pollution control
provisions to handle the cleanup of this
menace.
We surely cannot forbid the use of
tankers and barges in the transportation
of oil. However, we can regulate oil
transportation in such a way as to make
the constant threat of oil pollution a
more manageable one. The provisions
in S. 7 which provide for liability on
vessels and onshore and offshore facili-
ties to be based on a test of negligence
with the burden of proof on the owner
is a badly needed provision. By utilizing
a concept of absolute liability, the pos-
sibility of damage and loss that would
result from an oil spill is now as great a
risk to the vessel owner as to the public.
With the enactment of title I of this
bill, the Federal Government will have
significant new authorization to step
in and clean up oil spills after they
have occurred. However, the Federal
Government should simultaneously be
considering other programs stressing
prevention as much as S. 7 stresses cure.
It is accepted that ships are equipped
to move with adequate accuracy and
general safety across the remote reaches
of the high seas. The immediate concern
is with the heavily traveled areas near-
shore such as bays, channels and har-
bors of the Nation's convoluted coastline.
There should be a drastic updating of
effective standards and certification sys-
tems that govern licensing of officers
and rating of crewmembers to assure
that those responsible for the operating
of vessels are properly trained for their
work. Such standards and certification
should be expanded to require special
training for all personnel responsible
for handling of oil and other hazardous
materials, including the off-landing of
vessels. Particular attention should be
given to uniform standards, training,
and certification of personnel on tow-
boats not presently subject by law to
Coast Guard licensing. It is presently
possible to tow an oil barge through the
narrow and sinuous Cape Cod Canal—
an Army Corps of Engineers facility-—
without ever having been through be-
-------
1934
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
fore, even in daylight. A rigid system of
certification should be a minimum for
the use of any Government owned or
operated facility such as the Cape Cod
Canal.
[p. 29064]
The use of sea lanes for traffic rout-
ing is a major step toward reducing the
risks of collisions in congested areas.
Such lanes are already in use around
most of our major ports. Particular ef-
forts should be made to extend traffic
patterns to all ports receiving appre-
ciable amounts of oil.
Furthermore, substantial research is
needed to determine the feasibility of
some form of shorebased guidance sys-
tem to promote safe movement of ship-
ping. Such a "sea traffic control sys-
tem" could be similar to our present air
traffic control system which is operated
by the Federal Aviation Administration.
This system could reserve special lanes
for use by ships or barges transporting
hazardous substances such as oil.
Work is already underway on some of
the provisions I have mentioned. For
instance, the House is today holding
hearings on the licensing of towboat
captains. The fight against oil pollution
will not and should not stop with the
passage of S. 7. All aspects of this prob-
lem must be given the closest scrutiny.
S. 7 is a vital step in the direction of
reducing the threat of oil pollution. It
effectively underscores that responsibil-
ity for clean water does not reside solely
with the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Water Administration, but rather
it belongs with every agency of the Fed-
eral Government. Mr. President, I am
pleased to support S. 7.
[p. 29065]
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 7) to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there
are other matters involving the water
pollution control provisions of the bill
which will be discussed later in the
afternoon, but at this moment I under-
stand we will turn to the consideration
of an amendment to be offered by the
distinguished Senator from Delaware
(Mr. WILLIAMS) involving a matter in
which the distinguished Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. JORDAN) is inter-
ested.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
[p. 29089]
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would
like to ask a question relating to title III,
which begins at the bottom of page 80 of
the bill and is entitled "Property
Acquisitions."
I am not raising any question of ger-
maneness; but would the Senator ex-
plain what the construction of a new
Senate Office Building has to do with
water and air pollution? I know our
procedures are sometimes strange, but
what is the relationship between the two
subjects? Why are they tied together?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say that sub-
stantively there is none. I think the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JOR-
DAN) is in a better position to explain
how it happens to be here.
May I add that the problem of space
for Senators is a pressing one. I know
the Senator from North Carolina is more
aware of it than I. When he posed to me
and to the committee the proposal to
include this provision in the bill, I told
him I would agree to it, provided it was
made clear to the Senate that it was
here, that no one would be taken by sur-
prise, that the Senate would have a full
opportunity to consider it, and that there
would be no effort to try to give it a
quiet ride through the Senate. The Sen-
ator from North Carolina agreed to that.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
reason I raised the question is that there
are many who are in favor of the air and
water pollution bill itself, but we ques-
tion the wisdom of attaching a rider to
it that we would oppose. I am wonder-
ing if this is not a method of getting a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1935
free ride on a bill for a measure that
could not pass on its own merits.
As to the argument being made on the
need for more space, there are two ways
of approaching that problem. One is by
the more expensive way of constructing
another building. Another way, which
would be more constructive, would be to
cut back on some of the overstaffed sub-
committees. A Senator can hardly get
in and out of his office because of the
number of subcommittees. The idea that
the Senate should have enough subcom-
mittees so that every Member can be a
chairman results in Members almost be-
ing run by the staffs.
I remember when I came here 23 years
ago our committees, subcommittees, and
Senators were all in one building.
Since that time we have had another
building. Now it is proposed to have a
third. Let us face it, the Senate com-
mittees are overstaffed. I doubt if any
Senator can name the subcommittees
even on his own committee, there are so
many of them.
The subcommittees are so overstaffed
and overcrowded that they crowd the
Senate floor. Ofttimes we can hardly
get in the Senate because it is so over-
crowded with staff members.
In order to check this inflationary
spiral we are proposing the repeal of the
7 percent investment credit to encour-
age private industry to cut back on plant
expansion, and the President of the
United States, by Executive order, has
called on State and local governments
and all Government agencies to roll back
construction of new projects by 75 per-
cent in order to relieve some of the in-
flationary pressure. I just wonder if we
in the Senate are setting the proper ex-
ample. In the light of all the requests
to private industry and all agencies of
Government can we say to them, "We
meant for all of you to cooperate; but
ourselves—we want a new building."
Would it not be better to postpone and
consider this matter at a later time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator
has served a useful purpose by giving
the Members of the Senate an opportu-
nity to make that decision.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I will
just make this innocent observation.
Perhaps there is some relationship be-
tween the proposal for a new Senate
Office Building and air pollution, so I
will not raise a point its not being ger-
mane to the pollution problem. I await
with interest to hear the explanation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know of any
relation, I will say to the Senator.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would
not suggest there is—not for the moment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I am ex-
tremely delighted that the Public Works
Committee in reporting this most vital
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969
has seen fit to incorporate a most impor-
tant amendment which would provide
for the training of waste treatment plant
operators.
I suggested this amendment, Mr. Pres-
ident, because of the magnitude of need
and the critical shortage of trained op-
erators in water pollution control plants
throughout the Nation. I was particu-
larly pleased that the distinguished Air
and Water Pollution Control Subcom-
mittee chairman, Senator MUSKIE, and
the ranking Republican member, Sen-
ator BOCGS, incorporated my amend-
ment. I would also like to thank the
distinguished chairman of the Public
Works Committee, Senator RANDOLPH,
and Senator COOPER, the ranking mem-
ber, as well as the other Senators on the
Public Works Committee.
As I have stated before, it is estimated
that Federal, State, and local govern-
ments will spend $8 billion by 1974 for
new and improved water pollution con-
trol facilities. However, no adequate
provision has been made to train person-
nel to run these plants once they are
constructed.
There is a critical shortage of approxi-
mately 23,000 trained operators in water
pollution control plants throughout the
Nation. Many of our existing waste
treatment plants are operating well be-
low their reasonable potential, thereby
-------
1936
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
causing unnecessary pollution of our
streams and rivers. If the struggle for
clean water is to be won, we must im-
prove the skills of existing operators and
add substantially to their numbers.
The magnitude of the need can be
seen by looking at the situation in Penn-
sylvania. Pennsylvania has 307 square
miles of inland waters. It has a total of
460 water treatment facilities and 1,142
communities with sewer systems. If
each of these 1,142 communities, and
each of the 460 treatment plants em-
ployed one operator—and obviously
some employ many more—you can
quickly estimate the number of opera-
tors who are involved in one way or
another with pollution control. Many
of the existing operators will need ad-
ditional training as plants are modern-
ized and new treatment procedures
initiated. When you add to this number
the 665 communities in Pennsylvania
that have no treatment facilities, but will
be acquiring plants in the near future,
you can see the amount of training
which is needed for efficient operation of
pollution control facilities. That is only
one State.
It was to meet this need that I offered
this amendment to the water quality
improvement bill—S. 7—which would
establish a 2-year pilot program for the
training of plant operators. It would
provide $5 million the first year, and
$7% million the second, to train about
9,000 men.
If my pilot program is successful, I
foresee that training will be an integral
part of all future pollution control plan-
ning. I quote from the Public Works
Committee report:
The committee was pleased to receive and
include in the bill a proposal by Senator
Hugh Scott to authorize pilot programs for
training plant operators and technicians
The committee recognizes that a great deal
more than a pilot program will be required
if Federal funds for sewage treatment plant
construction are to be invested wisely, but
believes operating experience with a pilot
program would provide a sound base for ex-
panded legislation in the near future.
The pilot program which I have intro-
duced is the first step in ensuring that
our Nation's antipollution efforts are
backed up by well-trained personnel. I
will study closely the operation of this
training program, and I will be ready
with followup legislation to expand it
so that clean streams will become a
reality, not a wish.
Again, I thank the committee for the
favorable consideration of this amend-
ment.
Mr. MUSKIE. In response to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, I
would like to express to him the appre-
ciation of the subcommittee for his val-
uable contribution to the Water Quality
Improvement Act. The amendment to
provide for a pilot program of manpower
training for waste treatment plant op-
erators is an excellent example of how
one program can accomplish two vital
objectives.
First, this provision recognizes that
the operation and maintenance of the
Nation's waste treatment facilities will
be only as good as the competence of the
operators. Initial findings of the Gen-
eral Accounting Office have revealed
that this competence has not been of the
level necessary for the program's suc-
cess. I hope that this pilot program,
properly administered, will help correct
this situation.
Second, this program will provide val-
uable job opportunities for many of the
disadvantaged citizens in our Nation's
metropolitan areas. By training the dis-
advantaged in a field which requires
great technical expertise, this program
should be a source of vital upward mo-
bility for many Americans in the Na-
tion's workforce.
I thank the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, at the very outset, with re-
[p. 29090]
spect to title III of the bill, I want to
make it perfectly clear that this proposal
was passed last year and sent to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1937
House. It was not acted on, and it died
in the House.
I want to make it perfectly clear that
the bill before us does not contemplate
building anything. I want to get that
straight. I want to get it straight on the
record. The Committee on Public
Works does not contemplate building
anything. So that part of the colloquy
which we have had so far does not be-
long in this debate whatsoever.
The bill proposes to buy the land ad-
joining the New Senate Office Building,
where the Capitol Hill apartment house
is and where the Schotts Court apart-
ment is now located. The purpose of the
bill is to provide room, without building
anything.
The Capitol Hill apartment building
is approximately 30 feet, on C Street,
from the New Senate Office Building,
and completely in line. The Architect of
the Capitol has stated, after exhaustive
surveys, that a ramp could very easily
and very inexpensively be built from
the New Senate Office Building into that
building. There are 58 apartments in
the building. It has elevators, it has air
conditioning, and it meets the fire stan-
dards of the District of Columbia. We
could almost immediately get possession
of the building after it is acquired, and
move several of these subcommittees
that the Senator has spoken of over
into that building.
So we are not contemplating build-
ing anything. The Schotts Court apart-
ments, which are there, we would con-
template still be rented, to the same
renters if they want to rent them, and
the Government would collect the rent.
The sole purpose of this provision is to
get some more room.
Last year, before I authored S. 2484,
I sent out a letter to every Senator and
to the chairman of every committee and
every subcommittee, asking how much
space, if any, they needed, because it is
my unpleasant duty, as the chairman
of the Senate Rules Committee, to allot
space.
You cannot allot space you do not
have. I do not think there is a day that
some Senator does not come to me need-
ing space. I know they do need it.
Right now, we have one Senator who
has part of his offices in the Old Office
Building and part of them in the New
Building. There is no place to put him
otherwise. That is not very convenient.
I know he is crowded, and so are the rest
of us.
Mr. President, I made a little note here
this morning, or had it made for me, to
say why, in my opinion and in the opin-
ion of a great many others, it is neces-
sary for Senators to have bigger staffs
today than they had when I came here
something over 11 years ago. I had a
survey made in my own office some time
ago to see what had happened to the
correspondence in my office. I found, to
my amazement, that my correspondence
had increased about tenfold in the last
10 years.
This morning I have had four people
come to see me—some of them I saw out
here, and some of them in the office—
about the tax bill which we have before
us right now. I am sure the same thing
is happening to every other Senator.
People are interested in it; they have
problems, they write us about them, and
we have to try to get the answers and
write to them. Mr. President, it takes
help to do that.
Thirty-eight new agencies have been
created in the last 10 years, which have
generated mail, I do not know how many
times over what it had been. On the gun
bill, for example, my own office handled
more than 50,000 letters on that one
issue.
It takes people to do that. Every day
something new comes along which
creates a lot of new correspondence. I
do not know how much mail the Ele-
mentary-Secondary School Act has cre-
ated, but it has been substantial. There
is no use for me to list all these 38 agen-
cies; other Senators know them as well
as I do. Incidentally, a great many of
those agencies have had big buildings
built for them downtown, with a hun-
-------
1938
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
dred times more room than we anticipate
getting out of this old apartment build-
ing.
This building and the land should
have been bought at the time we ac-
quired the land to build the New Senate
Office Building. Senators at that time
who are acquainted with the situation
said we should have bought it all at that
time, because we could have gotten it
much cheaper than we can today. I em-
phasize, Mr. President, that we are not
contemplating building anything. But
we want to get this building, because we
need it now. It is an economical way to
provide space for Senators who badly
need the space.
In response to my inquiry, 72 Senators
wrote me that they needed space, and 25
chairmen of full committees and sub-
committees are asking for space. I held
hearings, and they came before the com-
mittee and testified. Some Senators now
present on the floor testified before that
committee.
One Senator came to me just the other
day and asked, "When are you going
to get me some more room?"
I said, "Vote for this bill, and maybe
we can get it for you."
Mr. President, that is why we should
buy it now.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, the Senator says that if the
space is not needed now it soon will be.
If the Senate does as it has in the past,
we would no doubt create more subcom-
mittees to fill the offices in short order.
My point is that the Senate already
has more subcommittees now then Sen-
ators can supervise. The late Senator
from Tennessee, Mr. Kefauver, 20 years
ago created a committee which was to
extend for 2 years, to investigate juve-
nile delinquency.
That committee is still in existence.
The Senator has passed on, but the com-
mittee is still living as a monument. I
do not know of a single subcommittee
that once having been started, no matter
what its function, has ever been termi-
nated. Some Senator the other day sug-
gested that we ought to have a
subcommittee to determine how many
subcommittees we have. It may be a
good idea; I am sure no one knows.
But really, at a time when we are re-
pealing the 7 percent investment tax
credit, when we are suggesting to all the
rest of the country that this is not a
time to construct new buildings, we
ought to be setting the example. The
argument that we are not going to build
a new building now does not impress me;
if I know the Senate, once we buy the
land there will be a building started on
it in short order. The same argument
was made a few years ago when the Sen-
ate decided to get the land for the second
office building. It was said then, "Oh, all
we are going to do is buy the land, and
the building will take care of itself
later." It did; the building is there.
Frankly, Mr. President, I do not think
the Senate needs the space at this time.
I think the functioning of the Senate
would be much more efficient if we trim
it down to size by eliminating many of
the present subcommittees. I do not see
why every Member of the Senate has to
be a subcommittee chairman. If that is
the only way he can enhance his prestige
perhaps he does not deserve recognition.
Why not get rid of some of these sub-
committees? Then Senators would have
more time to spend on the floor of the
Senate and handle the Senate's business.
Moreover, this proposal should not be
a part of the air and water pollution bill.
If it cannot ride on its own merits it
should be rejected.
Mr. President, I send to the desk an
3mendment to delete that section from
the bill, and ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Amendment will be stated.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK.
The Senator from Delaware (Mr. WIL-
LIAMS) proposes an amendment, as fol-
lows:
On page 80, beginning with line 22, strike
out all down to and including line 3 on
page 83.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1939
The language proposed to be stricken
is as follows:
TITLE III—PROPERTY ACQUISITION
SEC. 301. (a) (1) The Architect of the Capi-
tol, under the direction of the Senate Office
Building Commission, is hereby authorized
to acquire on behalf of the United States,
in addition to the real property heretofore
acquired as a site for an additional office
building for the United States Senate under
the provisions of the Second Deficiency Ap-
propriations Act, 1948, approved June 25,
1948 (62 Stat. 1028) and Public Law 85-591,
approved August 6, 1958 (72 Stat. 495-496),
by purchase, condemnation, transfer, or
otherwise, for purposes of extension of such
site, all publicly, or privately owned prop-
erty contained in lots 863, 864, 892, 893, 894,
and 905 in said square 725 in the District of
Columbia, and all alleys or parts of alleys
and streets contained within the curblines
surrounding such square, as such square ap-
pears on the records in the Office of the Sur-
veyor of the District of Columbia as of the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Any proceeding for condemnation
brought under paragraph (1) shall be con-
ducted in accordance with the Act of Decem-
ber 23, 1963 (16 D.C. Code, sees. 1351-1368).
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, any real property owned by the United
States and any alleys or parts of alleys and
streets contained within the curblines sur-
rounding square 725 shall, upon request of
the Architect of the Capitol, made with the
approval of the Senate Office Building Com-
mission, be transferred to the jurisdiction and
control of the Architect of the Capitol, and
any alleys or parts of alleys or streets con-
tained within the curblines of said square
[p. 29091]
shall be closed and vacated by the Commis-
sioner of the District of Columbia in accord-
ance with any request therefor made by the
Architect of the Capitol with the approval of
such Commission.
(4) Upon acquisition of any real property
pursuant to this section, the Architect of the
Capitol, when directed by the Senate Office
Building Commission to so act, is authorized
to provide for the demolition and/or removal
of any buildings or other structures on, or
constituting a part of, such property and,
pending demolition, to use the property for
Government purposes or to lease any or all
of such property for such periods and under
such terms and conditions as he may deem
most advantageous to the United States and
to incur any necessary expenses in connec-
tion therewith.
(5) The jurisdiction of the Capitol Police
shall extend over any real property acquired
under this section and such property shall
become a part of the United States Capitol
Grounds.
(b) For carrying out the purposes of this
section, there is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated $1,250,000. The Architect of the
Capitol, under the direction of the Senate
Office Building Commission, is authorized to
enter into contracts and to make such ex-
penditures, including expenditures for per-
sonal and other services, as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this section.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, there is no need to debate this
issue for any length of time. Senators
are well aware of what is involved. It
is, to state the matter simply, Does the
Senate wish to exclude itself from the
rules we have laid down in calling on
industry to postpone its expansion plans
at this time in order to combat inflation?
The Senate has called upon all State
agencies to delay new public works con-
struction. The question is, does the Sen-
ate wish to exempt itself from this rule?
As one Member of the Senate my answer
is, "No."
I will ask for a yea-and-nay vote on
this amendment, but I shall have to sug-
gest the absence of a quorum to obtain a
sufficient second to ask for the yeas and
nays. I am willing to withhold that re-
quest now if the Senator from North
Carolina wishes to speak further at this
time.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, I only wish to say, for the
benefit of the Senator from Delaware
and everyone else who is present, that I
have nothing to do with the creating of
subcommittees. I did not create a single
one of them, so I have no power to say
we are going to get rid of them. That
is something I have nothing to do with.
All I know is that they come to the
Committee on Rules and ask for space.
I try to provide it for them, because they
are here, and I do not know what else to
do. This is the only way we can do it.
We do not want to build a building at all;
there is nothing in the bill about build-
ing a building. All we want is more
space.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
-------
1940
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
President, the Senator from North Car-
olina is correct; he is only one Member
of the Senate. He says he has no author-
ity to get rid of subcommittees, but I
might point out that he underestimates
his position. It is his committee that
approves the money for these subcom-
mittees, and without the money the sub-
committees would quickly vanish. As
long as the Senator's committee makes
the funds available, I am sure the sub-
committees will flourish and proliferate.
I know that every year the Senator
from Louisiana, myself, and a few other
Senators have pointed out how much it
is costing just to staff these subcommit-
tees. That debate has been carried on
by some of us over a period of years, but
we have always been in the minority.
Saving money is not too popular on the
Potomac front.
It will be renewed again, and even to
a greater extent, I suppose, next year,
if the bill passes, because there is no
doubt in my mind that, if it passes, the
space will soon be staffed with more and
more subcommittees. I think they might
be designated numerically—1, 2, 3, and
4, because they will have run out of let-
ters of the alphabet and also out of
names. I still say that this is not the
time to take such action.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask for the yeas and nays on
the amendment of the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. WILLIAMS).
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the adoption of the
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Delaware. The yeas and
nays have been ordered.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. I
am ready to proceed to the vote.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I understand that the yeas
and nays have been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas
and nays have been ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I am perfectly willing to pro-
ceed to vote. The issue is very clear.
This is an air and water pollution bill,
supposedly, and I fail to see any connec-
tion as to why one section should be set
aside to build a third Senate Office
Building. The argument that it does not
provide the building is immaterial. I
know that if the Senate buys the land,
the building will be built; and if it is not
going to be built, why proceed with the
procurement of the land?
At a time when we are asking private
industry to cut back their expansion
plans, at a time when all other public
works projects are being cut back, I do
not think the Senate ought to exempt
itself from the rules laid down for all the
people.
I hope the amendment will be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Delaware. On
this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) ,
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MC-
CARTHY), the Senator from South Da-
kota (Mr. McGovERN), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), the Sena-
tor from Utah (Mr. Moss), and the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) , and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-
LIAMS) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. WILLIAMS) and the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) would each
vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBEE) is nec-
essarily absent and, if present and vot-
ing, would vote "nay."
The result was announced—yeas 25,
nays 62, as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1941
So the amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS
of Delaware was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, I move to lay on the table the
motion to reconsider.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pur-
suant to the previous order—
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that in view of
an arrangement which has been made
between the Senator in charge of the bill
and the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), the order of business be de-
layed until final passage of the pending
bill.
Mr. CHURCH. And that it be ex-
pedited as much as possible.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think
we have worked out all the amendments
and the colloquies so that we may be
able to proceed to final passage within
10 minutes.
At this time, I ask for the yeas and
nays on final passage.
Mr. President, I withdraw that.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
[p. 29092]
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and the
amendment will be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
The amendment offered by Mr. KEN-
NEDY is as follows:
On page 72 strike out lines one through
eight and Insert in lieu thereof the following:
"(1) the Secretary shall
"(A) engage in such research, studies, ex-
periments, and demonstrations as he deems
appropriate relative to the removal of oil
from any waters and to the prevention and
control of oil pollution,
" (B) publish from time to time the results
of such activities; and
"(C) by June 30, 1970, develop and pub-
lish standardized specifications and other
technical information on the various chemi-
cal compounds used as dispersants or emul-
sifiers in the control of oil spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secre-
tary may enter into contracts with, or make
grants to, public or private agencies and
organizations and individuals."
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this
amendment to S. 7 has as its purpose
the strengthening of the research pro-
gram authorized by section 104 of this
bill.
My reason for offering this amendment
is to reemphasize the intent of the Con-
gress in offering all possible assistance
to our State and local governments faced
with major oil-spill disasters.
Section 104 of this bill amends sec-
tion 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Section 5, which authorizes
the various research programs in water
pollution control, would be amended to
include a similar authorization for re-
search into the prevention and control
of oil pollution. In its most thorough re-
port on S. 7, the Committee on Public
Works clearly states its intention that
research in this field, "be expedited and
should receive priority in planning fu-
ture budget requests." The report fur-
ther states:
The Committee believes that developing
effective techniques to deal with oil spills and
making those techniques readily available at
appropriate locations throughout the country
is of the highest priority.
The complexity of the technical prob-
lems involved in the cleanup of acci-
dental oil spills requires us to launch a
major research effort into the technical
aspects of cleanup operations. There
are, today, over 2,400 chemicals—dis-
persants, emulsifiers, gelling agents,
floating absorbents—whose properties
-------
1942
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
suggest their potential use in oil spill
cleanup efforts. However, the hard les-
son of experience—learned during the
Torrey Canyon, Ocean Eagle, Santa
Barbara, and other serious spills—is that
the injudicious application of chemicals
can bring greater damage to our fish,
and other natural resources than the oil
itself. We need guidelines and stand-
ards for the use of these chemicals. We
need to have immediate access to in-
formation about these chemicals We
need to insist that anyone involved in
the cleanup of an oil spill be aware of
the hazards and crucial disadvantages
of the casual application of some types
of chemicals.
Subsection (1) of section 104 grants
general authority to the Department of
the Interior to conduct the research into
oil spill cleanups. However, it does not
require the Secretary to set specific
standards. My amendment would re-
quire the Secretary to develop and
publish standardized specifications and
other technical information on these
chemicals by June 30, 1970. This would
give our State and local officials the in-
formation they need to bring the full
arsenal of chemical agents to bear on
oil spills of various types, with minimum
damage to fish and wildlife.
There is ample evidence that we are
not moving fast enough in this area.
Certainly, the interval between the San
Juan spill and the Santa Barbara spill
was significant enough to permit the
completion of substantial research. But,
when we were faced with the Santa
Barbara incident, the Interior Depart-
ment had no further knowledge about
chemicals at its disposal than it did 11
months earlier and had to delay cleanup
efforts until determination on chemicals
could be made.
By setting a deadline of June 30, 1970,
we guarantee our coastal communities
that the necessary research will be un-
dertaken immediately, and that it will be
available to them in the case of future,
potentially disastrous, spills. We also
insure that the intent of the Congress in
this matter will be carried out by the
Department of the Interior without
delay.
Let me take this opportunity to com-
mend, again, the committee for its fine
and responsible work, and let me urge
the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. President, in conclusion, I think
the amendment is needed. We have seen
that for too long the Department has
failed to issue specifications and regula-
tions. I think it is a reasonable time for
the Secretary to establish those stand-
ards and specifications. I am hopeful the
amendment will be agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I
say, in response, that I have discussed
the amendment with the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts; that the
request for the mandate included in the
amendment is within the general au-
thority of the Secretary at the present
time; and I think this specific mandate
is wholly appropriate. I am willing to
accept the amendment. I urge the adop-
tion of the amendment by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment was agreed to.
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 amendment, in the
form of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment, as
amended, was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Public Works be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4148.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of H.R. 4148.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
4148) to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended, and for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1943
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
to strike out all after the enacting clause
in H.R. 4148 and insert in lieu thereof
the language of S. 7 as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and the third reading of the
bill.
The amendment was ordered to be en-
grossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. The bill will now con-
tain the same manpower provisions as
the Senate bill did. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. JAVITS. I had understood from
the Senator and he had given me assur-
ances that in the implementation of
these new manpower provisions every
consideration would be given to the un-
employables and those who are disad-
vantaged in terms of employment. I
trust that the Secretary, in prescribing
the terms and conditions of his agree-
ments with public and private agencies
would ensure that every effort would be
made to provide opportunities for such
persons.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. We dis-
cussed it with the distinguished mi-
nority leader. I agree that this is a very
appropriate program to be guided by
those considerations.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, if the Sen-
ator will yield further, I appreciate the
courtesy of the distinguished Senator
from Maine. This was an amendment of
mine, in which I had a great interest. I
am most appreciative that it is being
given consideration.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays on passage.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, our
American society has finally come to
recognize and to deal with an emerging
national crisis: survival in the midst of a
polluted environment. The clamor for
survival has spread from a handful of
conservationists to an ever-increasing
number of Americans. We so often seem
preoccupied with the problems which are
exclusively urban in their effect. But
environmental quality concerns us all
because it affects—indeed it threatens—
us all. Mr. President, we have reached
the point, I believe, where the enhance-
ment of environmental quality must be
a major national goal.
Now that we have reached this point,
we must look ahead to our needs for fu-
ture legislation, as well as the direction
and speed of Government administra-
tion of existing laws. The sacrifices, the
[p. 29093]
plans, the strategy that we are to pursue
to reach the goal of cleaning up this
country's waterways must be clearly de-
nned. I submit that the bill which we
are considering today makes significant
advances in providing some of these
much-needed and long-awaited answers.
But, as encouraged as I am with this
current effort, let me stress that it is only
a beginning in our fight against the pol-
lution of our environment.
The bill before us has numerous ad-
vantages in preparing us to fight the
pollution battles. It lays down rules for
dealing with oil spill catastrophes; it es-
tablishes standards for marine sewage
discharges from vessels; it requires Fed-
eral licensees and permittees to comply
with water quality standards; it provides
for the identification, designation, and
cleanup of hazardous substances other
than oil; and it permits extended re-
search authorizations, official encourage-
-------
1944
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment, and development of an overall
labor force trained to assist in the elimi-
nation of problems of operation and
maintenance of pollution abatement
equipment.
Of equal importance, the bill creates
the Office of Environmental Quality.
The Office will be primarily concerned
with providing for representation of en-
vironmental interests in the numerous
and varied policymaking forums across
this country, both public and private. It
is heartening that in the last few years
there has occurred a new emphasis on
ecology in the management of our natu-
ral resources. Failure in the past to give
warranted attention to the interrelations
between living organisms and their en-
vironment in the development and use
of resources has had unfortunate, often
disastrous, consequences. The creation
of this Office of Environmental Quality
will acknowledge Congress' new pledge
to a "national policy of enhancement of
environmental quality, a policy based on
the concept that man and his environ-
ment are interrelated and that a quality
environment is necessary to the im-
provement of living standards for all
men."
Mr. President, I would suggest that
this new Office is not an attempt to skirt
the real issues but is rather an impor-
tant, necessary means of filling a void,
and providing a voice that too long has
gone either inadequately represented or
not represented at all.
In addition to the establishment of the
Office of Environmental Quality, I am
very enthusiastic that this bill gives rec-
ognition to some of the critical problems
we are encountering in the Great Lakes.
Nearly 30 million persons—15 percent of
the Nation's inhabitants—live in the
Great Lakes basin. These lakes supply
this great population in America's heart-
land with water, food, transportation of
raw materials, and manufactured goods,
and outdoor recreation. But the pollu-
tion problems with which the citizens of
this region must now contend are notori-
ous. DDT is destroying the marine life
in Lake Michigan, pollution is choking
Lake Erie, industrial wastes threaten
Lake Superior, algae and pesticides as-
sault Lake Ontario, and the pollution of
Lake Michigan and the industrial wastes
of Saginaw Bay spill into Lake Huron.
The $20 million authorized by this bill to
study the pollution problems of the
Great Lakes is a good beginning, though,
obviously, it, too, is only a beginning.
But it is a step we must take now in the
war against pollution.
Mr. President, our thousands of rivers
and lakes are suffering from the grave
threat of pollution. The question is no
longer whether we should abate pollu-
tion; rather, the question is how much
time remains for us to save our environ-
ment. The bill now under consideration
provides a beginning to our water
cleanup effort. I commend the commit-
tee on its fine work and urge my col-
leagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I rise in
support of the bill.
The Water Quality Improvement Act
and the Environmental Quality Im-
provement Act embodied in this legisla-
tion are vitally needed. It has been well
said that of the many threats facing this
Nation and all of civilization today none
is more alarming than the deteriorating
quality of the natural environment in
which we must live and work.
Our Nation has reached unsurpassed
heights of technological and material
progress. We have achieved a standard
of living undreamed of at the turn of the
cgntury, and unmatched anywhere else
on the planet In our search for eco-
nomic advancement and the comforts
and convenience of a good life for all our
people we have marshaled our natural
resources and technological know-how
with unparalleled sophistication. We
stand as the economic wonder of the
world.
I would not have it otherwise. But I
am concerned—and all thinking Ameri-
cans are concerned—over the impact our
growth has had on our irreplaceable
water resources, the air we breathe, our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1945
forests, and our grasslands. We have
imposed too harshly on nature's bounty.
We have taken our rivers and lakes for
granted. We have ignored or overesti-
mated their limited capacity to dilute
and assimilate waste. Factories and
powerplants belch their smoke and the
life-giving air in our cities is danger-
ously smog laden. Industrial wastes and
raw or poorly treated sewage has fouled
our rivers, and endangered the very
existence of many of our major fresh
water lakes.
Lake Tahoe, which is shared by my
own State of Nevada and by California,
is without question one of America's
most highly prized natural assets. It is
renowned for its scenic beauty and pris-
tine clarity and purity.
This beautiful lake was able to resist
pollution when human activity began
accelerating as a result of settlement
and early logging operations, but it is
no match for the demands of modern
man.
Recent years have seen explosive
growth and development throughout the
Tahoe Basin and along the lake shore.
New highways and the postwar boom in
tourism and outdoor recreation have
changed Lake Tahoe from a quiet sum-
mer resort to a year-round major recre-
ation area.
Rapid population and commercial
growth has posed a serious threat to the
Tahoe Basin. Ominous signs of water
pollution are becoming all too evident.
Not only the scenic beauty of the region
but the very quality of its natural en-
vironment is now at stake.
In southern Nevada, the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area is another of
our endangered resources. Lake Mead
is one of the most attractive, heavily
used recreational areas in the United
States. Its location near Las Vegas
places it in one of the fastest growing
metropolitan areas in the Nation, and
this invaluable resource is feeling the
pressures that come with increasing
population and industrial densities.
Sewage effluent and industrial wastes
from the Las Vegas Valley are a con-
tributing cause. They introduce high
concentrations of plant nutrients into the
lake and tributary waters. The result
has been a gradual proliferation of
aquatic algae, which consumes the oxy-
gen in the water and is the prelude to
stagnation and the ultimate death of
irreplaceable water resources.
Fortunately, we in Nevada are only too
well aware of these threats to our natu-
ral resources. We are not satisfied with
the progress that is being made. In
1967, I offered a four-point program de-
signed to coordinate the efforts of the
Federal, State, and local governments to
combat the Lake Mead problem. As a
result, a local level interagency task
force was established to go into the
matter in depth and propose effective
measures. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration has provided
valuable support. Some—but not
enough—progress has been made. The
pollution has not been abated, and I will
not be satisfied until the deterioration of
Lake Mead's water quality has ended.
Regarding Lake Tahoe, both Nevada
and California have taken major steps
to bring order and good planning to the
development of the Tahoe Basin. Both
have approved a regional planning com-
pact that will establish ground rules for
future development—standards that will
see to the protection of the public in-
terest in preserving the beauty and
purity of the lake and basin for genera-
tions of Americans to come.
Early this session I introduced legisla-
tion to grant Congress' consent to this
regional compact. I have pressed for ac-
tion, but delays have been encountered
due to the failure of the administration
until recently to submit its report to the
Judiciary Committee. This is essential
legislation. The States are ready and
anxious to get on with the business of
protecting this unique resource. The
Federal Government's interest would be
fully protected under the compact, and
I have high hopes the committee's sched-
ule will permit the measure to be re-
-------
1946
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ported favorably to the Senate very soon.
Mr. President, I have referred to
Nevada's water pollution problems.
They typify problems faced by virtually
every State in the Union—problems that
demand the utmost in effort at all levels
of government if we are to leave other
than a legacy of waste for the future.
I know of nothing that should be of
more fundamental concern to the Con-
gress than the perils of pollution of our
environment. What we do in this area
[p. 29094]
we do to assure our children and grand-
children the quality of life our forebears
enjoyed, but which now stands impaired.
The legislation now before the Senate
is another in a line of measures enacted
over recent years bespeaking the Na-
tion's concern. I refer to the Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1963
and 1965, the Solid Waste Disposal Act
of 1965, the Clean Water Restoration
Act of 1966, and the Air Quality Act of
1967. I have supported these and every
meaningful effort to provide for the
preservation, protection, and restoration
of our endangered resources.
Title I is a further step in the right di-
rection. It will provide authority to
establish Federal standards for the per-
formance of marine sanitation devices
to control sewage discharges from ves-
sels. Waste from watercraft has a seri-
ous impact on the water quality of our
bays, lakes, harbors, and marinas where
vessels are concentrated. Both Lake
Tahoe and Lake Mead will benefit from
this.
Oil pollution is a major source of con-
cern—particularly in light of the Santa
Barbara Channel problem and the spec-
tacular spills from the Torrey Canyon
and the Ocean Eagle. The bill properly
provides centralized authority to clean
up oil spills regardless of the source, and
for recovery of costs when the cleanup
is done by the Federal Government.
Very importantly, title I of S. 7 seeks
to ensure compliance with water quality
standards by Federal agencies, and by
activities conducted under licenses and
permits granted by the Federal Govern-
ment. It requires that the Government
itself, and those it licenses begin to con-
sider the environmental aspects of their
programs as a matter of first priority.
The bill would require preconstruction
water quality planning, and seeks to
eliminate Federal participation in ac-
tivities that are at odds with our na-
tional water quality programs.
I think this aspect of the bill is long
overdue. We can hardly tolerate Federal
oversight of water quality standards we
have urged on the States, cities, and
communities all across the Nation.
The bill also provides for the identifi-
cation, designation, and cleanup of dis-
charges of hazardous substances other
than oil that foul and pollute our water
resources.
I particularly applaud the bill's spe-
cial attention to the problems confront-
ing our fresh water lakes. As the
committee has pointed out in its report,
at the present time there is no research
facility anywhere exclusively devoted to
basic and applied research in the causes
and cures of lake pollution. Individual
research is being conducted on various
facets of the problem, but we lack a con-
centrated, coordinated attack.
Such an all-out campaign to overcome
and put a stop to the degradation of our
lake resources—in Nevada, in the Great
Lakes, and throughout the Nation—is
sorely needed.
Lake eutrophication research—so im-
portant if we are to overcome the prob-
lems facing the Great Lakes and others
such as Lake Mead and Lake Tahoe
would be pressed forward. I cannot
overstress the importance of this kind
of work.
New emphasis would also be placed
on finding more effective means of re-
moving oil pollution and combatting the
acid-mine drainage that has so long im-
paired waterways in mining regions
throughout the country. I think the re-
port on the bill does an excellent job of
reviewing the problems we face in each
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1947
of these areas. It goes almost without
saying that we must bend every effort
toward overcoming these critical
problems.
Mr. President, I also applaud the ob-
jective of title II of the present bill to
provide the President with the manage-
ment capability needed to bring coher-
ence and consistency into the
environmental activities of the Federal
Government. Certainly Federal activi-
ties and federally assisted activities have
a major impact on the environment.
Title II very properly requires that all
federally supported public works proj-
ects and programs be planned and im-
plemented in full recognition of their
ecological impact.
The establishment of a full-time coun-
cil or office on environmental affairs to
review and analyze the administration
of all environmental policies, programs,
and activities of the Federal Govern-
ment is long overdue. These problems
cannot be handled effectively on an ad
hoc or part-time basis. They require the
kind of independent continuous high-
level attention envisaged by title II of
this legislation. An office of environ-
mental quality—independent of other
Federal agencies—is needed to make
available to the President the substan-
tive review and analysis of all matters
relating to the environment.
Mr. President, I commend the com-
mittee for bringing forward an excellent
bill, and urge its approval by the Senate
Mr. HART. Mr. President, as we pre-
pare to vote I wish to applaud the
inclusion in this bill of the Great Lakes
demonstration section, section 15, which
authorizes $20 million for a concentrated
attack on pollution in the Great Lakes.
This is an absolutely critical item for
our region, and indeed for the health
and well-being of the whole country.
For the sake of this section alone, S. 7 is
deserving of our favorable action.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of
the hard lessons of this decade has been
the realization that the unchecked ap-
plication of technology has resulted in
the gradual and continuing destruction
of our natural resources. And, although
the Congress and the Nation have gone
on record time and again as opposed to
further despoliation of our environment,
it continues today. For we continue to
allow the pollution of our air and water
resources at a rate not significantly less
than that tolerated 5 or 10 years ago.
The only hope we have for the resto-
ration of the resources we have denied
to future generations of Americans is a
true commitment to that restoration—
a commitment of action, not of rhetoric;
of funds, not of promises. We must
launch an attack on every front—on air
pollution; on water pollution; on solid
waste disposal; and on thermal pollu-
tion. And we must do it now.
Since 1960, we in the Congress have
taken steps to insure that such a com-
mitment is made. We have enacted leg-
islation to set standards, inaugurate
programs, conduct research, and estab-
lish a good Federal-State partnership in
a national pollution control effort. Since
1963, we have enacted the Clean Air Act,
the Air Quality Act, the Water Quality
Act, and the Clean Waters Restoration
Act—to cite but a few of the major
pieces of legislation designed to deal
with the various aspects of this national
disgrace. But we have not adequately
funded any of the programs authorized
in this legislation. To illustrate the cur-
rent funding gap in this area, I ask
unanimous consent that a chart, entitled
"The Water Pollution Control Funding
Gap," taken from the September issue
of Nation's Cities, be printed in the
RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our
failure to provide these necessary funds
is a failure to respond to the demands
of our citizens. A recent survey con-
ducted by Newsweek magazine indicated
that 56 percent of working Americans—
taxpaying Americans—feel that we
should allocate more funds to rid their
-------
1948
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
communities of air and water pollution.
It is my hope that this Congress, as the
last of this decade, will make a com-
mitment of funds that will allow us to
progress toward our goal of total elim-
ination of existing pollution and con-
trol of the causes of future pollution.
Today the Senate considers S. 7, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. This legislation is impor-
tant and necessary. Its passage will go
far to indicate our congressional intent
to maintain and expand our program to
erase the stigma of pollution from our
national and coastal waters.
S. 7 is based, in large part, on similar
legislation considered by the Congress
last year—S. 3206. I share in the disap-
pointment that S. 3206 was part of that
session's unfinished business. But I
commend the committee, its distin-
guished chairman, Mr. RANDOLPH, and
the subcommittee and its honored chair-
man, Mr. MUSKIE, for not allowing its
measures to remain as unfinished busi-
ness. The bill they have reported to the
Senate today is both comprehensive and
farsighted.
It embodies the significant proposals
of S. 3206 and introduces new language
to deal with a problem of major na-
tional concern. The problem, brought to
light this year at an all too alarming
rate, is the increased incidence and the
continual threat of accidental oil spills
in our coastal waters.
It is this section of S. 7, Mr. Presi-
dent, section 12, on which I would like
to comment. In recent years, and at an
increased rate this past year, accidental
oil spills have brought untold damage
to our coastal waters and beaches and
to the biological, marine, and bird life
which inhabit these areas. Considerable
and sometimes irreparable damage has
also been done to the ecological balance
of these waters. Only last month, in my
own State of Massachusetts, another po-
tentially tragic oil spill occurred. Dam-
[p. 29095]
ages are still being investigated, but
there is no question that they will be the
most substantial inflicted to date in this
area in terms of marine life. At the time
of this most recent spill, I took the floor
of the Senate to indicate my distress and
to suggest possible measures and amend-
ments to existing legislation to establish
national policy and Federal responsi-
bility in such matters. At that time, I
most strongly urged further develop-
ment of an interagency contingency
plan; the requirement of a bonding
mechanism for all vessels engaged in the
ocean transport of oil cargoes; a liability
requirement which would place the bur-
den of proof of absence of negligence on
the vessel owner or operator; and, fi-
nally, the development of a comprehen-
sive research effort in the use of
chemicals and other technology in spill
cleanup efforts.
The work of the committee is again
worthy of commendation in this regard.
The comprehensive report on S. 7 indi-
cates that, as a result of extensive hear-
ings, section 12 was drafted to
incorporate many of these measures.
This section, and other sections of S. 7,
specifically direct the President to dele-
gate responsibility for the administration
of the provisions of this and all sections
to the Federal agencies which have
jurisdiction over the areas and waters
involved. I would like to suggest, how-
ever, that the President direct these
agencies to establish from among their
personnel a board of advisers who are
both technical and logistical experts in
such matters to be ready to fly to the
scene of a major spill as soon as possible
after notification of occurrence. The
Civil Aeronautics Board employs such a
team to fly to the site of aircraft disasters
to determine cause and to aid in the
removal of debris from the site. This is
a good program and one which I feel
easily evidences its transferability to oil
spill disasters.
Section 12 requires that owners of
vessels engaged in the transport of oil
establish and maintain evidence of finan-
cial responsibility. Although this meas-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1949
ure is not as broad as one I intended to
introduce, it is my determination that it
is adequate and will be effective.
Liability standards as outlined in sec-
tion 12 also satisfy my intention. Under
the terms of this section, the burden of
proof is placed directly on the vessel op-
erator to prove absence of negligence on
his part.
Section 104 of S. 7 amends section 5
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to authorize the Secretary of the In-
terior to broaden the research program
authorized by the act to include the con-
duct of research into the removal of oil
from our waters. It is my feeling that
directives to the Secretary in this matter
should be more specific. He should be
directed to conduct specific research on
the use of dispersants, floating absorb-
ents, gelling agents, and other chemicals.
He should also be directed to establish
standards for such chemicals. There-
fore, I will introduce an amendment to
strengthen the research authorization of
S. 7.
-------
1950
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
o
—
a
_
8-
§
I
-o rx
=
I
-
w
»
00 CO CJ . CM CM F-) in <
»-HOO«-«
: f a Ii £ t
Sir*.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1951
§
z
o
TERS RESTORAT
i
1-1
UJ
OS
LU
3
Continued
ALLOCATIONS
ns]
i s i
** CO •=
t S E
oa > .=
X CO "
55 o
AP— AUTHORIZAT
FUNDING G
\TER POUUTION CONTROL
§
(0
I
Q.
1
<
•o
s
S
_o
5
^3
ted Authorize
S
o
<
Authorize
1
g
FN.
d
IN.
O
oi
if>
t-T
«•
o
CO
•&.
o
«
s
s
CM
vt-
tA-
O
2
CM
«-
^
*»•
q
to
y
«-
1
«»»•
1
cOiHcgcoo«coin<^cNr^cMCMoo<0o>^orN.Lnro
^cd^r^irirocdoJr^cM^dtocMcd^r^'rooiodcocJrod^
rH ^ n CM CO iH «H CM *•* i-l i-i
CMOOLr>r>>i^-a)<-H<£a)OCTa>(0l><^CMrN,OQOC>JO>rHtO
ID i-H 00 IT) OCMCMCMi-HCMi-I^Oi-H ^- CO CN ^ CO
i-H i-H. ,H ft
*tCM.-HCOi-iCDtOi-««tou)«tr^n(poorriLn(r)oo^'CMinmTf
i-H fH
cocM^dr^coiocnr^^HfOo>«(Oi/i*teMiri»Hr^tncM^Ho»'-J
CMtDi~i*O ^ *-iCO i-*.-Hf-H
8
CM ^* co r< ^* CM' CM'
-------
1952
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the United States is probably the most
affluent Nation in history. Our citizens
enjoy a higher standard of living than
any other country in the world. Our
technology is increasing at a fantastic
rate. We take for granted today things
which our forefathers would have found
unbelievable. Man has walked on the
moon. And this is only the beginning.
However, while man has been marvel-
ing at his accomplishments, he has been
blind to the quiet, insidious decay of his
environment. Many of us live in envi-
ronments dominated by polluted air,
filthy water, ugliness, and noise, and are
almost completely unaware of the subtle
changes which have worsened our situa-
tion over the years. A person may not
realize what has happened until a cer-
tain threshold is reached and his eyes
water, his water stinks, his plants die,
and the paint peels from his house.
Mr. President, we have reached this
threshold. We must act decisively now
if we are to stop this deadly degradation
of our environment. We must begin
now to analyze the full cause-and-effect
linkage of all of our actions, not just the
immediate results of a few. We can no
longer afford to have our environment
contaminated by persistent pesticides.
We can no longer tolerate the pollution
of our air and water by the refuse of our
affluent society.
S. 7, of which I am a cosponsor, is a
positive step toward the preservation of
the quality of our environment. As re-
ported by the Committee on Public
Works, this bill would among other
things control the discharge of sewage
from vessels into the navigable waters
of the United States; provide for the con-
trol and cleanup of oil discharges into
inland waters of the United States, of
the territorial seas, and of the 9-mile
zone contiguous to the territorial sea;
provide for the identification, control
and cleanup of hazardous substances
other than oil; authorize a demonstra-
tion program on areawide control of acid
and other mine water pollution resulting
from active or abandoned mines; au-
thorize a demonstration program to
eliminate or control pollution within the
watersheds of the Great Lakes; require
Federal agencies to insure compliance
with applicable water quality standards
in the administration of their property,
facility, or activity; provide for the
training of personnel to operate and
maintain existing and future water
treatment works; and establish in the
Executive Office of the President an
Office of Environmental Quality and
provide for the establishment of an ad-
visory committee having a broad range
of concern including population growth,
environmental quality, and planning for
the future.
Of particular significance to States
such as Texas that border on the sea,
are the provisions in title I of S. 7 which
provide centralized authority to clean up
oil spills. The recent disastrous oil spill
off the coast of California at Santa Bar-
bara has taught us a tragic lesson in
what can happen to people and property
when large quantities of oil are dis-
charged into our coastal waters. Oil
spills, such as that one, pose an ex-
tremely grave threat to Texas because
of the tremendous number of offshore
oil operations and heavy ship traffic that
is found along the gulf coast. For ex-
ample, if a large quantity of oil was dis-
charged into the waters of the Houston
Ship Channel, not only would the waters
and beaches around Houston and Gal-
veston be polluted but also the inter-
coastal canals thus causing heavy
damage to the large rice crop that is
produced in this area. In light of the
danger to the people of the coastal areas
and their property, it is only right that
the expense of cleaning up oil spills be
charged to the owners and operators of
vessels transporting oil and oil products
and the offshore and onshore facilities
that discharge this dangerous oil.
Mr. President, just this week I offered
the Joint Resolution 156 to establish an
interagency commission for planning
this country's participation in the 1972
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1953
United Nations Conference on the Hu-
man Environment. In offering that leg-
islation, I pointed out that pollution is a
problem of worldwide dimensions and
there is no doubt that this is true. Since,
according to Dr. Edward D. Goldberg of
Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La
Jolla, Calif., the United States is "re-
sponsible for around one-half to one-
third of many of the contaminates
introduced into the atmosphere or
ocean," this Nation is obligated to take
the lead in dealing with the pollution
of our environment.
The United States must undertake a
crash program to deal with pollution
within our boundaries and along our
shores. This bill will constitute a great
step forward in such a program.
By adoption of this bill we can set an
example for the rest of the nations of
the world to follow and demonstrate that
we are willing to embark upon an all-
out attack upon the problem of pollu-
tion before it is too late.
We cannot afford to underestimate the
gravity of the problem, for as David M.
Gates, director of the Missouri Botani-
cal Gardens and an expert ecologist, in
an article placed in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD this week by Senator TYDINGS,
warns us, our continuing assault on the
natural environment "could produce an
earth populated by 'half-starved, de-
pressed billions gasping in air depleted
of oxygen and laden with pollutants,
thirsting for thickened, blighted water." "
This is the reason why, Mr. President,
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill
and why I urge, with all the candor at
my command, my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, water
is a precious commodity.
The U.S. Senate has again, today, rec-
ognized the need to preserve and protect
our existing supply of water by passage
of S. 7, legislation which contains the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969
and the Environmental Quality Im-
provement Act.
I am doubly pleased by today's action
since S. 7 contains the Clean Lakes pro-
vision first introduced by myself and
Senator Burdick in 1966. This provision
will allow basic research into the cause,
cure, and prevention of lake pollution.
It will provide funds for the construction
and operation of research facilities for
these purposes. The outcome of such re-
search should give us a greater under-
standing about the effects of treated
sewage, fertilizers, pesticides, siltation
and other substances which ultimately
drain into our fresh water community
lakes.
Now that we have taken this basic and
long-needed first step, I will shortly in-
troduce legislation to authorize the next
step. The National Clean Lakes Act of
1969 would provide grants for opera-
tional programs to counter and eliminate
pollution of fresh water community
lakes.
Mr. President, our lakes are so much a
part of our life in Minnesota and across
this country. Yet there are thousands of
lakes in this country which are decaying
and in danger of becoming extinct be-
cause of pollution and siltation. My
State of Minnesota is known as "The
Land of 10,000 Lakes." We do not want
to subtract from this slogan.
Like Minnesota's other natural re-
sources, lakes are not impervious to
man's vandalism and natural decay.
Throughout Minnesota and the Nation,
lakes are suffering from the pollution
epidemic—they are smothering to death
in organic waste and untreated poisons.
Now, building on the vehicle provided
by the Senate today—and the legislation
I will introduce—I am convinced we can
expand the life cycle of many of this
Nation's tens of thousands of lakes.
Thoreau wrote:
Nothing so fair, so pure ... as a lake, per-
chance, lies on the surface of the earth . . .
Nations come and go without defiling it ...
It is a mirror . . . whose gilding Nature con-
tinually repairs . . . which retains no breath
that is breathed on it.
I am afraid that there is more poetry
than truth in those beautiful words.
-------
1954
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Nations have defiled their lakes. The
restorative powers of nature do not work
on the still waters of a lake to the same
effect that they work on the flowing
waters of a stream.
Our fast-flowing rivers are equipped
with unbelievably recuperative powers.
This built-in natural recovery process
has enabled many of our rivers to take
the worst that man has been able to
throw at them in the way of pollution
punishment. Rivers have a faculty of
rolling with the pollution punch that
the more placid lake waters lack. At
one and the same time—if we are to save
our lakes—we must develop ways of
keeping pollutants out of lakes; remove,
insofar as possible, those pollutants al-
ready in our lakes; and, finally, to neu-
tralize the effects of those pollutants
which cannot otherwise be eliminated.
When the natural aging process of a
lake is speeded up, we find a condition
called accelerated eutrophication. The
scientist may define it as "the state of
a body of water resulting from inten-
tional or unintentional, natural or man-
made modifications to the aquatic
environment to the extent that the
ecological system supports an imbalance
in the biological production and creates
a nuisance or interference with a water
use."
The layman may not be concerned
with definitions, but he knows that a
polluted lake is ugly to look at, unfit to
swim
[p. 29097]
in, unpleasant to boat on, devoid of
prize sport fish. His livelihood may
suffer from lost property values, deserted
resorts, reduced value of the commercial
fishery, and impeded navigation. The
public water supply of his community
may be impaired. The citizen has a large
stake in clean lake waters.
We do not fully understand eutrophi-
cation. We do know that manmade
wastes contain nitrates, phosphates, and
other nutrients which stimulate biologi-
cal production and promote the prema-
ture aging of a lake. The algal bloom
is a sign of advancing eutrophication.
Profusion of algae and other vegetation
and siltation make the lake waters more
shallow and hasten the process. When
sunlight penetrates the shallow waters,
vegetation climbs to their surface and
chokes the lake. The vegetation decays,
disagreeable odors result, and fish often
die from the loss of oxygen. Industrial
wastes, municipal wastes, individual
waste disposal systems, agricultural run-
off, and siltation from soil erosion all
contribute to the influx of manmade pol-
lution into the Nation's lakes.
The impairment of water quality of
our lakes is a problem complex in its
causes, widespread in scope, and difficult
in solution. We do not have the final
answers to these problems. We may
never—but a nation which can reach the
moon in a decade certainly should be
able to—come up with practical solu-
tions to some if not all of the problems
of aging lakes.
But we are confident that through an
expanded research, development, and
demonstration effort, we will be able to
do a far better job than we now are
doing to control the eutrophication pro-
cess in fresh water community lakes.
Mr. President, there are a number of
reasons for proceeding now with full
scale demonstrations and operational
programs even though we are just begin-
ning research and development pro-
grams. These reasons include a
substantial knowledge base upon which
to act; the need for action programs to
interact with development programs;
and the demand to immediately counter-
balance periods of seemingly irreversible
pollution where eutrophication is taking
place.
Briefly, the National Clean Lakes Act
of 1969 would provide funds for a variety
of programs including dredging and
cleansing already polluted lakes includ-
ing disposal costs, removal of effluents
and nutrients from sewage treatment
plants, and soil conservation programs
to retard the drainage of siltation,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1955
nutrients, and other pollutants.
The measure will seek authorizations
over a 3-year period: $200 million for
the first year, doubling to $400 million
in the second, and increasing to $500
million for the third.
This funding will permit the Interior
Department to finance feasibility studies,
preliminary research, full-scale demon-
strations, and operating facilities. It
would also provide assistance to resort
owners, farmers, and construction work-
ers to permit various programs to halt
siltation and the passing of nutrients
into fresh water community lakes.
Moneys shall be on a matching provi-
sion with funds put up by State munici-
palities and by businesses and industries
contributing to pollution and having a
stake in the cleansing of the lakes. This
funding should be at a rate of 90 percent
for those projects which are purely of
a demonstration nature, and 75 percent
Federal funds for the more operational
grants where the success of the facility
is more certain.
The National Clean Lakes Act will be
tied directly to total land management
plans for individual States and areas.
The States will be given a leading role
in the establishment and enforcement of
standards.
Mr. President, it is my hope that with
the perfection of the tools and technol-
ogy of restoring fresh water community
lakes, our municipalities all across the
Nation will be encouraged to begin the
task of cleaning their lakes and to take
immediate steps to prevent further
pollution.
There is no lack of interest in such
projects in the States. Rather, there is
frustration at the enormous size of the
job and the realization that, without
Federal assistance, most such projects
are impossible.
The Minnesota Department of Con-
servation estimates that dredging and
cleaning a lake costs a minimum of 25
to 50 cents a yard. To deepen an acre of
water by only 1 foot costs about $4,000.
In Minnesota, there are 17 lakes that are
over 10,000 acres in size. To deepen one
of these lakes by 5 feet would cost about
$4 million. It is obvious that such an ex-
pense cannot possibly be borne by a lake
community, and even for a major metro-
politan area, the cost is virtually
prohibitive.
Thus, in the National Clean Lakes Act
of 1969 which I will introduce, I am pro-
posing that lakes be given treatment
comparable to other bodies of water in
the protection against pollution.
I urge my colleagues to join with me
in support of this bill to rejuvenate and
beautify our lakes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, Senator
MONDALE is to be congratulated for his
excellent contribution to the work of
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion. The Senator has provided signifi-
cant leadership in providing legislative
recommendations to deal with the diffi-
cult problem of lake eutrophication.
As the Senator has so eloquently
pointed out, many of the Nation's lakes
are dying at an accelerated rate. We
must retard this process.
We will not be successful in this effort
unless we can develop the necessary
technical capacity to halt lake pollution.
And we will not be successful unless we
make a meaningful national commitment
now.
The Senator from Minnesota has led
this effort and on behalf of the members
of the committee, I want to express our
appreciation. I look forward to review-
ing the additional proposals which the
Senator intends to offer.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as a co-
sponsor of S. 7, I rise in support of the
measure. Last year, as a member of the
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion, I supported a similar measure that
passed the Senate. Although no longer
a member of that subcommittee, I have
continued my great interest in the sub-
ject of pollution, both air and water. I
regard the increasing pollution of our
environment as one of the paramount
problems facing our Nation and, indeed,
the world community of nations.
-------
1956
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
S. 7, when its provisions are fully
implemented, will constitute a giant step
forward in the water pollution fight. It
should be a particularly effective deter-
rent against the despoliation of our
lakes, rivers, bays and, significantly too,
in my State, California, our magnificent
coastlines.
No piece of legislation can be a com-
plete defense against the type of
catastrophe that ravaged Santa Barbara
beaches earlier this year, or that
ravaged the beaches of Southern Eng-
land as a result of the Torrey Canyon
grounding several years ago. However,
the provisions of S. 7 ensure that im-
mediate cleanup operations can be com-
menced and ultimate financial liability
fixed.
In this regard the bill before the Sen-
ate contains the provisions I urged in
testimony before the House Committee
on Public Works on February 13, 1969.
I said:
Present water pollution control legislation
dealing with the spillage of oil ... is clearly
inadequate. Financial responsibility must be
placed on the owners and operators of both
ships and shore facilities Present law limits
liability to dischargers who are 'grossly negli-
gent or -willful ' I supported legislation
which passed the Senate establishing the re-
sponsibility of the party to either clean up or
authorize the government to do it and later
recover the costs from the party responsible.
Thus, S. 7 contains provisions declar-
ing the discharge of oil to be unlawful;
authorizes the establishment of regula-
tions relative to discharge and removal
of oil; establishes penalties for violation
of these regulations; provides authority
for the operator to immediately remove
any oil discharge or spill or, in the event
he either refuses to clean up or does not
adequately clean up the discharge, the
Government may remove the oil to pre-
vent damage and decrease the cost; es-
tablishes liability on vessel owners of
$125 per gross ton of his vessel or $14
million whichever is lesser for such spills
and requires evidence of the ability of
vessel owners and operators to cover up
to $100 per gross ton of liability in the
event of discharge; and establishes a $50
million revolving fund for operation of
the entire cleanup program.
In addition, I have long felt the need
for contingency plans in the event of a
disaster such as the Santa Barbara in-
cident and as stated in my testimony be-
fore the House Committee on Public
Works:
The Santa Barbara incident has under-
scored once again the need to accelerate a
research development and testing program to
increase and improve our capabilities for pre-
venting, controlling, and cleaning up of oil
spills and other hazardous substances. I rec-
ommend an amendment to the research sec-
tion of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to authorize an additional $5 million for
the acceleration of research on marine pol-
lution problems, such as that posed by oil
spillages. This was one of the recommenda-
tions of the Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering, and Resources, the Commission
[p. 29098]
which earlier this year issued a report chart-
ing the future direction of the nation's ocean
exploration efforts.
I urge that contingency plans be developed
at the local, state and regional levels to pro-
vide for a quick response to oil spills and
similar disasters. I understand that no such
plans presently exist today. This is a serious
deficiency in our pollution control arsenal
and should be remedied immediately In my
judgment, such contingent plans should be
an integral part of the state and federal water
pollution control programs.
Under S. 7, the President has broad
authority to issue regulations for pre-
venting oil discharges and for develop-
ing and coordination between the
various levels of Government oil re-
moval contingency plans.
I long have been concerned about the
increasing level of pollution in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta area. Since the
Navy is the chief polluter of the bay, I
recently urged the Secretary of the Navy
to stop this polluting. As a member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
intend to do whatever I can to see that
this pollution is stopped and to make
certain that the Federal Government
cleans up rather than pollutes. I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the
telegram I sent to the Secretary of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1957
Navy be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
When I was in San Francisco with Secre-
tary of the Interior Hickel recently, it was
reported that a principal part of the pollu-
tion in the San Francisco Bay was caused by
Navy ships and installations. As one who
believes that the Federal Government should
set an example for the nation in our battle
against pollution, both air and water, I re-
quest the Navy to stop this pollution of the
Bay. As a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and a former member of
the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution, I stand ready to
urge the Armed Services Committee and the
Congress to help the Department of the Navy
in its efforts to stop this pollution.
Mr. MURPHY. In testimony prepared
for the House Subcommittee on Con-
servation and Natural Resources, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, in its report, stated:
It is estimated that 250 million gallons of
shipboard and sanitary sewage are discharged
into the San Francisco Bay-Delta area each
year from vessels using the twelve deep water
ports, numerous port and docking facilities,
and 250 small craft harbors It has also been
estimated that the 60 assigned military ves-
sels operating in the Bay-Delta waters con-
tribute approximately ninety per cent of the
annual wastes discharged from all vessels.
Other vessels operating in these waters in-
clude 96,000 small craft, 800 fishing vessels,
and 5,000 commercial vessels entering through
the Golden Gate each year.
When the provisions of S. 7 concern-
ing shipboard discharge of sewage be-
come effective, Federal standards will be
established for marine sanitation de-
vices and the means by which sewage
may be discharged from vessels. These
regulations are applicable to military as
well as private vessels unless there are
clear overriding defense considerations.
I urge the Secretary of the Navy not
to wait until the provisions of this sec-
tion are applicable but that he com-
mence forthwith to develop and test
appropriate marine sanitary devices for
use in the San Francisco Bay.
Mr. President, since coming to the
Congress I have supported every single
piece of legislation that has advanced
our Nation's battle against air and water
pollution. Some years ago a great
American; Teddy Roosevelt, saw what
we were doing to our natural resources
and led a movement to stop the senseless
destruction. Today our environment
and natural resources are again being
threatened by pollution. I sincerely be-
lieve that one of the most serious if not
the most serious problem facing our Na-
tion is this question of pollution. I am
happy that we are taking this most
significant and positive approach toward
its control. However, the citizens of our
Nation must become aware and must
make the commitment once again if we
are to save America, the beautiful.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would
like to express my personal appreciation
and that of the members of the Com-
mittee on Public Works to the staff of
the committee and the Members who
have worked on this legislation. The
continual cooperation of majority and
minority committee staff and effective
consultation with the staffs of members
of the committee has expedited the
Senate consideration of the comprehen-
sive environmental quality legislation.
Specifically, Mr. President, I would
like to acknowledge the efforts of Mr.
Richard Royce, chief clerk and staff di-
rector of the committee; Mr. Bailey
Guard, minority clerk; Mr. Barry Meyer
and Mr. Tom Jorling for his majority
and minority counsel; Mr. Leon Billings,
Mr. Richard Grundy, and Miss Adrien
Waller, professional staff members; Mr.
Donald Nicoll and Mr. Eliot Cutler of my
staff, and Mr. Hal Brayman of Senator
BOGGS' staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass? On this ques-
tion the yeas and nays have been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),
-------
1958
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) ,
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE),
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) ,
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
McGo^ERN), the Senator from New Mex-
ico (Mr. MONTOYA), the Senator from
Utah (Mr. Moss), and the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-
LIAMS) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. GRAVEL) , the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS) , the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) , the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) , the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. LONG) , the Senator from
Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) , the Sena-
tor from South Dakota (Mr. McGov-
ERN) , the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
MONTOYA), the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Moss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
RUSSELL), and the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) would each vote
"yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) is nec-
essarily absent.
The Senator from Utah (Mr. BEN-
NETT) and the Senator from New York
(Mr. GOODELL) are detained on official
business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Utah (Mr. BENNETT), the Senator
from New York (Mr. GOODELL), and the
Senator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) would
each vote "yea."
The result was announced—yeas 86,
nays 0, as follows:
* # * * *
So the bill (H.R. 4148) was passed.
The title was amended, so as to read:
A bill to amend the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, to establish an Office
of Environmental Quality, to provide
for certain property acquisition, and for
other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the bill
was passed.
Mr. SCOTT. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that S. 7 be indef-
initely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Secretary
of the Senate be authorized to make
technical and clerical corrections in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 4148, and
that the bill be printed as passed by the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered,
Mr. MUSKIE. I move that the Senate
insist on its amendment and ask for a
conference with the House of Repre-
sentatives on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon, and that the Chair
[p. 29099]
be authorized to appoint the conferees
on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. MUSKIE,
Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BAYH, Mr. MONTOYA,
Mr. BOGGS, Mr. COOPER, and Mr. BAKER
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
there is no doubt that this singular suc-
cess—the unanimous approval of the
Water Pollution Control Act amend-
ments—is attributable to the expertise
and legislative skills of the floor manager
of the bill, the distinguished chairman of
the Air and Water Pollution Subcom-
mittee of the Public Works Committee,
the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) .
His tireless efforts in committee and on
the floor have gained for him the deepest
gratitude of the Senate and the Na-
tion. His efforts, may I say, will serve
to provide a better environment for all
of us. We are grateful. He has added a
magnificent achievement to his already
abundant record of public service.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1959
We are grateful also to the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) and
to the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS), the chairman and ranking
minority member, respectively, of the
Public Works Committee. They joined
to assure the efficient and swift disposal
of this measure. They added their al-
ways thoughtful, always perceptive
views to the discussion.
Especially, our thanks must go also to
the distinguished Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. JACKSON) . The cooperation
he exhibited was characteristic. His
support was outstanding, and we are
grateful.
The Senate may be proud of another
fine achievement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, during
the last 24 hours, both Washington news-
papers, the Post and the Evening Star,
have published editorials in support of
full funding of the $1 billion authoriza-
tion for Federal grants for the construc-
tion of municipal waste treatment
facilities.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote
on this question in the House today, I
intend to press for full funding in the
Senate, as we have in the past.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on
Public Works of the Appropriations
Committee, the distinguished Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) has com-
mitted his support to increased funding
for the program, and I hope that the
committee will find it possible to recom-
mend full funding.
Although the administration has re-
quested only $214 million for fiscal 1970,
recent reports have indicated that the
administration may be seeing the light of
overwhelming public support for the
program.
I hope they do change their mind, but
in any case, I pledge my support for full
funding, and I promise a vigorous effort
in behalf of it.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torials to which I have referred be in-
cluded in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the edi-
torials were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington (D C.) Post,
Oct. 8,1969]
$1 BILLION FOR CLEAN WATER
A major test of whether this country Is
sincere in trying to clean up its polluted
rivers and lakes will come in the House of
Representatives today. In principle, the Con-
gress, the administration and the country are
thoroughly committed to the cause of clean
water. It is one of the most popular crusades
of the day. But lip service and even author-
izing legislation do not remove filth from our
streams. Sewage-treatment plants must be
actually constructed, and Congress has to
date provided only meager funds for this
purpose.
New hopes were raised in 1966 when Con-
gress approved a sharp rise in federal assist-
ance to states and cities for the construction
of clean-water facilities. The program was
to expand from $150 million in fiscal 1967 to
$1 billion in fiscal 1970 But out of the $2 3
billion authorized for the last four years, in-
cluding this one, Congress has appropriated
only $567 million for the three past years,
and the current budget request is for only
$214 million for fiscal 1970. In other words,
the real cleanup program, as distinguished
from the reassuring words and good Inten-
tions, has not yet gotten off the ground
Fortunately, the great gap between promise
and performance has not gone unnoticed on
Capitol Hi!! or among the millions who are
now demanding restoration of a healthful
environment A large number of oganlza-
tions representing conservation groups, orga-
nized labor, professional societies, civic
associations and city and county officials have
united their efforts in a Citizens Crusade for
Clean Water, and more than 220 members
of the House have pledged themselves to
vote a billion dollars for clean water when
the big test comes.
One vital element in the situation is the
plight in which many cities find themselves
Under the prodding of Congress, state legis-
latures have been raising standards of sewage
treatment which the cities will have to meet
But if they are denied the federal aid that
was contemplated when the higher standards
were set they will have to choose between
failure to comply and the diversion of funds
from education, housing, law enforcement
and so forth to meet the new demands for
clean water. It is reported that more than
4,600 applications for aid to cities in the con-
struction of sewage-treatment facilities are
awaiting action, largely for want of funds
The plain fact is that Congress has reneged
on its clean-water pledge to the country. The
technical know-how for restoration of the
Nation's streams and lakes to a tolerable con-
-------
1960
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
dition is readily at hand. Much of the needed
legislation is already on the books, although
Secretary Hickel is seeking authority to help
pay for treatment facilities on an installment
basis through contracts with cities and states,
which would greatly ease the demand for
current appropriations. The missing ele-
ment is immediate funds to change the clean-
water drive from a remote hope to a current
reality.
We agree with the National League of
Cities, the League of Women Voters and the
many other groups and individual leaders
who are calling for the immediate appropri-
ation of a billion dollars for the 1970 cleanup
effort. On the eve of the test vote there are
indications that the administration will ac-
cept substantial expansion of the clean-water
budget item it carried over from the Johnson
budget. But compromise at this point is not
enough. The judgment of Congress as ex-
pressed in the Clean Water Restoration Act
that $1 billion would be needed this year for
grants in this area was sound. It should be
adhered to today. In a matter of such vital
concern to the country. Congress simply
cannot afford to put itself into the position
of withdrawing from an obligation it has as-
sumed and sought to Impose on the states and
cities.
[From the Evening Star, Oct. 7, 1969]
KEEPING PBOMISES
Several months ago, we were critical of
Congress for retreating from its commitment
to the states and localities to provide $1 bil-
lion in matching grants for water pollution
control. What bothered us at the time was
not so much the enforced slowdown in this
important program but rather the immorality
involved in mousetrapping local governments
into commitments they can ill afford, and
then not coming across.
In this context, it is especially gratifying
to note that over 220 congressmen have gone
on record as favoring the full $1 billion ap-
propriation for waste treatment plants. At
present, the House money bill contains $600
million for this program—itself a considerable
improvement over the $214 million originally
earmarked. Interested lawmakers will offer
an amendment on the House floor this week
to up that to $1 billion. If they all vote the
way they have talked, this amendment should
sail through easily.
The next move would then be up to the
Senate. To date there has not been a com-
parable show of support in the other chamber
for a full-funding of the water pollution pro-
gram But this is perhaps because the quite
remarkable ground-swell of concerned public
opinion on this subject has so far been fo-
cused on the House.
It should be understood, of course, that
this Is definitely a time when budgetary re-
straint is indicated. Accordingly, a number
of important government programs are in
imminent danger of severe cutbacks. Even
so, there are two good reasons for not stinting
on water pollution control, quite apart from
its merit as a program. First, local govern-
ments have already been induced to commit
their own limited resources for this purpose.
And second, there appears to be broad pub-
lic support for the program. In this case at
least, there is reason to give the public what
it wants.
COMMISSIONER DOMINICK CONFIRMS FWPCA's
COMMITMENT IO ENHANCEMENT PRINCIPLE
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I would
like at this time to bring to the Senate's
attention an excellent and most appro-
priate addition to the discussion of S. 7.
It is a speech given on September 23 in
Kansas City by Commissioner David D.
Dominick before the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators.
In this speech, which I would ask
unanimous consent to include at the end
of my statement, Commissioner Domi-
nick spells out the goals of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
and its activities. He affirms the neces-
sity of strong Federal, State, and local
partnerships and cooperation for the
success of pollution control programs of
all kinds.
One of the most significant statements
of the speech is the confirmation of the
administration's commitment to the
principle of enhancement of water qual-
ity articulated as follows:
The keystone of the Water Quality Act of
1965 was enhancement of water quality, and
this has become the keystone of State and
Federal water quality standards. I do not be-
lieve that we can afford to go any other way.
In most parts of the country, the day has long
since passed that we could rely on the "as-
[p. 29100]
similative capacity" to protect us from water
quality degradation and, eventually, curtail-
ment of such water uses as swimming and
propagation of high quality fisheries associ-
ated with clean waters. The traditional as-
similative capacity concepts have ignored the
more subtle water pollution control parame-
ters that they become so important to the
protection of legitimate water use.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1961
I commend the entire text of Mr.
DOMINICK'S speech to my Senate
colleagues.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
REMARKS BY DAVID D DOMINICK, COMMIS-
SIONER FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, BEFORE THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE
AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATORS. KANSAS CITY, Mo., SEP-
TEMBER 23, 1969
Good morning, Gentlemen. It is a privilege
to be meeting here with you in Kansas City
and to lead off on what promises to be an
important annual meeting of the Association
of State and Interstate Water Pollution Con-
trol Administrators.
You have asked me to comment on the
Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration goals and directions for the future
This is an excellent forum to give you such
comments because I would hope that our
goals would be essentially your goals. And
I know that in many instances our problems
are your problems as well. In a simple sense
the goals of FWPCA are to come to grips with
and find solutions for the issues which are
presently impeding progress in the fight
for pollution abatement and environmental
quality
There is an urgency to our mutual efforts
which has never existed before. I am sure
that I don't have to remind you of the public
demand for cleaner water because it Is you,
as State administrators, who are on the front
line in the action which is being demanded.
But I did want to assure you that we in
Washington are well aware of this urgency,
this public demand and this unique awareness
on the part of our American citizenry of en-
vironmental problems on a global scale You
and I are certainly tied to one of the highest
visibility programs in the United States today.
To get down to specifics, I would like to
discuss with you three areas of mutual con-
cern in which we are actively developing and
promulgating new policies. These would be
the areas of enforcement, financing, and the
question of a requirement for secondary
treatment of municipal wastes.
In addition, there are a number of issues
which we can explore in somewhat less depth
but which we will identify as questions or
problems facing FWPCA and problems for
which we are seeking policy solutions.
So first let me turn to the question of en-
forcement. As you know, Secretary of the
Interior Walter J. Hickel has just recently
announced a new, tough enforcement policy.
Acting on information available to FWPCA,
the Secretary has set in motion the first
stages of informal proceedings against a city,
four steel companies, and a mining firm al-
legedly polluting interstate waters and be-
ing in noncompliance with water quality
standards If our upcoming meetings with
these various entities does not lead to satis-
factory action on their part, the next step
which could be taken by the Secretary of the
Interior would be formal court proceedings
following a 180 day notice.
The Secretary has said, "the people of
America have made it abundantly clear that
they will no longer tolerate pollution of their
environment." He said that "the Adminis-
tration believes this to be a reasonable de-
mand, anci we have a mandate to satisfy it
quickly and thoroughly. We will do this
through court action, if necessary, and
through tough, new legislation which we will
seek from the Congress."
And the Secretary made it quite clear that
his actions in these areas were not a one shot
burst for a short haul. Rather, he empha-
sized that "this is just a beginning. We
intend to continue the identification of pol-
luters all over the Nation, followed by the
enforcement of schedules for prompt cleanup
and pollution elimination."
The water quality standards, in effect, Bet
compliance schedules all over the Nation.
We intend to see that these compliance sched-
ules are met. To do otherwise would be to
fail to make full use of the water quality
standards tool that has been mandated to us
by the Congress. The standards must be
seen as a means to an end. We are taking
steps immediately at FWPCA to insure that
fair and consistent mechanisms are developed
for the full implementation and enforcement
of water quality standards
Let me turn briefly to the question of fi-
nancing. We are all keenly aware that the
existing program "which -was established in
1966 has not served to keep current with
identified needs The need for treatment
plant construction is most urgent and this
need is clearly recognized in Washington.
State approved applications for matching
grant funds totaling $2.3 billion from States
and local governments are now on file
with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration.
I acknowledge that the question of financ-
ing is the most difficult issue facing all of
us right now A resolution of this issue is
directly tied to the issue of how and when
we meet our water pollution control goals
in the municipal sector. I cannot give you
an answer to these pressing needs at this
time but can only assure you that work is
going forward at the highest levels of the
Administration to seek some equitable reso-
lution. The one thing which I can tell you
at this time is that the new Clean Water Team
in Washington is keenly aware of the need
-------
1962
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for long-term planning when we come to the
question of construction of municipal waste
treatment works. Piecemeal financing, arid
year-to-year uncertainties occasioned by the
appropriation process envisoned by the pre-
vious legislation, clearly does not allow for
the lead time and planning which is required
at the State and local level. So one of four
top priorities in seeking any resolution to
the financing issue is to come up with a pro-
gram which will give firm assurances as to
the future availability of funds and upon
which firm planning for construction needs
can be based.
Let me turn to the last of the major issues
which I will be able to cover with you this
morning. I hope by now that all of you
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators have received our proposals
to revise the construction grants policies. We
are considering revisions to the existing rules
and regulations for construction grants which
would upgrade the minimum treatment which
any project applying for Federal funds would
have to provide.
The present rules specify that the minimum
treatment that a system must provide to be
eligible for Federal grant assistance is pri-
mary treatment or its equivalent, unless
water quality standards or other recommen-
dations require a higher level In view of
our present water pollution control needs and
policies, we believe that a more stringent
minimum treatment requirement is now
clearly appropriate. From reading the water
quality standards established by the States,
I also note that with very few exceptions the
States themselves now recognize the appro-
priateness of secondary treatment as a
minimum.
For these reasons, we are proposing that
the minimum treatment level for federally
supported projects discharging to interstate
or intrastate fresh waters should be com-
plete removal of all floatable and settleable
materials, disinfection, and at least 85 per-
cent removal of five-day biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids based on de-
sign flow. We have avoided using the term,
"secondary treatment" in the proposal in
order to provide a performance type of defi-
nition, without implying necessarily specific
processes associated with secondary treat-
ment. However, as "secondary treatment"
is a good shorthand term, I will use it in my
later discussion of this policy with the dis-
claimer that it is just this—only a shorthand
term.
Because of the critical need to protect
estuarine aquatic life and uses, we believe
that the minimum treatment for projects
discharging to estuaries should be set at the
same level as for fresh water discharges. For
discharges to the open ocean through ocean
outfalls, a lesser degree of treatment might
be justified. Thus, we are proposing a mini-
mum level of complete removal of all float-
able and settleable materials for discharges
to open ocean waters at this time The pro-
posed revisions to the rules and regulations
would define "open ocean waters."
There are some specific aspects of the re-
vised construction grants policy which I
would like to clarify briefly. For instance,
this policy would be intended to apply not
only to applicants for projects providing a
complete treatment system, but also to ap-
plicants for a Federal grant for portions of a
system, such as interceptor sewers, pumping
stations, outfalls and other appurtenances.
To qualify for a Federal grant, projects to
construct interceptor sewers and other por-
tions of a treatment system would have to
comply with the adequate levels of treatment
as determined under this new policy. As an-
other point, discharge to the ocean will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to deter-
mine the appropriate level of treatment
to insure compliance with water quality
objectives.
In addition, we examine all plans for con-
struction very carefully to be assured that in
the design and engineering stages adequate
consideration has been given to projected
population growth demands. The recent ex-
perience of the new Administration on the
Potomac River indicates that insufficient
thought has been devoted in the past to pop-
ulation increase factors. The design of new
treatment plants must be flexible enough to
provide for increased capacity as well as pro-
viding for the possibility of process changes
leading to higher levels of waste treatment.
Finally, we will not give any Federal funds
to communities that bypass their sewage
treatment plants and drop raw sewage into
the streams. The Federal government will
not be a party to any such practice leading
to gross pollution of our water-ways. Our
streams will be kept clean.
We are seeking your comments on these
revisions prior to publication of revised rules
in the Federal Register. I hope to obtain your
support for these proposed regulations, and
to proceed to publication within the near
future. The revisions will be open to further
comment, of course, in a more formal fashion
after they are published in the Federal Regis-
ter, but I did want to solicit your views at the
earliest possible stage in the development of
this new policy.
I would like to discuss our reasoning for
seeking such a change in policy at this time.
The present rules and regulations, of course,
provide that a proposed construction grant
project seeking Federal funds meet the water
quality standards. And, as I noted earlier,
these accepted standards, with a few limited
[p. 29101]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1963
exceptions, provide for a minimum of secon-
dary treatment.
I think we are all looking forward to the
day when the minimum treatment that will
be provided anywhere in the country will be
the equivalent to secondary treatment.
We all know that some areas of the coun-
try are at this very moment preparing to
meet or have already met much higher treat-
ment requirements.
For many years, primary treatment was
recognized as a basic treatment requirement
for municipal wastes. However, even before
the establishment of water quality standards,
secondary treatment has increasingly become
the new basic requirement for municipal and
industrial wastes In the face of population
and industrial growth, treatment require-
ments have had to be steadily upgraded;
waste loads have grown as prodigiously as
populations and industries. History has
shown that slow but steady deterioration of
many waters has been the inevitable ac-
companiment of "progress" because treat-
ment goals in the past were set too low. After
many years of inadequate waste treatment,
serious water quality degradation is a fact
in most developed parts of the country.
If we are to make water pollution control
programs and the water quality standards
approach effective, a substantial reduction of
pollution from all municipal and industrial
waste sources will be necessary. Secondary
treatment, and in selected areas treatment
levels beyond that, should be considered a
necessary goal to allow us to get ahead of
the pollution problems—to prevent pollu-
tion rather than wait to abate it after
damage has occurred.
The keystone of the Water Quality Act of
1965 was enhancement of water quality, and
this has become the keystone of the State
and Federal water quality standards. I do
not believe that we can afford to go any other
way. In most parts of the country, the day
has long since passed that we could rely on
"assimilative capacity" to protect us from
water quality degradation and, eventually,
curtailment of such water uses as swimming
and propagation of high quality fisheries as-
sociated with clean waters. The traditional
assimilative capacity concepts have ignored
the more subtle water pollution control
parameters that have become so important
to the protection of legitimate water uses.
For the present, secondary treatment is an
economically feasible technique and a rea-
sonable means of assuring that assimilation
of wastes will no longer be the sole or pri-
mary use of any of our waters. In some
areas, where installation of high levels of
treatment may occasion economic hardships,
I think we are prepared to be realistic and
flexible about the timing—and I emphasize
the word timing—for necessary waste treat-
ment improvements However, I do not be-
lieve that we can afford to be shortsighted
about our ultimate goals and that these goals
must be high enough to meet the needs of
the future.
The secondary treatment issue is but one
of a number of areas in which the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration will
be setting forth clear policy positions. We
hope to continue to develop policy guide-
lines for a number of our programs, includ-
ing such things as the disposal of wastes
into the open ocean, the thermal pollution
question, the operation and maintenance of
sewage treatment plants, and the establish-
ment of additional water quality standards
criteria for radiological discharges and for
pesticides. We are now in the midst of in-
tensive inhouse efforts to develop programs
or policy statements in many of these areas.
We in the Department of the Interior solicit
your input and guidance as additional poli-
cies are developed. To this end, as you now
are all aware, Assistant Secretary Carl Klein
and myself have initiated a number of meet-
ings with State Administrators throughout
the country. We intend to continue these
meetings until we have had an opportunity
to sit down and discuss major program and
policy questions with all of you. In addition,
please feel free to pick up the phone or to
write to Assistant Secretary Klein and my-
self on any matter which is of concern to
you or your State or interstate agency.
We, at the Federal level, may not always
find ourselves in agreement with you at the
State, interstate or local levels. But both Mr.
Klein and myself are of the very firm opinion
that disagreement should not be a bar to
communication. One thing is abundantly
clear when we discuss environmental pro-
grams—all levels of government are in the
fight together. And if we are to make prog-
ress, progress which is now urgently needed
and urgently demanded, it is clear that we
must eventually agree that we have a sin-
gle mutual goal. We must agree together
that our job is to stop pollution today, and
to bend every effort to guaranteeing clean
water for America tomorrow.
[p. 29102]
-------
1964
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2k(4)(c) Vol. 116 (1970), March 24: Senate agreed to conference
report, pp. 8975, 8983-8984, 9003-9008
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS
AMENDED—CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Sen-
ate to the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes. I ask
unanimous consent for the present con-
sideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report,
as follows:
* * * * *
[p. 8975]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this con-
ference report is the culmination of ef-
forts begun in 1966 to strengthen and
expand the Nation's capability to deal
with oil pollution disasters.
Mr. President, this legislation would
probably not be before the Senate today
had there not been in recent weeks sev-
eral disastrous oil spills. I think that the
grounding of the tanker off Nova Scotia,
the spill from the tanker in Tampa Bay,
and the ongoing disaster off New Orleans
have convinced all of us in both bodies
of the need to attach a different concept
of liability to the extremely hazardous
business of oil transportation, produc-
tion, and use.
The very nature of these incidents
and the cloudy question of fault assisted
in bringing about the compromise which
was finally achieved between the House
and Senate conferees on this issue.
The attached discussion of the confer-
ence substitute describes in detail what
this bill does and what the conferees in-
tended. While I do not intend to pre-
sent all the provisions in detail in this
statement, I would like to point out sev-
eral important features of the oil pollu-
tion section and emphasize the other
more important features of the legisla-
tion itself.
Under the conference compromise,
unless the owner or operator of a vessel,
an offshore facility, or an onshore facil-
ity can prove that the discharge resulted
solely from an act of God, an act of war,
an act of U.S. Government negligence,
or an act or omission of a third party
such owner or operator will be abso-
lutely liable to the United States for the
costs of cleanup in an amount not to
exceed $14 million for a vessel and $8
million for an onshore or offshore
facility.
In the case of a vessel the liability is
further limited to $100 per gross ton, an
amount suggested by insurers as the in-
[p. 8983]
surable limit for this particular type of
liability.
I am not satisfied that these figures
completely reflect the potential liability
of vessels in oil discharges. I am not
satisfied that the insurers gave us the
best available information. However, I
am satisfied that we could get no better
information and that the amounts set
forth in this law would have been suffi-
cient to clean up any oil spill on record.
I anticipate this figure will have to be
revised, as will the outside limits, as the
size of tankers increases and as the dan-
ger of oil spills increases. Nevertheless,
at this time the gross tonnage and dol-
lar limits should be adequate to cover a
tanker twice as large as any vessel ca-
pable of using any port of the United
States today.
More importantly, Mr. President, a
review of these figures should be the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1965
kind of public policy consideration
which precedes any increases in ship-
ment of oil by sea either from foreign
or domestic sources.
The hearings on this legislation have
indicated that there is great room for
improvement in the handling of oil in
transport. There is still too much room
for accidents.
I will introduce legislation to tighten
the regulations governing the design and
construction of vessels, the transporta-
tion of oil and other hazardous cargo,
the training of crews, and the location
of onshore and offshore facilities.
I also hope that we can develop a sys-
tem of providing compensation for pri-
vate damages resulting from oil spills.
For onshore and offshore facilities, the
figure of $8 million was included in both
the House and the Senate bills. Al-
though there is no indication as to the
accuracy of this figure, it is much more
than the clean-up costs of any oil spills
on record from onshore or offshore facil-
ities. It too may have to be revised in
the future.
This legislation does not affect the
authority of the Secretary of the Interior
regarding activities on the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf. It does not affect the regu-
lations which provide absolute and un-
limited liability oil operations on the
OCS.
The penalties for failure to notify, for
knowing discharge of oil, and for viola-
tion of regulations are as strict as either
the House or Senate bill would permit.
Broad authority is given the President
to determine by regulation what harm-
ful quantities of oil cannot be discharged
without violating the provisions of this
act. The responsibility placed on the
President is great. The urgency for his
early action is evident.
Until the President develops at least
preliminary regulations denning harm-
ful quantities, parts of the law will be
inoperative. At a minimum the Presi-
dent can and should immediately, by
regulation, prohibit the discharge of oil
which exceeds the amount normally
anticipated in operation of a vessel, or
onshore, or offshore facility.
Such regulations with appropriate
definitions should be promulgated as
soon after enactment of this legislation
as possible.
The President should then set into
motion the procedures necessary to de-
termine in as exact a manner as possi-
ble the amounts and quantities of oil that
can be discharged, under what circum-
stances, and what times, and what loca-
tions as required in this section. Further
he should indicate, to the extent that
it is possible, those areas of the coastal
United States and the navigable waters
of the United States where the discharge
of oil is absolutely prohibited or par-
tially prohibited.
Another important measure to assure
tough enforcement of this act will be to
provide adequate funds for improved
Coast Guard surveillance activities along
the coast of the United States. Tanker
captains who deliberately disregard reg-
ulations and pump their bilges at will
must be arrested and brought to trial for
criminal discharges of oil. The Coast
Guard also must be given funds to de-
velop local and regional contingency
plans and a strike force capacity to move
against any oil pollution disaster strate-
gically located in the United States.
Effective implementation of this legis-
lation will require that adequate funds
be devoted to developing new clean-up
technology, to developing the specifica-
tions for chemicals which can be used
to disperse oil as called by the Ken-
nedy amendment retained by the con-
ferees, and to providing funds for the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration to study the effects of oil and
dispersants on the aquatic environment.
I wish to emphasize for the Senate
a provision of this legislation which has
not received a great deal of attention.
This provision may be the most impor-
tant section of this legislation. I call
the Senate's attention to section 21. This
section requires that any applicant for
a Federal license or permit obtain cer-
-------
1966
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tification of reasonable assurance of
compliance with water quality standards
from a State before that applicant can
receive any license or permit.
Any new industry that intends to lo-
cate on the navigable waters of the
United States; that needs a permit to
build a dock, a discharge pipe, a water-
intake pipe, a bridge, or a road across
Federal lands; that requires a license
from the Atomic Energy Commission for
a nuclear power plant or a license from
the Federal Power Commission to build
a dam will be required to obtain this
certification of compliance with water
quality standards.
No polluter will be able to hide behind
a Federal license or permit as an excuse
for a violation of water quality stand-
ard. No polluter will be able to make
major investments in facilities under a
Federal license or permit without pro-
viding assurance that the facility will
comply with water quality standards.
No State water pollution control agency
will be confronted with a fait accompli
by an industry that has built a plant
without consideration of water quality
requirements.
Mr. President, a question has been
raised regarding the relationship be-
tween section 21 (b) of the conference
agreement and the provisions of sections
102 and 103 of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, Public Law 91-190,
particularly with regard to the duties of
Federal licensing and permittting agen-
cies under the respective authorizations.
It should b clear that nothing in sub-
section 21 (b) should be interpreted as
discharging Federal licensing or permit-
ting agencies from complying with the
provisions of Public Law 90-190 as far
as they relate to any environmental im-
pact not associated with water quality
standards.
Mr. President, the conference agree-
ment includes a number of other major
provisions which are discussed in the
summary of conference action which I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the sum-
mary was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
» * * * *
[p. 8984]
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, this
conference measure is the result of al-
most 2Vz years of legislative effort and
5 months of extensive and arduous con-
ferences with the other body.
Many members of the committee as
well as the staff have labored earnestly.
The oil liability provisions were among
the most complex and controversial fea-
tures which have been considered in the
Public Works Committee in the 11 years
[p. 9003]
I have served on that committee, and
for the almost 4 years as its chairman.
Though, as I stated, all members of
the committee have contributed to this
landmark legislation, the Senator de-
serving special credit for bringing it to
fruition is the able chairman of our Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
The conference measure is an equit-
able and effective and enforceable piece
of legislation. In the oil spill provisions,
it adheres to the basic philosophy of the
Senate bill S. 7, which declared that the
oil industry and oil shippers will bear
the risk of cleanup of oil spills rather
than the public. The conference meas-
ure, I believe, on the basis of our present
information, makes a proper assignment
of liabilities and responsibilities with ef-
fective protection of the public interest.
I also add that during our consider-
ation of this vital subject, it has been
my experience that the oil industry has
shown an active desire to cooperate with
the committee in its effort to develop
effective and equitable legislation. This
attitude has also been evident among
other industrial and commercial in-
terests.
I commend not only Senator MUSKIE
for his leadership in the legislation but
also Senator COOPER, ranking minority
member of the Committee on Public
Works, but also Senator BOGGS, Senator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1967
BAKER, and other Members of both the
majority and minority for their con-
structive contributions to this significant
legislation.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, today
the Senate Members of the conference
bring back to the Senate and ask ap-
proval of a very comprehensive and ex-
cellent water pollution control bill, H.R.
4148. It was a difficult conference, be-
cause of the complex nature of the leg-
islation. Simple remedies are not
sufficient in environmental legislation.
The issues involve intergovernmental
relationships, the economic system, tech-
nology and appropriate legal measures
for enforcement. This bill attempts to
chart a course to achieve water quality
in the complex of factors I have de-
scribed.
The House- and Senate-passed bills
contained many differences. Resolving
these differences in the context of the
factors I have described required care-
ful consideration and drafting. It was a
time-consuming conference lasting from
November 1969 until March 1970, but it
has resulted in fair and necessary leg-
islation. I pay my tribute to the chair-
man of the subcommittee, Senator
MUSKIE, for his creativity and leader-
ship, to Senator BOGGS, the ranking Re-
publican members, Senator RANDOLPH,
the chairman of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works, Senators BAKER, BAYH, and
MONTOYA, for their great contribution
to the conference and their participation
in it. A similar commendation is due
the Members of the House who also
participated actively in this confer-
ence, and to the staff of both com-
mittees. I would like to say that Sen-
ator BOGGS and Senator RANDOLPH, with
their large experience, and Senator
BAKER whose leadership on the knotty
legal problems involved was so helpful,
deserve especial credit.
There are many important provisions
in this bill, but I will touch on only two
or three at this time.
OIL POLLUTION REMOVAL LIABILITY
Due in very large part to Senator
BAKER'S clear articulation of the neces-
sity of protecting the public interest
through the concept of absolute liability,
the Senate, and now the conference,
agreed upon a basic formula imposing
such liability upon owners and operators
of vessels and onshore and offshore fa-
cilities for cleanup costs incurred by the
United States. Consistent with the phi-
losophy of absolute liability, limits of
liability are provided. This is an im-
portant provision, which I consider
draws a proper balance between the
public interest and the ability of pri-
vate enterprise to respond. I think it
should be pointed out that the provision
was adopted only after the most care-
ful consideration and thorough study.
In the bill that passed the Senate any
discharge of oil in violation of levels set
by regulation was subject to fines and
removal penalties. The Conference bill
adopts the Senate approach, with addi-
tional guidance to the President in es-
tablishing, by regulation, such amounts.
Subsection 11 (b) (3) provides that the
President shall by regulation establish
those quantities of oil which will be
harmful to the public health or welfare
of the United States, including, but not
limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and
public and private property, shorelines,
and beaches. The subsection goes on to
provide with regard to the contiguous
zone that the President shall establish as
harmful quantities only those discharges
that threaten the fishery resources of the
contiguous zone or quantities which
would threaten to promote or contribute
to the pollution of the territorial sea.
It should be clear that the judgment
of harmful, in the case of the contiguous
zone, as in the case of navigable waters
of the United States and adjoining
shorelines, is to be made at the time of
the establishment of the regulation and
not at the time of the discharge of oil.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
During the course of executive ses-
sions in the Committee on Public Works,
Senator DOLE offered an amendment,
-------
1968
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
subsequently adopted by the committee,
included in the Senate bill and now in
the conference bill, separating from the
oil pollution liability provisions the leg-
islative treatment of hazardous sub-
stances discharged into the waters of the
United States. The committee recog-
nized that hazardous substances present
different problems than oil, and the solu-
tion of these problems requires addi-
tional knowledge and technology not
yet available. The conference bill main-
tains the provision of the Senate bill,
establishing a new designation proce-
dure for hazardous substances, and re-
quiring notice when such designated
substances are discharged. The confer-
ence bill further authorizes an acceler-
ated study of the removal methods and
enforcement measures appropriate to
deal with releases of hazardous sub-
stances into the waters of the United
States.
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE
It is possible that the most significant
provision in this bill is the section,
section 21, requiring compliance with
water quality standards by Federal fa-
cilities and activities and by federally
licensed or permitted facilities and ac-
tivities. The conference bill maintains
the position of the Senate bill that the
Federal Government shall comply with
water quality standards in the conduct
of all of its activities. The President has
already taken a significant step in this
direction in the Executive order issued
in February, Executive order No. 11507.
Section 21 (a) provides clear authority
for the President to achieve this com-
pliance.
Following the same concept, section
21 (b) of the conference bill will require
those activities which the Federal Gov-
ernment licenses or permits to comply
with water quality standards. At the
time the bill passed the Senate, it in-
cluded an amendment offered by Sena-
tor MATHIAS requiring public hearings in
State procedures leading to issuance of
a certification of compliance with water
quality. The conference bill adds a re-
quirement that the State must give no-
tice of all applications received by such
State for certification pursuant to sub-
section 21 (b). Maintaining the inten-
tion of the Mathias amendment, it
provides that the State will provide an
opportunity for public hearings as it
deems appropriate, I believe it correct to
say it was the intent of the conference
that a State may, without a public hear-
ing, pass upon certification requests of a
routine nature which do not involve
risks to water quality. However, the
committee expects the opportunity for
public hearings to be provided upon
projects that involve significant risks to
water quality for which certification is
being sought. This should certainly in-
clude most licenses issued by the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Federal Power
Commission, and dredge and fill permits
of the Corps of Engineers.
TITLE II
The last specific provision I would like
to touch upon is that establishing in the
Executive Office of the President an Of-
fice of Environmental Quality. This
provision is very closely related to the
National Environmental Policy Act,
Public Law 91-190, which established the
Council on Environmental Quality. It
will be recalled that the relationship of
these two acts was described prior to the
adoption of S. 7 by the Senate on Octo-
ber 8, 1969. The conference bill further
supports the Office of Environmental
Quality, with particular emphasis on its
function of providing a competent pro-
fessional staff to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
The statutory responsibilities placed
upon the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Office of Environmental
Quality are large and broad; without
competent staff these responsibilities will
not be met. The public's concern over
environmental quality is well known;
the President's commitment to achieve
it is also well known. Therefore, it was
incumbent on us to provide adequate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1969
staff authority and I believe the confer-
[p. 9004]
ence will do so. The conference bill also
designates that the chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality es-
tablished by Public Law 91-190 shall
serve as the Director of the Office of
Environmental Quality. We look for-
ward to the implementation of the au-
thority to establish the office, and believe
that together with Public Law 91-190
the authority is at hand to begin the task
of responding to the demand for and
interest in environmental quality.
Mr. President, my colleague, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS) , had hoped to be on the floor
when this important conference report
was discussed. It is his belief that this
is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that will be considered by the
91st Congress, and he had very much
hoped to be here today when the con-
ference report is to be acted upon by the
Senate. However, he is necessarily ab-
sent. In his absence, he has asked me
to place in the RECORD the statement he
intended to make on the Senate floor.
I would like to say that Senator BOGGS,
as ranking minority member of the sub-
committee, and of the Senate conferees,
worked indefatigably upon the bill and
the conference report. His knowledge,
experience and leadership contributed
in very large degree to this important
legislation now before the Senate for
final action.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator
BOGGS' statement be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Mr. BOGGS. Mr President, approximately
one year has passed since the Senate Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution began
executive sessions to mark up the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969. During
that period of time the Subcommittee, the
full Committee on Public Works, the Senate,
and finally the Committee on Conference in-
vestigated and discussed the knotty issues
that run throughout this legislation.
This bill, as the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Cooper) and others
have pointed out, seeks to deal with many
aspects of water pollution, each a diffi-
cult and time-consuming issue. This bill
deals with the pollution of our waters with
petroleum, sewage from vessels, acid mine
drainage, licensing of facilities discharging
into interstate waters, and several other
water pollution problems.
Senator Cooper has discussed several of
these aspects of this legislation. He has
pointed out the very helpful and construc-
tive role played by Senator Baker in develop-
ing language that deals with liability for an
oil spill. I support Senator Cooper's com-
ments.
There are two other aspects of this legisla-
tion that I believe merit comment. One con-
cerns sewage discharges from vessels The
Conference Report contains language that is
very similar to the bill approved by the
Senate. This is true in relation to the certifi-
cation of devices for installation aboard
pleasure and commercial craft
The major alteration from the Senate ver-
sion appears in Subsection (f) of Section 13
of the new bill. The original Senate version
left to the States the determination on
whether sewage discharges should be barred
completely in specific areas within that State
if the "implementation of applicable water
quality standards requires such prohibi-
tion."
The House version gave the States a right
to bar sewage discharge only in waters where
all other discharges of sewage were pro-
hibited
The new proposed version wisely inserts
the Secretary of the Interior into this pro-
cedure. Under the compromise version, a
State may apply to the Secretary for the
right to prohibit discharges in a specified
area. The Secretary may then prohibit such
discharges in that area if he finds that com-
pliance with applicable water quality stand-
ards requires such a prohibition
This new language, I believe, preserves the
intent of the Senate version, leaving with
the States the right to achieve as full pro-
tection as possible in the areas of shellfish
beds, marinas, drinking water intakes, bath-
ing beaches, and other areas that could be
adversely affected by a discharge from even
the most highly treated vessel sewage
Another portion of the bill to which I
would like to address myself is Sections 16,
17, and 18 of H.R. 4148, submitted by the
Committee on Conference. These sections
provide for a very essential program for the
education and training of personnel to plan,
develop, operate, and maintain existing and
future water quality programs
The Senate version, which appeared in
Subsection (g) of Section 104 had provided
-------
1970
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for a pilot program under which the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
would train several thousand technicians to
make certain that the costly pollution con-
trol facilities we are building throughout the
nation will be operated in the most effective
and efficient manner possible. This section
had been proposed by the distinguished Re-
publican Leader (Mr. Scott).
This training program is retained in the
proposed bill offered by the Committee on
Conference. The new version also includes a
House proposal for scholarship programs and
"innovative and experimental programs" for
the training of persons in the operation and
maintenance of sewage treatment work.
Together, these proposals offer a balanced
approach toward alleviating any shortages
now existing in the water treatment field.
In addition, I want to express my grati-
tude to the distinguished ranking Republi-
can Member of the Committee on Public
Works (Mr. Cooper), the distinguished
Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Randolph),
the distinguished Chairman of the Subcom-
mittee (Mr. Muskie), as well as the other
distinguished members of the Conference on
the part of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Each devoted a great deal
of time in an effort to resolve numerous
differences in approach and language in the
Senate and House bills.
The resulting bill has my full support. It
is legislation that will go far in coming
months and years to enhance the quality of
our nation's water resources.
A NEW ADVANCE IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST
POLLUTION
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the bill to which we are giving final ap-
proval today, and which I am proud to
cosponsor, is another landmark in our
effort to curb water polllution.
Specifically, the bill will hopefully en-
courage the oil companies who drill for
oil off the U.S. coastline to exercise
greater care. We have seen too many
examples of what oil leaks can do to a
stretch of beach, to marine and animal
life, and to the ecology of any region
where they occur. This bill fixes abso-
lute liability for oil leaks on those from
whose wells they occur. Hopefully,
these companies will now be far more
careful in their work.
The other part of the bill which I feel
will greatly assist in the Nation's effort
to curb water pollution is the one which
provides for research into oil removal
and lake pollution. In spite of the fact
that we have seen the damage which
oil can do, we know very little about
rapid, effective ways to remove it from
beaches and from the water's surface.
Also, although we have watched the
slow "death" of Lake Erie, we know too
little, I think, about the processes which
caused this problem, or about how to
remedy it. Hopefully, the bill will help
us in our search for ways to handle these
problems.
Mr. President, this is the sixth major
piece of water pollution control legisla-
tion I have either cosponsored or sup-
ported since I came to the Senate in 1957.
I think its passage will give further evi-
dence of our determination to stop the
slow destruction of the earth. I urge the
adoption of the conference report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on agreeing to the
conference report.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BELLMON). The question is on agreeing
to the conference report.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
* # # * *
[p. 9005]
The result was announced—yeas 80,
nays 0, as follows:
So the conference report was agreed
to.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the con-
ference report just adopted establishes a
foundation for improving our capability
to control oil pollution, vessel pollution,
and thermal pollution.
It is gratifying that the Senate concept
of absolute liability for the cleanup of
oil spills has prevailed in the conference.
About 6 billion gallons of petroleum
products pass through the Port of
Hampton Roads each year, and there
have been several spills which damaged
the harbor.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1971
The concept of absolute liability places
the risk of the responsible party, not in-
nocent third parties and the general
public. Provision for criminal penalties
for failure to give notice of a spill should
expedite cleanup action.
Other desirable features of the oil pol-
lution section of the bill authorize ex-
panded research for the development of
new cleanup methods, and contingency
planning against oil pollution disasters.
The report takes a preventive ap-
proach toward activities over which the
Federal Government already exercises a
degree of control. Applicants for a Fed-
eral license or permit to build or operate
any facility which might discharge pol-
lutants into navigable waters would be
required to comply with applicable
water quality standards. In most in-
stances, the certification would come
from the State in which the discharge
occurs. These provisions would assure
that thermal discharges from such fa-
cilities as nuclear powerplants would
conform to water quality standards.
The vessel pollution section provides
for Federal preemption of authority to
set performance standards for marine
sanitation devices. I hope the Depart-
ment of Defense will expedite its pro-
gram to equip naval vessels with sewage
treatment equipment, and will request
the funds necessary to carry out the in-
tention of the legislation.
Mr. President, the Senate conferees
are to be commended for their persever-
ance in reconciling the differences in the
Senate and House versions of this legis-
lation. They have been meeting on a
regular basis since last October 8. In
particular as a member of the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution, I
wish to thank the Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE) , our distinguished chair-
man, and the ranking minority member
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Booos).
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am grati-
fied that the House-Senate conference
has agreed on the provisions of H.R. 4148,
to prevent and control water pollution.
After the Santa Barabra incident and
the more immediate oil spillage in Loui-
siana, the Congress has moved rapidly
to take appropriate legislative action.
As statements on the increasing size and
use of oil tankers are made available,
the threat of greater pollution to our
navigable waterways is becoming even
more apparent.
Throughout our committee hearings
and in the House-Senate conference, it
became apparent that there was a wide
diversity of views on this legislation.
Questions raised on liability and other
sections of the legislation have now been
resolved. I was particularly pleased to
see that the conference accepted a sec-
tion of S. 7, which dealt with the prob-
lem of the discharge of hazardous
substances. The Senate Public Works
Committee became aware of the fact that
hazardous substances could not be
treated as an equivalent of oil and sub-
ject to the same provisions of liability
for the cost of removal.
Two important differences required
that hazardous substances be treated
separately: First, oil is a readily recog-
nizable substance that is not miscible
with water; hazardous substances, on the
other hand, cover a tremendous range of
chemical elements and compounds with
various characteristics, and, second, oil
is, at least in most circumstances, re-
movable from water; hazardous sub-
stances, on the other hand, may or may
not be.
Faced with this difficult situation, I
offered an amendment to separate haz-
ardous substances from the oil liability
provisions to enable a response to the
clear problem of the sudden discharge
of hazardous substances into our navi-
gable waterways.
The amendment I proposed which,
with certain modifications, was adopted
by the committee and the House-Senate
conference, provides essential authority
to give this Nation the ability to respond.
I commend the Senate conferees for
their dedication during the months of
discussion and urge acceptance of this
report.
-------
1972
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, the grim
details of water pollution in America are
a cause of grave national concern. A
few facts reveal why.
Last year an estimated 15 million fish
were killed by oil spills and heat and
chemical pollution.
The Cuyahoga River in Ohio is so
noxious that even the leeches and sludge
worms that thrive on the bottom of nor-
mally polluted waters cannot survive.
And the surface of this river is so satu-
rated with flammable substances that the
river has actually been declared a fire
hazard. There is good reason for this:
last year the river caught fire and nearly
destroyed two railroad trestles.
Representative LOWELL WEICKER, of
Connecticut, has come up with these
facts:
Of 62 beaches along Lake Erie's U.S.
shores, only three are rated completely safe
for swimming. Even wading is unpleasant
because 30,000 sludge worms may be found in
each square yard of lake bottom. . . . When
you dive into Long Island Sound, you are
diving into 196 million gallons of waste that
comes from 46 municipal plants, 59 Indus-
trial plants and seven Federal installations
every day.
The Hudson River is so thoroughly
polluted that the streambed is laden with
excess pollutants. These pollutants are
excess in the sense that they are not
carried by the water. But they are still
a threat.
Experts estimate that if, starting to-
morrow, not a single drop or grain or
pollution were ever again put into the
Hudson, water washing over pollution on
the streambed would repollute the river
constantly for as long as 15 years. Or, to
put the matter differently, if we cleansed
the Hudson at point "A," riverbed
pollution would make it necessary to
cleanse it again at point "B" 15 miles
downstream. That is, there is enough
settled pollution in the Hudson to re-
pollute it every 15 miles.
The Ohio River serves a 10 State
drainage area with a population of 24
million persons and 38,000 industrial
plants. Nearly a billion dollars has been
spent in the past 20 years to clean it up.
Meanwhile the Army Corps of Engi-
neers has been laboring on the same
stretch of water, improving it for navi-
gation. But the engineers have been
creating, in effect, a series of reservoirs
along the river route. These do not
drain well. Pollution accumulates, in-
cluding the thermal pollution that raises
the temperature of various pools in the
river. Both of these programs—the an-
tipollution efforts and the Corps of Engi-
neers efforts—are worthwhile. But the
net effect may be to take away with one
hand what is given with the other.
Today efforts are being made to
improve coordination between the Engi-
neers Corps and the Interior De-
partment's Water Pollution Control
Administration.
There is a form of water pollution—
and it is extremely destructive—that
need not involve putting any chemical
impurities into the water. This is the
thermal pollution mentioned above. It
involves raising the water temperature.
It occurs when a plant uses water in cool-
ing processes and returns heated water
to a river or lake. Any significant change
[p. 9006]
in the temperature of a body of water
can destroy the animal and plant life
that nature uses to keep the water bal-
anced and continually renewed.
For example, warm water may cause
fish eggs to hatch prematurely and, be-
cause warm water absorbs less oxygen,
it slows the decomposition of organic
wastes.
Most of the water used by American
industry is used for cooling. And the
amount used for cooling purposes in nu-
clear powerplants generating electricity
is astonishing. For example, a 500-mil-
lion-watt nuclear plant that is cooled by
a lake or river must pump approximately
7,650 gallons of cooling water every sec-
ond. That is approximately 660 million
gallons per day.
Present and future demands indicate that
industrial cooling water, when viewed on the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1973
national scale, is a first order source of waste
heat. The electric power generating industry
alone accounts for about 80% of the cooling
water used Therefore, the best single index
of the thermal pollution potential lies in
projecting future electric power production.
Power generation has approximately doubled
each 10 years during this century, and esti-
mated future demands indicate a shortening
of the time span for similar increases. Waste
heat output has not multiplied as fast as
power generation because of continued im-
provements in thermal plant efficiency and
development of hydropower. However, fos-
sil-fueled plants are reaching a limit of effi-
ciency because of metallurgical restrictions,
and nuclear plants, planned or built, neces-
sarily waste an even higher proportion of heat
than fossil-fueled plants. Waste heat increase
can be expected to more closely parallel
power production increase in the foreseeable
future.
With these considerations in mind, heat
rejection from the predicted mixture of nu-
clear and fossil power plants is expected to
increase almost ninefold by the year 2000.
Waste heat output from the manufacturing
industries will also increase. However, the
demand for electricity is expected to con-
tinue to increase at a more pronounced rate
than the demand for manufactured goods.
This indicates a somewhat smaller rate of
increase in heat rejection from manufactur-
ing as compared with the power industry.
Numerous cooling devices—for exam-
ple, cooling ponds and towers—and cool-
ing techniques—for example, methods of
dispersing and diluting warm water dis-
charges—are already being used. Con-
siderable research is being devoted to
perfecting these and developing new de-
vices and techniques. Concern for
America's energy needs and for our
water resources should motivate active
Government support for such research.
This seems especially imperative when
we consider the facts about America's
huge appetite for clean water.
It takes 200 gallons to make a dollar's
worth of paper. It takes 100,000 gallons
to make one car. It takes 320,000 gallons
to produce one ton of aluminum. It
takes 750,000 gallons to irrigate an acre
of farmland. National water usage is
350 billion gallons a day. Three hundred
and fifty billion gallons would form a
puddle 1 foot deep over an area one and
a half times the size of the State of
Rhode Island.
By the year 2000 we may be using a
trillion gallons of water a day.
Domestic sewers alone account for 5.3
trillion gallons of waste water per year.
One scientist has estimated that by 1980
sewage and related waterborne waste
will be so voluminous that in dry sea-
sons they will consume all the oxygen
in our river systems. That would se-
verely damage our fresh water re-
sources, especially when we consider
that by 1980 we will be using fresh water
at twice the current rate.
Much can be done to end pollution
by vigorously enforcing existing laws,
including some laws that have been
around for a very long time.
The Justice Department has recently
filed criminal charges against a number
of firms—and some individuals—accused
of polluting waterways. The charges
involve an attempt to use an 1899 law in
the modern fight on water pollution.
The Refuse Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407)
makes the deposit of pollutants into
navigable waters a misdemeanor pun-
ishable by a maximum fine of $2,500 and
a year in prison for each offense.
The punishment provision contains an
informer clause which could generate an
interesting kind of citizen participation
in the antipollution fight. This clause
stipulates that half the fines collected
are to be given to any citizen whose in-
formation leads to a conviction.
But there is another aspect of this law
that deserves attention. This is the $2,-
500 limit on the fine that can be col-
lected for each offense.
Assume for the moment that a jail
sentence is not applicable in a particular
case. But also assume that the case
involves a firm that discharges pollu-
tants once a day, thereby making itself
liable to being recharged under the stat-
ute each day.
If this firm were charged—every day
of the year, and fined the maximum
amount each day, the total 1-year cost
to the firm would be $912,000.
This looks like an awesome total-—
until one considers the huge cost, in
-------
1974
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
capital outlay and maintenance, of some
pollution abatement systems. It is not
inconceivable that a firm might wish to
be fined the maximum amount, 365 days
a year, rather than go to the expense of
ending pollution.
In such a case, the fine would, in effect,
cease to be a fine and would become a
kind of tax. The trouble with this is
twofold. First, it would not do what the
law intended—it would not diminish
pollution. Second, behavior we tax is
behavior we think is permissible. If
firms are allowed to treat a fine as a tax,
they will be allowed to treat pollution as
permissible. This cannot be allowed.
Thus, there must be a constant review
of the punishment provision of such
statutes, to make sure the fines are effec-
tive inducements to pollution control by
industries.
However, the administration recog-
nizes that the task of ending water
pollution demands more than vigorous
police action. It also requires new
knowledge and new equipment. This is
especially urgent in attacking pollution
caused by inadequate municipal sewage
treatment facilities. Here massive capi-
tal investment is needed.
Since 1952 the Nation has spent $15
billion to construct 7,500 municipal sew-
age-treatment plants and related facili-
ties. But much more needs to be done
and it needs to be done in large cities.
In the 12 years between 1956 and 1968,
about half the new waste treatment fa-
cilities were built in towns with popu-
lations of less than 2,500 and 92 percent
were built in towns with populations
under 50,000.
In his message to Congress on the en-
vironment the President notes:
In the four years since the Clean Waters
Restoration Act of 1966 was passed, we have
failed to keep our promises to ourselves:
Federal appropriations for constructing mu-
nicipal treatment plants have totaled only
about one-third of authorizations.
It is estimaed that a 5-year program
involving a $10 billion investment in
treatment plants and interceptor lines
will be needed to meet national water
quality standards.
Accordingly, the President proposes a
Clean Waters Act involving an immedi-
ate $4 billion for fiscal 1971 to cover the
full Federal share of the $10 billion total
on a matching fund basis.
But another program is needed to in-
sure that non-Federal bodies will be able
to meet their obligations.
The municipal bond market is so satu-
rated that in 1969 509 issues totaling $2.9
billion proved unsalable. Thus the Pres-
ident proposes "a new Environmental
Financial Authority to insure that every
municipality in the country has an op-
portunity to sell its waste treatment
plant construction bonds."
The EFA will buy unsalable bonds and
sell its own bonds on the taxable market.
In this way the President seeks to en-
sure that "construction of pollution con-
trol facilities will depend not on a
community's credit rating, but on its
waste disposal needs."
The President has also urged that Fed-
eral assistance carry some conditions.
First, federally assisted treatment
plants must comply with Federal design,
operation, and maintenance standards.
Second, municipalities receiving Federal
assistance in constructing plants will be
required to impose user's fees on indus-
trial users. These fees must be sufficient
to meet the costs of treating industrial
wastes. This is a fair response to exist-
ing conditions.
In 1968, public sewers handled 15 per-
cent of the industry's waste water.
Forty percent of all the wastes handled
by municipalities came from industry.
Three hundred thousand industrial
plants discharge used water into munici-
pal sewage treatment plants that are not
equipped to process complex industrial
pollutants.
As the President says in his environ-
ment message:
Industry itself has recognized the problem,
and many industrial firms are making vigor-
ous efforts to control their water-borne
wastes. But strict standards and strict en-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1975
forcement are nevertheless necessary—not
only to ensure compliance, but also in fair-
ness to those who have voluntarily assumed
the often costly burden while their competi-
tors have not. Good neighbors should not be
Placed at a competitive disadvantage because
of their good neighborliness.
[p. 9007]
The President also proposes to attack
industrial pollution by consolidating
governmental jurisdictions, imposing
more precise and stringent effluent re-
quirements, and strengthening police
powers and sanctions.
His program calls for granting the
Secretary of the Interior authority to
seek immediate injunctive relief in
emergency water pollution situations.
Under the proposed program, failure to
meet Federal standards or implementa-
tion schedules could result in court-im-
posed fines of up to $10,000 per day.
Further, the President wants to increase
three-fold Federal operating grants to
State pollution control enforcement
agencies in the next 5 years. This would
involve an increase from $10 million to
$30 million by 1976.
In addition, we need to consider
sharply curbing our use of certain kinds
of common products that are especially
damaging to water. The household de-
tergent is a good example.
No one wants to choose between clean
water and clean laundry, but something
must be done about phosphates in deter-
gents. Phosphates pollute all water and
hasten the aging of lakes.
Five billion pounds of detergent were
sold last year. Some of these consisted
of as much as 44 percent phosphate.
Canada is planning to ban phosphate
detergents. It might be well worth
our while to have strict standards
governing permissible phosphate content
of detergents.
Further, we must become more alert
to the many ways in which normal ac-
tivities, and unspectacular developments
in business conditions, can combine to
create a threat to our environment.
Consider one example of this combina-
tion. We do not normally think that
changing our car's oil threatens the en-
vironment. But America's 210,000 serv-
ice stations must dispose of 350 million
gallons of used oil every year. For many
years much of this used oil was re-re-
fined and put to work in railroad jour-
nals, to freeze-proof coal, as dust
control for rural roads and as industrial
lubricants.
But for a variety of reasons, re-refin-
ing has become a marginal business. In
the last 7 years at least half the re-refin-
ers have gone out of business and too
much used and unsalable oil is being
dumped into city sewer systems.
Research should be directed toward
finding ways of collecting and reusing
this used oil.
Finally, one crucial fact we sometimes
overlook is this: Even in our booming
industrial society, siltation is the largest
single pollutant of water. Thus all rec-
lamation programs, and all programs
aimed at fighting erosion, are important
parts of a comprehensive attack on water
pollution.
Mr. President, one of Benjamin Frank-
lin's timely sayings is this:
When the well's dry, we know the worth
of water
Today we can revise that to read:
When the water is polluted, we will know
the worth of water.
Hopefully we already know the worth
of water. Certainly we in the West know
how much of America's bountiful life de-
pends on adequate supplies of fresh
water.
We have no intention of waiting until
America's waters are ruined before we
become alert to the value of water. We
know it is time to act.
Mr. President, we are not asking for
miracles. We are not expecting anyone
to turn water into wine. We just want
to preserve clean water, and to find ways
of restoring polluted waters.
Most of the earth is coverd with
water. No water is immune from pollu-
tion. Thus the fight for clean water is a
fight of global proportions, with immense
stakes.
-------
1976
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
But a livable environment—like char- work together to save our waters which
ity—must begin at home. Let us all give such lasting benefits to us all.
[p. 9008]
1.2k(4)(d) Vol. 116 (1970), March 25: House agreed to conference
report, pp. 9325-9334
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4148,
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
ACT OF 1970
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R.
4148) to amend the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous con-
sent that the statement of the managers
on the part of the House be read in lieu
of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER (Mr. EDMONDSON) . Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, are we going to have
an explanation of the Senate action on
this joint conference?
Mr. FALLON. Yes.
Mr. HALL. I withdraw my reserva-
tion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceeding of the House of March
24, 1970.)
Mr. FALLON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK) .
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, for
many years I have risen in the well of
this House to urge support of a mean-
ingful water pollution program and over
the years this House has consistently
supported an ever-increasing and more
far-reaching legislation to cover the
means to guarantee pure water for all
Americans.
I appear here on this floor today to
urge adoption of the conference report
on H.R. 4148. This is legislation which is
another great step forward in our con-
tinuing battle to maintain the purity of
our Nation's waters.
There are not many pieces of legisla-
tion which one can call "landmark" leg-
islation. H.R. 4148 is in that category.
It comes to this body for final approval
today after some 2% years of arduous
work by both bodies of the Congress.
This conference report has been ham-
mered out after long weeks and months
of discussions in conference. It breaks
into many new fields in our effort to
curb the ever-growing threat of the pol-
lution of our Nation's waters whether
they be along our coast or inland waters.
It contains such features as control of
pollution by oil. It establishes for the
first time in this category a clean-up
authority; it also places strict features
of liabilty on those who would ship oil.
In the matter of vessels it establishes a
category of $100 per gross ton or $14
million liability whichever is the lesser
and in the field of on-shore and off-
shore installations the figure is $8
million.
It moves into the area of operation of
the small boat owners who move across
our Nation's waterways in ever increas-
ing thousands. It provides the basis for
a meaningful control of pollution dis-
charge from these vessels under the rules
and regulations to be worked out jointly
by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Sec-
•retary of the Interior.
For the first time it establishes a re-
quirement that when those who seek a
license or permit from a Federal agency
for the use of our Nation's waters
whether it be to build nuclear power
plants, steam power plants, or any other
uses of our navigable waters they must
give reasonable assurances that the op-
eration of whatever they seek to require
a permit for will not lower the water
pollution standards of the waters of a
particular State. It goes into the field of
acid mine drainage research, pollution
control in the Great Lakes, land ac-
quisition for field laboratories for the
studying of various forms of pollution;
oil pollution removal research; extension
of the basic research authorization pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1977
gram now in existing law; a clean lakes
research section; language to require de-
velopment of scientific knowledge on the
effects of pesticides in the environment,
a pilot training program and an addi-
tional program to give those who would
operate our Nation's sanitary facilities
the best background and experience to
carry out the job for staffing for our all
important Council on Environmental
Quality. These, among many, are the
highlights of this legislation. I could go
on at length about its many features.
Time does not permit. Suffice to say
that today this is vital, necessary and
important legislation. I am proud to
have been a part of its development both
in the Committtee on Public Works and
on the conference with the other body.
I am particularly proud of my fellow
conferees, the gentleman for Alabama
(Mr. JONES) ; the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. WRIGHT) ; the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. FALLON) ; our distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Public Works; the ranking member of
the committee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. CRAMER); the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) ; and the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. GROVER) .
I strongly support adoption of the
conference report.
We had splendid cooperation from all
the Members and especially splendid co-
operation from the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) . He is a tireless, per-
sistent worker who wants to know about
every dot and comma.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. Mr Speaker, I appreciate
the gentleman's statement, and I agree
with him that this is landmark legisla-
tion, and certainly it is needed. I join
with the gentleman in complimenting
the Members who have brought this con-
ference report into being and certainly
compliment the members of the
committee.
Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman
please tell us wherein the Senate amend-
ments differ from the House-passed leg-
islation and the differences in cost
authorized in this bill?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I do not
have the figures here, but we have a de-
tailed analysis of the figures and it will
appear in the RECORD at this point.
H.R. 4148 (AS PASSED THE HOUSE)—AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS
Item
Training grants and contracts
Estuary research extension
training extention.
Pollution control Great Lakes
Section
identification
1 7fhVl\
19(d)(l)
• 23(c)(3)
•5(k)4)
5(1)
6(e)
1970
$20 000 000
15 000 000
. 12,000,000
. 1,000,000
65 000 000
60 000 000
1971 1972
$25,000,000 $25,000,000
62 000 000
60 000 000 . . .
Total
amount
$20 000 000
15,000,000
62,000,000
1,000,000
130 000 000
120,000,000
20,000,000
Total
173,000,000 150,000,000 25,000,000 368,000,000
S. 7 (as passed the Senate) authorized
the following appropriations
Clean up revolving fund $ 50,000,000
Acid mine drainage reserve 15,000,000
Pollution Control in the Great
Lakes 20,000,000
Estuarine Study 1,000,000
General research ($65 million
for 2 years) 130,000,000
Manpower (2 years) 71,000,000
Project research extension
($60 million for 2 years) 120,000,000
407,500,000
Alaska Village Water Supply
and Sanitation 5,000,000
Total
412,500,000
[p. 9325]
-------
1978
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
»• 0
rH OrHOrHprH^J
fs. ?•»•. r*. f*- r*» t^- r^. f1- i
O> O C> O» Oi Cf> O) O> '
§000000000
ooooooooo
o ooooooooo
goooooomino
oooooor^csiin
R" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8 ""-'"
ra
g
£25?
25
8
^J
o> 2
III
o o
o o
0 0
o o
-So
in" a
rH CM
3 O C
3 O O
3 O O
> O C
5 O C
3 0 C
jag
r
H
•1
j
)
n
y
• o o
:gg
:§§
. p_ C
• C«T rH
• to
SSR
222
§0 0
o o
o o
o~ o o"
ggg
CM m m
S""
; I
; g
c
*-
;
c>
c
a
0
:§
• O
:§
; <^"
O rH O
rs r^. r^
O) O> 0)
rH rH rH
|g|
111
o o in
--R
,
'.
•
bfl C-
J- c S
?4_i O1
« C
* X ~ ^
S ^ c
j * o! ^
is « ^
bo • jr-
.E s=>!G
'>
1
£
!*
« .5?
T) M
is-I
= S2l
O < U I-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1979
Mr. Speaker, the total cost for the pro-
visions of this conference report amount
to $406 million. That compares to the
House version which asked for a total
of $368 million, so it is about $58 million
more than the House version. The Sen-
ate version, as I recall, was higher and
we will get the exact figures. I think we
worked out a pretty good compromise
figure.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I would
point out in reply to the gentleman from
Missouri that in the House bill the re-
volving fund on oil pollution authorized
the expenditure of $20 million, and the
Senate asked for $50 million, and we
compromised there on $35 million. In
addition to that, the Alaska demonstra-
tion projects were not included in the
House version. The Senate bill called
for $5 million for 1970 and unlimited
sums for the next 3 years. In addition
to that, we agreed to a Senate training
amendment adding an additional $17.5
million to that area.
But, in title II, which deals with the
Environmental Quality Council and es-
tablishment of the Director of Environ-
mental Quality, once more the House
bill had no comparable provisions, and
we compromised the House version with
the Senate version and came up with title
II in the conference report which has an
authorized expenditure of $3.5 million.
There was one other item of research
of an additional $1 million. This makes
a total increase over the House-passed
version of $38 million.
The House-passed version, if I am not
mistaken, totaled $368 million.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman.
If the gentleman will yield further,
may I be reassured that all the conferees
agreed and that the changes to the
House version would be considered ger-
mane within the rules of the House?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. As far as I know,
they are germane within the rules of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for the very thoughtful and generous
expression regarding the work on this
report.
(Mr. CRAMER (at the request of Mr.
HARSHA) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, the great
American Poet John Greenleaf Whittier
wrote:
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the
saddest are these: It might have been!
The conference report we have before
us is a good illustration of both the
truth of these words on the one hand and
the opposite of them on the other hand;
for part of what "might have been"
would in this case indeed have been
very, very sad, but what will be is, as a
result of much hard work, much happier.
The Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1970 was able, as a result of diligent
study and as a result of sad experience,
to improve many areas of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1968, which
this House twice passed in that year and
which died awaiting Senate action when
the 90th Congress came to a close.
An illustration of this, Mr. Speaker,
may be found in section 102 of the con-
ference substitute. This section deals
with the control of oil pollution. In 1968
the House of Representatives refused to
acquiesce to a Senate amendment that
would have placed a $5 million limitation
of liability on discharges from offshore
facilities. Members of this body, and I
am proud to say that I was among the
leaders of them, refused to give such
an obvious bonanza to oil companies
operating under leases with the U.S.
Government for the purpose of utilizing
U.S. submerged lands on the Outer Con-
tinental Shelf to produce oil. We pointed
out that there was no reason to limit the
liability of those facilities. That the Sec-
retary of Interior had the power to im-
pose any limitations that he sees fit,
including, but not limited to, absolute
-------
1980
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
liability and responsibility for the full
payment of clean-up costs in case of a
spill. With the change from the John-
son administration to the Nixon ad-
ministration the change in regulations
took place so that oil companies engaged
in offshore drilling under lease by the
U.S. government were made so liable and
so responsible.
If we had accepted the Senate version
then these wells including that responsi-
ble for the spill in Louisiana would have
been liable for not more than $5 million
worth of damage. I do not know but I
believe that the instances of Santa Bar-
bara and the recent spill on the gulf off
Louisiana may have resulted in a change
of position upon the part of the other
body. Insofar as onshore facilities or
offshore facilities, which are within
State jurisdiction, our investigation
showed that $8 million was a reasonable
limitation of liability. But it should be
borne in mind that this limitation of
liability is solely for cleanup costs by
the United States and does not proport
to limit liability that might be imposed
by State law or that exists under com-
mon law. Comparing then our position
of today with the position that would
have resulted if this body agreed in 1968
to the arbitrary limits inserted in the
Senate bill, the wisdom or action at that
time is magnified and confirmed. Simi-
larly, in the area of vessel pollution, we
have been able to derive a formula that
is better than the 1968 bill, that is bet-
ter than the Senate version of H.R. 4148,
and indeed is better than the House ver-
sion of H.R. 4148. In this, I feel particu-
larly proud that as a member of the
conference committee, I was able to
bring directly to the attention of the
conferees the benefits of lessons learned
from the deplorable incident that took
place in Tampa Bay when the Greek
tanker, the Delian Appolon, spilled oil
into our waters and upon our beaches.
Directly as a result of this spill, I pro-
posed several amendments, most of
which were accepted—one of which was
not.
The Delian Appolon spill demon-
strated that our resources have not been
gathered together for the prevention of
damage when a spill does occur. It high-
lighted the lack of an effective contin-
gency plan and led me to believe that
whatever plan did exist was nothing
more than a paper exercise, now out-
dated and of little practical use. As a
result, my amendment which was
adopted requires the President to de-
velop a national contingency plan within
60 days. This plan provides for a com-
plete guide to what should be done in
case of oil spills and what should be on
hand to minimize damage from oil spills,
contain them and clean up the oil from
[p. 9326]
our waters, our shorelines, and our
beaches. It provides for a designation of
a strike force to go in immediately and
stop the damage wherever it can. It pro-
vides for designation for equipment that
should be kept on hand recognizing that
this equipment will vary from location to
location. Further, it requires a schedule
of the waters of this country to indicate
which of them can safely be subjected
to chemical treatment of oil spills for
the purpose of disbursing or making
more sinkable the oil and which can-
not. The schedule will also make quite
clear what limits and which disbursants
may be used. In case of doubt, the
schedule, of course, may need to provide
that the wisdom of an on-the-scene ex-
pert to be designated by the President
must be drawn upon before which such
chemicals can be used. The important
thing is that the on-the-scene people
will know which chemicals can be used,
which cannot, and which waters would
be so deleteriously affected by chemical
treatment that the protection of the ecol-
ogy demanded that such treatment
would not be used.
Strange as it may seem, Mr. Speaker,
after all our experience with oil spills
very little is known about the theory of
containment of oil spills and very few
really effective devices have been devel-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1981
oped. I am happy to see that there is
some private research being conducted
in this area and I think those that are
doing it should be complimented for it.
However, I feel that this is an area in
which leadership should be exercised by
the United States and, consequently,
have offered an amendment which the
conferees accepted. It would require
research by the United States or its des-
ignee for the development of contain-
ment devices and procedures.
The Tampa Bay oil spill, caused by a
vessel which just a few days earlier had
polluted the waters of Port Everglades,
Fla., and which may indeed have been
involved in another spill just a few days
after the Tampa incident, illustrated the
need for inspection of vessels as a means
of prevention of oil spills. The conferees
accepted my amendment which provided
for this inspection of vessels and cargo. I
regret to say that they did not accept
the portion of this amendment—which,
incidently, as were the other amend-
ments offered in this regard approved by
the administration—was not accepted.
This would have permitted samples to
be taken from oil cargos so that in case
of spills identification could be made
from the spill material as to its source.
I feel that it is unfortunate that this
provision was stricken and hope that
perhaps in the future we can revise the
statute to include such a provision pro-
vided, of course, that the Secretary of
Interior or the Secretary of the Depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating does not have that authority under
some other law.
There are three examples as just stated
whereby what came to pass was better
than what might have been if the United
States had accepted the Senate's amend-
ments in 1968.
In the area of pollution by oil spills
from vessels, I might say that the con-
ference substitute is better than either
the House bill or the Senate bill. As the
Members of this body will recall, the
position of this body was that limitations
of liability and imposition of liability
should not be such as to preclude the
possibility of recovery of clean-up costs
from the discharger. We felt that the
gauge of this liability should be whether
or not insurance could be obtained to
cover these events. Consequently, the
House bill provided for limitations of
liability for vessels based upon an evalu-
ation of the world insurance market for
this new type of risk. The Senate posi-
tion was based upon figures for which
we could find no substantiation in their
hearings and which we were assured
were completely uninsurable.
Both Houses recognized the difficulty
of proving fault as the basis of recovery.
The House solved this problem by pro-
viding for reversal of burden of proof
while the Senate came to the same re-
sult by defining liability not based upon
fault.
The conference was able to work out
a compromise accepting the best fea-
tures of both the House and the Senate
positions. We arrived at a limitation of
liability based on what we call strict lia-
bility. That is, regardless of fault and
with certain very limited exceptions the
discharger of oil will be liable. His limi-
tation of liability would be $100 per gross
ton or $14 million, whichever is higher.
This figure incidentally is twice the
amount paid in the Torrey Canyon case.
In the case of cleanup necessitated as
a result of a willful spill or of a negli-
gent spill, the benefits of limitations of
liability would be removed and where
the privity and knowledge of the owner
of the vessel was involved he would be
required to pay the full costs for
cleanup.
This position is stronger than the orig-
inal Senate position, because it is work-
able and is insurable. It is stronger than
the original House position because it
covers more situations where spills do
damage. Indeed, it is even stronger than
the proposed convention drafted by the
International Maritime Consultive Or-
ganization—IMCO—which was drafted
last November and signed by the United
States. That convention, replete with
-------
1982
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
legal devices by which the discharger
could forestall payment, provides a total
liability to third parties as well as for
cleanup costs of $124 per ton. Our posi-
tion limits liability only in the matter
of cleanup costs to be returned to the
U.S. Government at $100. If there are
charges that another government would
wish to make, say in the case of a spill
that involved both the United States
and Canada, or if there are charges or
damages due to third parties under
admiralty law or common law, these
would be in addition and would not be
subject to our limitation of liability.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one point I wish to
emphasize to this body is that the Amer-
ican public has been deceived, perhaps
unwittingly, primarily by press reports
which have appeared purporting to de-
scribe the effects of this bill. They say
that it would charge the oil companies
for cleanup. In the case of discharges
from vessels other than those owned by
oil companies—and this, I understand, is
usually the case—there would be no
charge to the oil company at all. The
entire charge would be against the ship
or the owner of the vessel.
This appeared to me to be inequitable.
After all, if the cargo is such as to require
higher cleanup costs because of its na-
ture—for example a bunker "C" oil
which is thick and sticky—it would seem
reasonable that the oil company should
pay the cost. I, therefore, offered an
amendment to the conference which
would have made the cargo of oil as well
as the ship liable for oil spills. It is un-
fortunate that the conferees saw fit not
to accept my proposal. I think it would
have had a salutary effect upon the
choice of vessels made by oil companies
choosing to ship their cargoes by waters.
It seems that oil cargoes despite the
hazard they pose to our beaches and
waters were very difficult to touch. The
conferees refused to agree to make the
oil cargo liable for the damage they
caused, they refused to permit samples
of the cargo to be taken, and removed a
provision in the House bill which would
make the expense of removing a vessel
which poses a substantial threat of a pol-
lution hazard chargeable against the
cargo of the vessel as well as the vessel
itself even though this has been done
against a dangerous chlorine cargo when
it threatened the Mississippi area. So
that in three instances where it would
have been possible to charge the oil com-
panies rather than the vessels the con-
ference refused to do it. I wish to make
it clear, however, that my personal view
was not in agreement with the result of
the conference report in that area. I
wish to make it equally clear, however,
that aside from those provisions I believe
that the conference has come up with
the best possible solution at this time to
the oil pollution question. I feel gratified
that the conferees so readily accepted the
amendments I proposed following the
Tampa Bay incident.
Another amendment the conferees ac-
cepted, which came to pass as a result of
the Tampa Bay spill, dealt with that of
notice. Both Houses required that im-
mediate notice be given in case of a spill
by the person in charge of a vessel or of
an onshore or offshore facility as soon as
he has knowledge of any discharge of oil.
Both Houses considered it proper that
this should be a criminal penalty for we
could imagine no more vile conduct than
that of a person knowingly refusing to
report an oil spill which could cause so
much damage if left unattended, but
which hopefully, if notice were given in
time, would result in mitigation and con-
tainment of that damage. So I empha-
size that this is a criminal penalty. Such
a person, if arrested, will be put through
the same procedures that any other per-
son suspected of committing a Federal
crime would be put through. As a result
of the Tampa Bay experience, the con-
[p. 9327]
ferees concluded that a stiff penalty of a
$10,000 fine or a year in jail or both
would be imposed. This is twice the fine
heretofore considered.
In all these regards relating to oil
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1983
spill control and prevention, Mr.
Speaker, I am convinced that we have
benefited by the experiences that have
befallen us. It is unfortunate that we
did not have those provisions of the 1988
legislation in effect that would have pro-
vided for Federal cleanup in the case
of the oil spills we have suffered, but this
provision as well as many other bene-
ficial provisions died when the other
body refused then to see the wisdom or
point of view at that time—a point of
view which they now accept and have
adopted.
However, illustrating the wisdom of
the poet's words, I would like to invite
the attention of this body to the sad
"it might have been" if the 1968 bill had
not been permitted by the Senate to die
without final action. That bill would
have provided an alternate means of fi-
nancing the construction costs of sewage
treatment plants. If it had passed, I
doubt whether it would have been nec-
essary now for the President to request
legislation which is essentially similar to
that which passed both Houses of Con-
gress in 1968. Indeed, the contract au-
thority that it would have provided for
the construction of sewage treatment
plants would have been in use and would
have resulted in construction of sewage
treatment facilities based upon a Federal
participation of $1 billion for this fiscal
year. Mr. Speaker, "it might have been."
Whether the 1968 act passed or not
at least one portion of the new legisla-
tion would have been necessary. I point
to this with particular pride because I
introduced it into the House. The Com-
mittee on Public Works adopted it
without change and the conference com-
mittee also accepted this provision as I
have written it and that is the training
provisions. Recognizing that water
treatment and waste water treatment
whether from human or industrial or
agricultural or any other source of waste
cannot be accomplished unless we have a
trained cadre of qualified personnel from
the operating and maintenance level on
up through the postgraduate levels, I in-
troduced a bill that would make it pos-
sible for many people who cannot now
afford to i mdertake the studies necessary
for training themselves in the water
quality control field to do so. Without
this training, no matter how much
money we authorize, no matter how
much money we appropriate, we will
not—and I repeat this for emphasis—we
will not be able to clean up the waters.
We must have trained personnel, and
this provision of the new bill does this.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud
of it.
There are many other areas of this bill
which are an improvement over the 1968
version. We have the provision resulting
from the floor amendment of my good
friend from Ohio providing for pollu-
tion control in the Great Lakes. We
have taken into account as a result of a
Senate floor amendment the unhappy and
insanitary conditions resulting from the
lack of proper water supply and sewage
disposal facilities among the native vil-
lages of Alaska. We have what I believe
to be a workable version of the certifica-
tion provisions which would require an
applicant for a Federal license to receive
a certification from the States that the
activity for which the application is
made would not violate water quality
standards.
As the Members will recall, this certi-
fication provision originally appeared
very late in 1968 before there was any
real chance of studying it.
There has been opportunity to study
this matter and I believe that the provi-
sions now contained are reasonable,
workable, and will result in protection
to our water environment without crip-
pling our progress.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I believe that
Congress has made good use of the time
necessitated by the delay brought about
when S. 3206 was left high and dry at
the end of the 90th Congress. There are
some things that we would have bene-
fited by if the other body had been as
perceptive as the Members of this body.
Nevertheless, there is little use crying
-------
1984
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
over spilled milk and I believe rather
than doing so we are in a position to be
proud of the work that has resulted in
H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1970.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the very
distinguished member of the conference,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) .
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, the con-
ference report before us on the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970 is the
result of many months of effort upon the
part of the Members of both Houses and
their staffs. It deals with a wide variety
of subjects, each of which is intensely
complicated in its own right.
In each case, the area was explored
to the fullest. Experts on all sides were
consulted and their views given the
weight they merit. The position of the
conferees on each subject indeed on each
sentence and on every word was care-
fully considered in the light of the evi-
dence that we had before us.
For example, the oil pollution provi-
sions were extremely difficult to resolve
because they affected directly our mer-
chant marine, concepts of admiralty law,
the American insurance market, the
overseas insurance market, the balance
of payments, our international relations,
the economy, small business, onshore
and offshore oil facilities, research pro-
visions, vessel inspection requirements,
requirements that vessels will carry oil
spill containment equipment as well as
the predominant consideration of the
protection of our ecology. It was only
after diligent effort that these difficulties
were resolved and that agreement to the
conference report by the conferees was
reached. Incidentally, I should like to
invite the attention of the House to an
error that appears on page 31 of the con-
ference report. The first word of the
second line as printed is "submarginal."
That word should be "submerged" so
that the phrase reads "Submerged Lands
Act of 1953."
This report has been in conference
since October. Some believe that the
length of time spent on it was due to
lack of agreement among the conferees.
This view could only be supported by
those unfamiliar with the wide range
of the bill's content.
In the area of vessel pollution, we pro-
vided the first Federal water quality leg-
islation to affect vessel owners directly
and which will result eventually in Fed-
eral standards applicable to all vessels
to control the discharge of human wastes
from them. It also will preempt State
laws and regulations in the future and
create uniformity between the States so
that vessels will be able to pass from one
State to another unhindered while at the
same time preventing any discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated sew-
age into those waters. In this area, Mr.
Speaker, the questions of vessel con-
struction, of small boat use of availabil-
ity of shore base facilities for servicing
of all vessels, availability of marine sani-
tation equipment, the condition of the
waterways of the Nation, and specialized
State laws and requirements had to be
studied and considered with care.
Another area of great complexity is
that covered by section 21—certification
by the States to Federal agencies in
cases where application has been made
for Federal licenses or permits. That
certification must come from the States
unless, of course, the waters involved
are under the direct supervision of the
Federal Government or there is no State
certifying authority. In those cases, the
Secretary of Interior will be the certify-
ing authority. In order to evaluate this
law properly, every area of Federal li-
censing and permit procedure had to be
examined to determine its special prob-
lems and to eliminate the possibility of
overlooking important considerations in
any specific area. It is under this pro-
vision that the questions of control of
potential effects of heat discharged into
the waters through heated effluents are
dealt with. The complexities of that
question are well known to the Members
of this body. At the other end of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1985
spectrum came permits such as those
required for the building of small out-
falls which present minimal potential for
pollution, but nevertheless, must be
considered.
In that same section 21, we reinforce
by statute previously expressed Presi-
dential policy to control water pollution
by requiring compliance with quality
standards by Federal facilities.
Another area that was investigated
thoroughly by the conference commit-
tee was that of how properly to recognize
industrial organizations and political
subdivisions which have demonstrated
outstanding technological achievement
in waste treatment and pollution abate-
ment programs while assuring such
recognition could not be abused.
We evaluated once again the very
complicated area of training of person-
nel of all types for the operating of
waste treatment plants as well for their
[p. 9328]
design and research for new methods to
solve our water quality problems.
We dealt with the complex problem of
the staffing to be provided to support the
Council on Environmental Quality and
investigated the type and quantity of
personnel that they would need to be
effective.
The question of the control of hazard-
ous polluting substances other than oil
led us to an exploration of the manufac-
turing industry of the United States,
including the process industries and
chemical industries. We thus provided
for designation of such substances after
suitable determination and investigation
by the President.
The question of area acid and mine
water pollution control demonstrations
brought us into another field of Ameri-
can life and technology.
Along with this, the dictates of hu-
manity required us to consider the plight
of the native villages of Alaska, which
because of their peculiar position find
themselves with no adequate water sup-
plies and no means of preventing pollu-
tion of their waters. This, too, is an area
that was explored with great care.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
emphasize the very complex, wide
ranged, and indeed the innovative con-
cepts that we have dealt with here. I
believe it to be an excellent piece of
legislation. I am convinced that what
we put into this bill is necessary and
wise. I am also convinced that what we
did not put in it this time should not be
there at this time. Consequently, I take
pride in urging the House of Representa-
tives to adopt the conference report as
reported on H.R. 4148, the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970.
One Member of this body I believe de-
serves special praise for the work that
he has done on this bill. The ranking
minority member of the Public Works
Committee, the gentleman from St.
Petersburg, Fla., Mr. WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
has over the period of the last several
years devoted much of his time and ef-
fort to the question of resolving difficul-
ties in water pollution legislation and
developing practicable working solutions
to our pollution problems. He has con-
tinuously been a leader in the area of
water pollution control legislation. As a
result, the law is replete with his inno-
vations introduced either as bills or as
amendments to legislation that this body
has considered or is considering now.
These include such items as provisions
for the training of personnel for water
pollution control, the financing of con-
struction of municipal waste plants, the
national contingency plan for the con-
trol of oil spills, strong penalties for
failure to notify of spills, inspection, and
prevention requirements to permit in-
spection of vessels carrying oil, the de-
velopment of a strike force to deal with
oil spills, provision for research for the
containment of oil following a spill, re-
search and study provisions for control
and amelioration of damage caused by
spills and many other areas in which his
knowledge, experience, and expertise on
matters dealing with water pollution
have proven themselves so valuable to
this committee.
-------
1986
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Unfortunately, BILL CRAMER could not
be here today. I have been in constant
contact with him and have kept him ap-
prised of the progress of this conference
report. He is standing by in case any
problems should arise. I assured him
that we foresaw no problems in the pas-
sage of this conference report for I
could imagine that there would be no
problem in the House just as there was
no problem in the other body. BILL
CRAMER has voted for water pollution
control legislation for many, many years.
He voted on the original passage of this
bill and was a leader for tough but work-
able provisions in the conference. In
1968, he twice voted for the passage of
similar legislation so that his record on
water pollution matters is intact. How-
ever, I feel that it is incumbent upon us
to give recognition to a Member whose
contribution in this field has been so
great and to remind ourselves that even
though he physically is not present to-
day, his guiding hand and incisive rea-
soning pervades the legislation that we
are considering, and I would take the
liberty of reminding the Members of this
body that he was indeed an active con-
feree, that he signed the conference
report and approves and supports its
provisions.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, I wish to commend our con-
ferees for their diligent efforts in pro-
ducing this comprehensive measure
toward insuring the quality of our navi-
gable waters. This piece of legislation
represents an enormous investment of
effort and time by those who have la-
bored so hard over the past several
months.
Though I support the underlying ob-
jectives of this bill, I am concerned by
the tremendous potentials for delay
which are inherent in the complicated
system for State and Federal approvals
embodied in section 21 of the bill—delays
which can have many adverse effects in
satisfying important needs of this coun-
try. Additionally, and without intending
to fault the conferees in connection with
weaknesses in some of the rather elabo-
rate details, I detect several features
which seem to me to leave something to
be desired.
For example, in section 21 (b) of the
bill the language in subsection (2), per-
taining to the objections of a State other
than the State in which the discharge in
point would take place, employs the key
clause "to insure compliance with ap-
plicable water standards," whereas, else-
where in the section the pivotal clause
is more accurately worded in terms of
"reasonable assurance—that such activ-
ity will be conducted in a manner which
will not violate applicable water stand-
ards." Presumably the intention in
subsection (2) is to insure that there is
"reasonable assurance."
Also, in subsection (2) of section 21
(b) it is not clear what the scope of the
licensing agency's judgment is intended
to be, particularly in cases where the
State in which the discharge would occur
is satisfied on the basis of reasonable
standards but another State that may be
affected is not satisfied and wishes to im-
pose unreasonably restrictive standards.
I am troubled, too, by the uncertainty
which the bill creates in regard to facili-
ties presently in operation in States that
now have water quality standards.
Another potentially serious problem
may be lurking in the provisions of sub-
section (b) (9) (B) of section 21, which
apparently would enable a State that
has no water quality standards at the
time of construction and operation of a
facility covered by the act to thereafter
adopt water quality standards that
would be impossible for an existing fa-
cility to meet. I am concerned that there
may not be sufficient flexibility and prac-
ticality built into some of these features
of the bill.
I shall vote for this bill notwithstand-
ing my concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1987
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has
under consideration bills which would
also permit States to establish radiologi-
cal standards more restrictive than those
of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the dis-
tinguished majority leader, the gentle-
man from Oklahoma (Mr. ALBERT) .
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I cer-
tainly appreciate the gentleman from
Minnesota yielding this time to me, be-
cause I think that the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970, to which the
House is about to give final approval, is
not only a landmark piece of legislation
but is another outstanding example of
congressional initiative,
I feel humble in this area in following
the distinguished gentleman from Min-
nesota (Mr. BLATNIK).
I think we might point out here that
in this bill, as in practically every other
major field, comments in many quarters
to the contrary notwithstanding, it has
been the Congress rather than the exec-
utive branch of the Government which
has moved ahead in a vital area of high
national priority. This water pollution
control legislation was first introduced,
this particular bill, by the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. FALLON)
the chairman of the House Committee
on Public Works, as early as January 23,
1969. Public hearings opened in Febru-
ary, but the Department of the Interior
was not prepared to present the admin-
istration's position until March. The leg-
islative product which the House Public
Works Committee has fashioned in ex-
ecutive session was almost exclusively,
insofar as policy is concerned, the prod-
uct of its own labors. The administra-
tion's contribution was minimal. Drawn
on heavily was the wealth of experience
acquired by the committee during the
past decade in pioneering in the water
pollution control field.
I would remind the House that as long
ago as 1960, the 86th Congress passed an
antiwater pollution bill which was
vetoed by President Eisenhower. Not
content to rely solely on the wealth of
background material it had already pos-
sessed, however, the Committee on
Public Works of the House of Represen-
tatives in 1969 proceeded to gather addi-
tional evidence both in Washington and
in the field.
[p. 9329]
Visited and viewed firsthand, for ex-
ample, was the Santa Barbara oil slick.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that
much more was involved here than
merely physically inspecting the results
of this unfortunate disaster. Rather,
what is of prime importance is that
the long immersion of the members
of the Committee on Public Works, par-
ticularly the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. BLATNIK) in this subject has
equipped that committee with a sophisti-
cated knowledge of what these problems
mean both as to short- and long-range
effects and how they can be dealt with on
a practical basis and what the interrela-
tionship may be between various water
pollution problems.
To my knowledge no important official
in the executive branch of the govern-
ment could possibly possess this type of
expert knowledge.
H.R. 4148 passed the House on April
16, 1969, and the other body last Octo-
ber. The final legislative product which
we now have before us is the result of
a long and arduous conference extending
over weeks and months. The same ex-
pertise which was so vital in the drafting
of the original House-passed measure
has made possible a successful conclu-
sion of the conference.
H.R. 4148 is truly a monumental meas-
ure. I extend my congratulations to the
membership of the Committee on Public
Works for a job well done. I am sure
they will not object to my singling out
for particular commendation my old
friend, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. BLATNIK).
Fifteen years ago JOHN BLATNIK was
warning the Nation and the Congress
about water pollution. His was often
-------
1988
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
almost a voice crying in the wilderness.
He received no cooperation from the
Eisenhower administration. As I said
earlier, his antiwater pollution bill in
1960 was vetoed. His dogged efforts
were finally crowned with success in
1961 with the enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This leg-
islation was further expanded in 1966.
The passage of H.R. 4148 today repre-
sents yet another triumph for JOHN
BLATNIK in the fight against water pollu-
tion. He was of course supported in this
effort by the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Public Works (Mr.
FALLON) and all other Members on both
sides of the aisle. This was a great tri-
umph; however, it is the climax of great
effort on the part of JOHN BLATNIK. I
am sure it will not be his last major ef-
fort in this very important area in this
House, or in this Congress.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the distinguished minority
leader, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD).
MR. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
I am deeply grateful for the allocation
of time from the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Public Works.
Let me speak out most emphatically
in complimenting the members of the
Committee on Public Works for sending
to the House for action a conference
report that I believe is a very broad-
based and very constructive piece of pol-
lution control legislation.
The House of Representatives through
its Committee on Public Works has been
in the forefront from the inception of
the battle by the Federal Government
against the problems of water pollution.
The history recounted by the distin-
guished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
ALBERT) is, I believe, accurate in indi-
cating that men like the gentleman from
Minnesota, JOHN BLATNIK, deserve a
great deal of credit. I would, however,
add the name of one of the Members on
this side of the aisle who I believe should
also be recognized for his outstanding
service in the Federal battle against the
problems of water pollution. He is the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. CRAMER),
who has been, as far as I know, one of
the persons in the Congress who has
pushed the hardest and the most to get
necessary legislation so that we could
do something effectively in the field of
water pollution.
Now I would like to make one obser-
vation in addition to complimenting all
of the members of the Committee on
Public Works on both sides of the aisle.
The gentleman from Oklahoma men-
tioned something to the effect that there
had been a very bad oil pollution prob-
lem that developed in the Santa Barbara
Channel or harbor in 1969.
If my memory is accurate, that prob-
lem arose in the last few days of Janu-
ary 1969. It was tragic. It was serious.
Unfortunately, the tragedy that devel-
oped took place under the regulations
promulgated by the previous Secretary
of the Interior, the distinguished Secre-
tary of the Interior, Mr. Udall, who
served from January 21,1961, to January
20, 1969. The regulations, we found,
were inadequate. Mr. Udall apparently
did not have tight enough regulations to
preclude the kind of oil pollution prob-
lem that developed in the Santa Barbara
Channel.
I am delighted that the Secretary of
the Interior under the present adminis-
tration, Mr Hickel, has done something
to remedy that problem. I am told that
the new, corrective regulations which are
tighter, more restrictive and more con-
structive have been issued by Secretary
Hickel as of August 1969. I am simply
saying that the Nixon administration,
when it found the inadequacies of the
regulations under the former Secretary
of the Interior Stewart Udall, has done
something to correct the problem. The
new regulations will do a better job—
although such regulations cannot in and
of themselves prevent the kind of prob-
lem that on occasion may arise regard-
less of the best of intentions.
Now let me add this. This legislation I
do not think is the final answer to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1989
problems of pollution. The President
has submitted to the Congress a number
of bills, four of which involve the Com-
mittee on Public Works, in the area of
water pollution. These bills, I am cer-
tain will get the prompt and constructive
consideration of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works under the chairman, the gen-
tleman from Maryland (Mr. FALLON),
and from the subcommittee under the
chairmanship of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK). They are
proposals that should be enacted into
law. They will add to and supplement
the current basic legislation. I hope and
trust that within a relatively short pe-
riod of time the President's new and
comprehensive recommendations for
clean water, for clean air, and for open
spaces will get the approval of this
House. It should not be a partisan issue.
It has not been in the past and it should
not be a partisan issue in the future.
This Congress can make a name for it-
self, in partnership with this Adminis-
tration, if we act affirmatively on the
new legislative package recommended
by President Nixon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Michigan
has expired.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McEwEN).
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion I would like to propose to my dear
friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Texas, who has given some considera-
tion to this is—what the meaning of the
term "navigable waters of the United
States" is as it particularly applies in
this bill, to preempting of standards for
the regulation of discharge and treat-
ment of sewage from vessels.
Mr. Speaker, the committees of both
Houses—the Committees on Public
Works—recognized there was a problem
and it was forcefully brought to our at-
tention by recreational boaters. They do
not want to face a multiplicity of regula-
tion as they transit interstate waters,
from one jurisdiction to another.
I think we will agree that was the
primary reason behind the preemption
here by the Federal Government, as pro-
posed in this legislation, setting stand-
ards.
What I would like to ask the gentle-
man from Texas is this. Is it his view
that in this preemption we are also pre-
empting for Federal standards wholly
intrastate waters—a lake, shall we say,
wholly contained within one State—that
here, too, Federal standards shall apply?
Mr. WRIGHT. Of course the term
"navigable waters" has been subject to
many different interpretations. I believe
the intention of the conference commit-
tee in this instance was to define "navi-
gable waters of the United States" as
those waters which have legally been so
defined and those waters which are, in
effect, navigable waters, and those, pri-
marily, of course, are interstate streams.
The purpose of preemption of marine
safety device and sanitary device stand-
ards by the Federal agency was, if I
correctly understand it, to assure that
boaters engaging their recreational craft
in the use of the navigable waters of the
United States would not confront a pro-
liferation of differing standards as they
travel from one State jurisdiction to
another.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to
[p. 9330]
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. FEIGHAN)
such time as he may consume.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish
to commend the members of the confer-
ence committee and members of the
House Committee on Public Works for
their efforts in bringing to the floor of
this House this report on the legislation
which is of major importance in the con-
trol and cleanup of our national waters.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. VANIK).
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I want to
-------
1990
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
express my appreciation to the members
of the Public Works Committee and to
the House conferees for retaining the
$20 million authorization for the special
pollution problems of the Great Lakes.
I also want to point out that in the
committee action to date and the recent
recommendations of the President failed
to provide any funding for the removal
of any residual pollution which con-
tinues to contaminate the waters of the
Great Lakes.
I hope that the committee will this
year consider legislation to approach the
special problems of pollution disaster
areas such as Lake Erie, the Hudson
River, San Francisco Bay, and certain
portions of the gulf seaboard. Efforts
must be made to meet such problems by
increasing a water flow, developing wave
action, and in the case of Lake Erie, by
dredging or aerating certain areas of
densely polluted waters. These pollu-
tion disaster areas are beyond the capac-
ity of any State or local community and
can only be handled through Federal
action.
I hope to urge such a program before
the Public Works Committee at the
earliest opportunity.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. JACOBS) .
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I was in-
terested in what the minority leader had
to say about the comparative perform-
ance of the previous administration and
the present administration in water pol-
lution control. I would direct the atten-
tion of the minority leader to the fact
that the Commissioner of Water Pollu-
tion Control, one David Dominick, ap-
pointed by the current administration on
January 5 of this year, sent out simul-
taneous letters to a number of career
regional directors of this program in
effect firing them, because of ordering
them transferred. And, at least in one
instance, in Chicago, 111., the current
administration nominee to replace a 20-
year career public servant is a civil engi-
neer without special qualifications who
was chairman of "Lithuanians for
Nixon" in 1968. I just say that for the
edification of the minority leader.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The gentle-
man's comment, however, do not deny
the statement that I made earlier, that
the oil slick problem in the Santa Bar-
bara Channel took place under regula-
tions promulgated by former Secretary
of Interior, the Honorable Stewart Udall.
Mr. JACOBS. No, I do not; and I am
sure the gentleman would not deny the
fact that the oil spill which occurred in
the Gulf of Mexico just 2 weeks ago
occurred under regulations that exist
now, and also regulations which, I am
told, have not been properly enforced
in the case of that well.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The original
exemption or license was granted in that
case by the previous Democratic admin-
istration, however.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. KEITH) .
Mr. KEITH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment
the chairman of the committee and its
members on their efforts to bring the
final version of this important bill
back to us for a vote. As the commit-
tee knows, I have been very much inter-
ested both in the problem of oil spills
at sea and in territorial waters. With
reference to the efforts of this admin-
istration versus earlier administrations,
I would say that before 1969 there was
a lack of direction insofar as the respon-
sibility for cleanups was concerned. This
legislation, I believe, firmly puts this
responsibility on the shoulders of the
Coast Guard, for the first time makes
substantial sums of money available for
oil spillage removal, and delineates the
responsibility of industry in the cleanup
problem.
Now that this has been assigned, we
can actually make some progress, but we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1991
should have done it many years ago.
The House tried to do it, if I recall cor-
rectly, 2 years ago. We passed a bill
in the closing hours of the session in
1968, but it died between the branches
of Congress and so the fault does not
lie with this administration but with
earlier administrations at least insofar
as the assignment of actual responsibil-
ity to the industry and to the branches
of Government that have to cope with
this problem.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this legisla-
tion comes not a minute too soon. In the
last 2 years we have had a thousand oil
spills which have tremendously dam-
aged this ecology of America. Hopefully
in the future through this legislation we
will have found a way to cope with these
problems, and at least cut down on the
damage that would otherwise have con-
tinued to decimate our shoreline.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. STEIGER) .
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I very much appreciate the
chairman yielding to me.
I commend the House Committee on
Public Works and the conference com-
mittee for the new subsection H of sec-
tion 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act which has been incorporated
in the final version of H.R. 4148.
I am very pleased that this body has
given recognition to the problems of
eutrophication and lake pollution.
In fact, this provision will, for the first
time, give authority directly to the De-
partment of the Interior to carry on
research and demonstration projects,
including the construction of publicly
owned research facilities, which will
give us additional information on the
problem of eutrophication and the end-
ing of pollution in our inland lakes.
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the com-
mittee on its work and look forward to
having the Department of the Interior
implement this "clean lakes" section of
the legislation at an early date.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
ASHBROOK) .
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I, too,
commend the committee, and I thank
the chairman for having yielded to me.
Mr. Speaker, I direct one question to
the gentleman from Texas regarding the
matter of the discharge of waste from
pleasure craft. I know there is some
controversy on this subject, and there is
a great deal of concern by pleasure craft
owners about it in my area as to what
regulations will be adopted.
Can the gentleman from Texas give us
any information as to what procedures
will be followed in settling this contro-
versial question?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, the bill
does not lay down the guidelines but
directs the Secretary of the Interior
within 2 years to promulgate standards
for these marine sanitation devices.
Then it directs the Coast Guard to de-
velop regulations for installation of the
devices to see that they live up to the
standards.
The bill exempts from these standards
and regulations the vessels which al-
ready are equipped with sanitation de-
vices that were installed pursuant to
existing State law, so long as they re-
main consistent with existing State law.
It provides that, after 2 years, new ves-
sels would be required to comply with
these standards and regulations. Exist-
ing vessels, however, would have 5 years
before they have to come into compli-
ance.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman. It seems a reason-
able approach to this problem. Then
those who have some controversy about
this problem will have to sell their case
to the authorities making those regula-
tions.
(Mr. JONES of Alabama (at the re-
quest of Mr. FALLON) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I am particularly pleased to have had
the opportunity to be a part in bringing
-------
1992
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
this conference report to the House
today.
The conferees have worked long and
hard to prepare this legislation which
meets such a great need in our country.
This is a giant step forward and one
which every Member of this House can
be proud.
Since the first Water Pollution Control
Act in 1948 I have worked with my dis-
tinguished and knowledgable colleague
from Minnesota, Hon. JOHK BLATNIK, to
provide the most adequate legislation
possible for control of water pollution.
We were able to extend the original
act in 1953 and make it permanent in
1956. This initiated the grants for con-
struction of municipal water treatment
works.
[p. 9331]
Concern for quality of our environ-
ment was not so strong at that time.
In 1955 and 1956, public apathy was
most obvious to me as chairman of the
special subcommittee which traveled
back and forth across the country con-
ducting hearings on the Nation's water
resource problems. Only in the urban
centers were the warnings of growing
pollution problems given voice.
During the early 1960s another series
of hearings throughout the country be-
fore the Natural Resources and Power
Subcommittee of which I was chairman
focused particular attention on the water
pollution problems which were multi-
plying at an alarming rate.
The improvements of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in 1961,
1965, and 1966 reflected the rising tide
of public concern and interest in pre-
venting the death of our lakes and
streams.
It is in response to a great need and
demand by the people of this country
that we bring this conference report to
the House for adoption today. This leg-
islation will be an accommodation to the
people who are earnestly seeking to
make corrections and improvements in
the quality of the water they use and
discharge.
I believe that H.R. 4148 is another fine
piece of legislation which has been re-
ported from the Committee on Public
Works, and which has already passed
this body and is now before you today
for final approval of the conference re-
port. This bill is one of the outstanding
pieces of legislation in which I have
played a part in during my tenure with
the Congress.
H.R. 4148 moves us into new cate-
gories in the drive to keep our Nation's
waters pure. It establishes liability,
monetary limitations, and requirements
for oil cleanup spillage, whether it be
by a vessel or onshore or offshore instal-
lation. It moves into the category of
pollution from various types of vessels
and lays down the guidelines for the
development of appropriate disposal of
sewage from those vessels in the years
ahead. It requires for the first time cer-
tifications from any industry or from
anyone who would use our Nation's
waters for purposes such as nuclear
power development, steel plant develop-
ment, bridge construction, among other
things that in the use of such Nation's
waters the operation of any of these
facilities will not effect the water quality
standards of a State or States.
It covers many other major points too
long to be enumerated here in the short
time that I have. Suffice it to say I be-
lieve this legislation will prove to be one
of the most important pieces of legisla-
tion this Congress will pass in this or
any other session, and I recommend
adoption of the conference report on
H.R. 4148.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to have been a part in develop-
ment of the legislation which is pending
before this body today for final consid-
eration before it will be sent to the White
House for signature.
This is major legislation with a capital
"M."
Throughout the years from the Com-
mittee on Public Works there has been
reported legislation which has developed
a stronger and stronger program to keep
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1993
our Nation's waters clean. This body
throughout the years has consistently
supported legislation which will provide
necessary funding to develop proper
means of cleaning up our Nation's waters
and when necessary it has provided a
means by which the Federal Govern-
ment and the States have the power to
bring action against those who would
violate the water quality standards or
our Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, and
oceans.
The legislation pending before this
body is another giant step in an effort to
accomplish the goal we all seek—clean
water for the use of all Americans. It is
a long and complex bill. It covers such
diverse fields as control of pollution by
oil; control of hazardous polluting sub-
stances; control of sewage from vessels;
and a requirement that proper certifica-
tion be received from those who would
use our Nation's waters and in the pro-
cess must obtain a Federal license or
permit, that they give reasonable assur-
ance of compliance with water quality
standards for a State or States before
that applicant can receive any license or
permit. This includes among others a
license from the Atomic Energy Com-
mission for a nuclear powerplant or for
any new dam which requires a license
or from the Federal Power Commission,
as well as many other industries which
would require a permit to build a dock
discharge pipe, a water intake pipe, or
a bridge.
These are just some of the highlights
of this fine legislation. It is the result of
almost 2J/2 years of intensive work by
the Congress and comes to you today as
a result of one of the most fully dis-
cussed and lengthy conferences in the
history of the Committee on Public
Works.
I am proud to be a part of it and I
support it.
May I conclude my remarks by com-
mending all those on the conference who
worked so hard for the legislation, in
particular the gentleman from Minne-
sota (Mr. BLATNIK), the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. JONES), the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT), the ranking
member of the committee, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. CRAMER), the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA), and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. GROVER).
I urge adoption of the conference
report.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, let me
say that I myself have been a strong sup-
porter over many years of all the legis-
lation that the Committee on Public
Works has reported in the field of water
pollution. I am particularly grateful for
the fact that this conference report con-
tains language which I supported when
H.R. 4148 was first considered by the
House. I have reference to section 15
of the conference report dealing with
pollution control in the Great Lakes.
This is an opening for the Secretary to
begin to develop projects, to find new
methods and techniques to eliminate or
control pollution in all portions of the
watersheds of the Great Lakes.
I note that the figure of $20 million
for this section is still retained in the
conference report and I appreciate this
as well. I am pleased that elsewhere in
this legislation which is before us today
there is also authorization for clean lakes
study and their research. I am appreci-
ative of all these steps but I might add
that they are only a beginning.
The problem in Lake Erie and in the
other Great Lakes and in many portions
of the waters of this country is a press-
ing one.
Under the $20 million authorized for
this Great Lakes program the pilot proj-
ect of the program would be one dealing
with Lake Erie itself. The problem in
Lake Erie has been most pressing for a
number of years and therefore the first
attention and the first priority for this
program will be given to Lake Erie.
We must move forward faster in this
field and I intend to do all I can to see
that this effort is made to finally clean
up this problem. I believe the balance
of the legislation covering such things as
oil pollution, licensing of facilities who
-------
1994
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
use our Nation's waters, vessel pollution
are major steps in the advancement of
the pollution cleanup of our Nation.
I support the conference report.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I most
earnestly urge my colleagues to speedily
and overwhelmingly approve this con-
ference report on H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
Beyond the extension of the present
water pollution control legislation, this
report recommends the acceptance and
inclusion of the substance of a measure,
H.R. 9382, that I cosponsored in March
last year, and the legislative proposal I
supported last September to create a
Council on Environmental Quality.
That act is implemented in this meas-
ure by providing for the further estab-
lishment of the Office of Environmental
Quality, to provide technical advice and
assistance that will enable the Presi-
dent, the Congress, States, and munici-
palities to better meet and overcome our
environmental pollution dangers.
Other additional major provisions rec-
ommended in this report are those
authorizing an accelerated study of
the removal methods and enforcement
measures designed to deal with releases
of hazardous substances into the waters
of the United States; requiring that all
Federal facilities and activities, as well
as those federally licensed or permitted
facilities and activities, must comply
with certain water quality standards;
projecting a clearer policy, in the pro-
tection of the public interest, of complete
liability upon owners and operators of
vessels and onshore and offshore facili-
ties for pollution cleanup costs incurred
by the United States.
Mr. Speaker, these and other additions
to existing water pollution control leg-
islation, contained in this report, repre-
sent a vigorous forward step in our
continuing efforts to recruit all the
resources of our Government and our
society to expedite the removal and
control of the increasingly dangerous
pollution of our waters.
They constitute a commendable leg-
islative effort on the part of the Con-
gress to join with the President in
moving faster and more effectively
toward the completion of what we might
well call a great national house-cleaning
project that is absolutely essential for
our survival.
Of course, many of us here who joined
[p. 9332]
in urging the approval of the originally
proposed appropriation of $1 billion for
the construction of sewage and waste
treatment facilities are mindful that our
cause was lost by two votes. I sincerely
hope that, when the time comes for the
House to approve the actual appropria-
tions necessary to carry out the provi-
sions of this legislation, the same spirit
of urgency and priority will be present
as is being demonstrated here today.
Let us remember that most small
towns, particularly, and our cities and
States, have practically reached the end
of their financial resources and overbur-
dened taxpayers, in these inflationary
days, cannot bear the additional burden
of cleaning up local and State waters.
All our good intentions and our best
legislative projections will come to
nothing unless sufficient money is rec-
ommended by the President and appro-
priated by the Congress to fulfill the
purpose of this act, and to honor our
commitment to the taxpayers of the
United States to provide them with a
wholesome environment, free from pol-
lution and poison.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I want to
express my appreciation to the members
of the Public Works Committee and to
the House conferees for retaining the
$20 million authorization for the special
pollution problems of the Great Lakes.
I also want to point out that in the
committee action to date and the recent
recommendations of the President failed
to provide any funding for the removal
of any residual pollution which con-
tinues to contaminate the waters of the
Great Lakes.
It is my hope that the committee will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1995
this year consider legislation to approach
the special problems of pollution disaster
areas such as Lake Erie, the Hudson
River, San Francisco Bay, and certain
portions of the gulf seaboard. Efforts
must be made to meet such problems by
increasing water flow, developing cur-
rents and wave action, and in the case of
Lake Erie, by dredging or aerating cer-
tain areas of densely polluted waters.
These pollution disaster areas are be-
yond the capacity of any state or local
community and can only be handled
through Federal action.
I expect to urge such a program be-
fore the Public Works Committee at the
earliest opportunity
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, the Water
Quality Improvement Act—H.R. 4148,
now reported out of conference after
lengthy debate—is a significant step for-
ward toward restoring and improving the
quality of our Nation's -waters. Initiated
in the wake of the disastrous Torrey
Canyon incident in 1967, and spurred
by the Santa Barbara blowout and the
Ocean Eagle spill in San Juan Harbor,
this landmark legislation finally passed
through the committees of both houses
and was sent into conference committee
last session. While the differences were
being worked out, a series of disasters
took place which prodded completion of
the bill—a tanker grounded and leaking
off the coast of Nova Scotia, one spilling
its cargo into Tampa Bay, and the oil
spillage following the drilling platform
explosion off New Orleans.
From all these incidents, from 1967 to
the present, it is necessary to conclude
that there is a very serious problem and
that our present laws are inadequate to
deal with that problem. The penalties
contained in the Oil Pollution Act of
1924—personal punishment of a fine of
up to $2,500 and imprisonment went up
to 1 year, or both, and vessel liabilities
of up to $10,000—do not begin to cope
with the threats posed by the expanding
oil extraction and transportation indus-
try. Far larger oil tankers, drilling plat-
forms operated improperly or placed in
seismically active offshore land, and
increasing commerce with increasing
chance of accidents—all call for the
reform provided by this bill.
The conference report contains pro-
visions for absolute liability to the
United States, unless the owner or op-
erator can prove that the discharge re-
sulted solely from an act of God, an act
of war, an act of U.S. Government neg-
ligence, or an act or omission of a third
party. The limits on the liability have
been set at $14 million for a vessel and
$8 million for offshore or onshore facili-
ties. This liability may not be high
enough for the future, but it is sufficient
to pay for the cleanup of the most disas-
trous spill on record.
A second provision of the bill that is
needed badly is contained in section 21,
which requires any applicant for a Fed-
eral license or permit with respect to
the navigable waters of the United States
to obtain certification that his activities
will not violate existing water quality
standards. This broad provision is very
important. Among other things, it offers
us the possibility of responding to the
expanding demand for electric power
and yet giving those parties especially
concerned with the pollution generated
along with that power a means, outside
of the courts, for seeing that their con-
cerns are considered.
This is vitally needed legislation and
it has my wholehearted support. It is an
integral part of the growing Federal
effort aimed at assuring a quality envi-
ronment for present as well as future
generations. It is a sensible balancing
of the growing demands of our people
for the benefits from oil and electricity,
and the benefits of a clean, healthy, life-
promoting environment.
Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am a
strong supporter of programs for im-
provement of our environment. One of
the best of these that I see working in
my district is the small watershed pro-
gram—Public Law 566. I have been on
these projects during the planning stage
and have seen the problems faced by the
-------
1996
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
local people and I have seen the projects
with the land treatment on the land and
the dams in place.
I strongly support the SCS budget
increasing construction by $8,246,000.
Why, I ask, since Aowa Creek watershed
in Dixon County has been approved by
Congress, have not funds been made
available for construction. This is
unfair to the local people. I have seen
gullies in Aowa watershed 30 feet deep,
eating away at the landscape and threat-
ening roads and bridges. These gullies
will continue to grow until action is
taken. Gully erosion is an extremely
serious problem throughout my district.
This source of sediment which causes
pollution of our streams must be con-
trolled. Also, the day must come when
this land will be needed to satisfy our
expanding population. The small water-
shed program is a natural for stopping
these gullies and healing up the land-
scape. Frequent and devastating floods
have plagued Nebraska during its entire
history, and the people want to do some-
thing about them. In my district, the
Nemaha Basin is now entirely covered
with applications for assistance under
the small watershed program. This
work must go forward.
The accelerated land treatment pro-
gram, an integral part of the small
watersheds, supplements the going pro-
gram of the soil and water conservation
districts in holding soil and water on the
farm, thus reducing sediment production
and preventing agricultural chemicals
from polluting the streams in the State.
Eastern Nebraska was not blessed with
natural lakes. The small watershed pro-
gram, however, is being used to develop
water-based recreation that can satisfy
a large part of this increasing demand
for recreation. These recreational oppor-
tunities will make eastern Nebraska a
better place in which to live, and will
help prevent the outmigration of people.
As I have said, I support the SCS
budget increasing construction funds,
however, I am concerned at the sharp
drop in planning funds. In my district
alone there are 30 applications not yet
planned even though 17 projects have
been authorized and funded for con-
struction and six projects completed.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further request for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have 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 358, nays 0, not voting 72,
as follows:
*****
[p. 9333]
So the conference report was agreed
to.
*****
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
ENROLLMENT OF TITLE OF H.R.
4148, WATER QUALITY IMPROVE-
MENT ACT OF 1970
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 559)
and ask unanimous consent for its im-
mediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent reso-
lution as follows:
H. CON. RES. 559
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That in the enroll-
ment of the bill H.R. 4148 the Clerk of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1997
House of Representatives is authorized and
directed to enroll the title so as to read: "An
Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, and for other pur-
poses."
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
EDMONDSON). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Mary-
land?
There was no objection.
The concurrent resolution was agreed
to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
[p. 9334]
1.2k(5) MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES "CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT"
H.B. REP. Doc. No. 273, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT
MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
A MESSAGE ON CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT
MARCH 11,1968.—Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
Theodore Roosevelt made conservation more than a political issue
in America. He made it a moral imperative.
More than half a century ago, he sounded this warning:
To skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness,
will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which
we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
The conservation work that Roosevelt began was protection of our
natural heritage for the enjoyment and enrichment of all the families
of the land. That is work which never ends. It must be taken up
-------
1998 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
anew by each succeeding generation, acting as trustees for the next.
But the conservation problems Theodore Roosevelt saw are
dwarfed by the new ones of our own day.
An unfolding technology has increased our economic strength and
added to the convenience of our lives.
But that same technology—we know now—carries danger with it.
From the great smoke stacks of industry and from the exhausts of
motors and machines, 130 million tons of soot, carbon and grime
settle over the people and shroud the Nation's cities each year.
From towns, factories, and stockyards, wastes pollute our rivers
and streams, endangering the waters we drink and use.
The debris of civilization litters the landscapes and spoils the
beaches.
Conservation's concern now is not only for man's enjoyment—but
for man's survival.
[p. 1]
Fortunately, we have recognized the threat in time, and we have
begun to meet it.
Through the landmark legislation of the past few years we are
moving to bring a safe environment—both to this generation, and to
the America still unborn.
—The Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration
Act of 1966 provide the foundation of our first major efforts to
curb the pollution blighting America's waters.
—The Clean Air Act of 1965 and the Air Quality Act of 1967 build
a strong base from which we can begin to clean the air.
—The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 launched a new program
to find the most efficient ways of disposing of millions of tons of
solid wastes that clog the city and the countryside.
—The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 laid the groundwork for
scenic roads and enjoyable travels.
—Over 2.2 million acres have been authorized for addition to the
Nation's Park System—and for the first time in generations more
land is being preserved for the people than is being developed
for industrial or urban purposes.
But the work of the new conservation, too—like the task we in-
herited from an earlier day—is unending. Technology is not some-
thing which happens once and then stands still. It grows and develops
at an electric pace. And our efforts to keep it in harmony with
human values must be intensified and accelerated. Indeed, tech-
nology itself is the tool with which these new environmental prob-
lems can be conquered.
In this Message I shall outline the steps which I believe America
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1999
must take this year to preserve the natural heritage of its people—a
broad heritage that must include not only the wilderness of the un-
broken forest, but a safe environment for the crowded city.
A PRIORITY CONSERVATION AGENDA
The dangers that threaten our environment are varied. To succeed
in meeting their challenge requires a wide-ranging response, with
special emphasis on the items of highest priority.
For fiscal 1969, I propose a program to complete this vital agenda
for action.
First 7 recommend that we assure the people that their water sup-
plies will be pure and plentiful now and in the years ahead by:
—Prosecuting the war on water pollution with conviction, com-
bining Federal, State and local efforts to finance the construction
this year of $1.5 to $2 billion in community waste treatment
plants.
—Creating a National Water Commission to plot the course of
water resource management for the next century.
—Helping to assure the quality of community water supplies
through the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1968.
—Meeting the water needs of one of America's fastest growing
regions by authorizing the Central Arizona Project.
Second, I recommend that we guard the landscape against the
waste products of modern life by:
—Protecting rivers, beaches, and coastal areas against the devasta-
tion of oil spillage and other hazardous substances through
strong legislation to control them.
[p. 2]
—Preventing the future despoilment of thousands of acres of min-
ing land through the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968.
—Discovering efficient methods to dispose of the millions of tons of
refuse and trash that threaten to engulf city and countryside,
through an extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and to
accelerate the development of economical systems which will
convert waste into useful by-products.
—Transforming our highways into corridors of beauty through
prompt action to continue the Highway Beautification Program,
and building new roadside parks for the traveling family.
Third, I recommend that we advance in the battle for clean air over
America's cities by:
—Fully exploiting our vast technology to find new and effective
pollution abatement methods.
—Investing $128 million as the Federal share in pollution control
-------
2000 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and research, more than has ever been committed in a single
year before.
—Organizing for action, through the designation of Air Quality
Control Regions under the landmark Air Quality Act of 1967.
Fourth, I recommend that we bring a sense of fulfillment, outdoor
recreation and serenity to all Americans by:
—Bringing new national parks closer to the people who live
crowded city lives by development of the redwood groves of
California, the Northern Cascades of Washington and the his-
toric Potomac River.
—Adding thousands of new acres of unspoiled and primitive lands
to the wilderness system.
—Completing action on the nationwide networks of scenic rivers
and trails.
—Focusing now on the problem of noise and its impact on our daily
lives.
Fifth, I recommend that we explore the peaceful promise of the
ocean's depths by:
—Beginning to plan now with other nations to launch an Inter-
national Decade of Ocean Exploration.
—Putting our most advanced marine technology to work in the
development of improved buoys for better prediction of weather
and ocean conditions.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
America's rivers, lakes and coastal waters have nourished her
growth: irrigated the farms, powered the dynamos, and provided
transport for commerce.
But we have not used our waters well.
Our major rivers are defiled by noxious debris. Pollutants from
cities and industries kill the fish in our streams. Many waterways
are covered with oil slicks and contain growths of algae that destroy
productive life and make the water unfit for recreation. "Polluted
Water—No Swimming" has become a familiar sign on too many
beaches and rivers. A lake that has served many generations of men
now can be destroyed by man in less than one generation.
Only recently have we begun to reverse this trend—to undertake
a program to preserve waters that are still clean, and purify those
that have become infested with pollution.
[p. 3]
The conditions have worsened through decades of neglect and in-
difference. They affect entire industries. They involve thousands of
miles of waterways and thousands of communities that border them.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2001
We have discovered not only that the problems of pollution are
formidable, but that their solutions must be interlocking.
—Water quality standards must be set for entire bodies of water,
varying from place to place depending on the water's use.
—Standards must be enforceable and they must apply to both
municipalities and industries.
—Waste treatment plants must be constructed and other methods
developed to prevent pollutants from reaching the water.
—New methods of cooperation and enforcement must be estab-
lished at all levels, for waters bearing poisons do not stop at
city, county or State boundaries. Clearing one part of a stream
is no answer. Water bodies must be cleaned in their entirety.
America took strong action to combat the problem in 1965 with the
Water Quality Act, and took another major step a year later with the
Clean Water Restoration Act. Under those measures, the long and
difficult task of cleaning the waters of our land has begun.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Now, for the first time in our history, all the States have taken in-
ventory of their water resources, considered their future needs, and
developed quality standards.
As the law requires, these standards, and the plans to carry them
out, have been submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval.
Many of the plans have already been approved. This is welcome
news for communities and businessmen alike. Now they can take
action because they know the standards they must all meet.
I have asked the Secretary of the Interior to speed the review of the
remaining standards and plans so the Federal Government can more
effectively help the States and communities turn their blueprints into
action.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS
The heart of a water pollution control program is the community
waste treatment plant which prevents refuse, debris and filth from
reaching the waters. To meet the Nation's critical needs calls for
both the construction of new plants and the improvement of existing
facilities.
Through the Clean Water Restoration Act, the Federal Govern-
ment can provide financial help—from 30 to 55 percent of the cost—
for the construction of municipal waste treatment works. Already,
under that Act and earlier authority, 8,000 grants, totaling more
than $1 billion, have been made. They have helped local communi-
ties build more than $4.5 billion worth of plants, to control the pol-
-------
2002 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lution in 67,000 miles of water on which almost 66 million Americans
depend.
More is required, however. The problem is pressing and the
backlog of needed plants is great.
With accelerated Federal help, we can stimulate the construction
of $1.5 billion to $2 billion in waste treatment plants under the $700
million authorization approved by the Congress for Fiscal 1969.
This will be done in two ways.
First, I recommend an appropriation of $225 million for grants under
the Clean Water Restoration Act. This should generate about $500 to
$600 million of plant construction.
[p. 4]
Second, I recommend legislation to allow the Secretary of the In-
terior to make annual installment payments in addition to the lump
sum grants as is presently the practice. This would permit the Fed-
eral Government to make construction commitments up to a total of
$475 million in Fiscal 1969.
Under this new financing method, the $475 million would generate
a total of about $1 to $1.4 billion of construction. Communities would
be able to build many of their urgently needed plants without delay
and get them into the fight against pollution now.
USER CHARGES
Capital and operating costs of treatment plants are expensive, and
it is right that those costs be borne by those who receive the plant's
benefits. Accordingly, the new financing program will require, as
one criterion for assistance, that municipalities impose a system of
user charges on those who use the plants.
A system of user charges would not only provide an equitable way
of sharing costs, but would accomplish other desirable purposes, as
well. Such charges would:
—Provide an incentive for industries to curb pollution through
improved manufacturing techniques.
—Relieve the pressure on the overloaded tax bases of local
governments.
SAFE COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLIES
As America's cities grew and developed their own water supply
systems, cholera and typhoid posed a grim threat to health and safety.
That threat was countered long ago.
Now, we in America drink tap water without a thought as to its
safety. And yet—that water is not always as safe as it should be.
We do not have enough information on the long-term health effects
of substances in drinking water.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2003
New hazards—chemical and industrial wastes, and other materials
—are creating new problems.
The Nation's Public Health Service cannot respond fully to this
danger. Its authority is limited by a law passed almost half a cen-
tury ago.
A recent study has indicated that about 30 percent of the Nation's
public drinking water systems may fall below Federal standards.
To help the cities and communities of America assure citizens that
the water they drink is safe, I propose the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1968:
This measure will strengthen the authority of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to:
—Develop, adopt and enforce improved standards relating to
chemical contaminants in drinking water.
—Conduct a comprehensive study of the safety of public drinking
water supplies in the United States.
—Determine whether any additional steps are necessary in this
area.
The new law will help move us toward this goal: That every glass
of drinking water drawn from America's public water supply sys-
tems will meet proper health standards.
[p. 5]
WATER MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION
We will not have served the water needs of Americans if we meet
only the requirements of today's population. A prudent nation must
look ahead and plan for tomorrow.
First, we must continue our sound programs of water management,
research, and advance planning to solve supply problems and to pre-
pare for the future needs of farms and factories, and growing city
populations.
Second, we must establish a board to develop long-range policy for
water resources.
Last year I asked the Congress to establish a National Water Com-
mission to:
—Work with Federal, State and private agencies in a survey of our
long-term water needs.
—Explore the effect of water development projects on regional
growth.
—Identify alternative policies and programs to meet national and
regional water resource objectives.
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed
-------
2004 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
legislation to establish this Commission. The measure is now in
conference.
I urge the Congress to complete its action and authorize this much
needed Commission.
Central Arizona Project
A vast area of the Western United States is arid. Thousands of
acres are in danger of becoming a barren wasteland as underground
sources of water are used up or depleted.
We have the techniques and know-how to overcome this problem.
Now legislation is required to authorize a program to bring water
from the Colorado River to meet the urgent needs of the people of
Arizona.
Proposals affecting the canyons and the gorges of this mighty and
historic river have been the subject of searching national debate.
Out of this discussion, a plan has evolved that will require no dams
on the Colorado River, preserve its scenic values, and at the same
time permit the immediate construction of essential water supply
facilities.
I ask the Congress to authorize the Central Arizona Project this
year.
OIL POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Last year, when the TORREY CANYON sank off the coast of
Cornwall, the 30 million gallons of oil it was carrying spread destruc-
tion throughout the coastal waters, killing fish and birds, and then the
refuse of this devastation swept onto the beaches.
Only this week, at home, tragedy struck again. The tanker
OCEAN EAGLE broke in half at the mouth of San Juan Bay, spew-
ing some IVa million gallons of oil over some of the finest beaches in
the Western Hemisphere.
Major disasters rarely occur. But minor oil spills are frequent—
and their combined effect, although less dramatic, can also be harmful.
Last year, I asked the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Transportation to study the problem of oil pollution in American
waters. Their report warns us that we must protect the beaches,
places
[p. 6]
of recreation, coastal and inland waters, and our fisheries from
spillage not only of oil, but of other hazardous substances as well.
We need a comprehensive system to control oil pollution and to
provide for prompt clean-up.
We also must be able to cope with the spillage of large quantities of
such substances as chlorine.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2005
Last year the Senate passed S. 2760 to deal with the problem of oil
pollution.
I propose we build upon and strengthen that bill through the Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act of 1968.
This Act, together with the earlier Senate legislation, would:
—As a general rule, make the discharge of oil unlawful if it occurs
from a shore facility or a ship operating within 12 miles from
shore. The 3-mile territorial and 9-mile contiguous zones are
thus both covered. This greatly expands the previous standard
of liability, which was limited to "gross or willful negligence" and
to the 3-mile limit.
—Impose upon the oil polluter responsibility for cleaning the
beaches and waters.
—Empower the Federal Government to clean up oil spills when-
ever the owner or operator fails to act, but require the polluter to
reimburse the Government for the clean-up costs. Prior law
limited the owner's liability to the salvage value of the ship. The
proposal will make them liable for the full costs of clean-up.
—Authorize the Government to establish regulations for shipboard
and related marine operations to reduce the possibility of oil
leakage at the source.
—Provide protection against large and dangerous discharges of
pollutants other than oil by requiring those responsible to take
whatever clean-up or other action the Government considers
necessary. If the polluter fails to act, the Government will take
the necessary steps, and hold the polluter liable for the costs.
AIR POLLUTION
Metals corrode, fabrics weaken and fade, leather weakens and becomes brittle,
rubber cracks and loses its elasticity, paint discolors, concrete and building stone
discolor and erode, glass is etched and paper becomes brittle.
This is not a description of the effects of a new weapon.
It is a sobering report on the results of pollution in the air we
breathe.
And that air is not divisible into convenient shares. Polluted air
affects the lungs of all—rich and poor, manager and worker, farmer
and urban dweller.
Of all the problems of conservation, none is more urgent than the
polluted air which endangers the American people. We have been
fortunate so far. But we have seen that when winds fail to blow, the
concentrations of poisonous clouds over our cities can become
perilous.
Air pollution is a threat to health, especially of older persons. It
-------
2006 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
contributes significantly to the rising rates of chronic respiratory
ailments.
It stains our cities and towns with ugliness, soiling and corroding
whatever it touches. Its damages extend to our forests and farm-
lands as well.
The economic toll for our neglect amounts to billions of dollars each
year.
[p. 7]
The Clean Air Act of 1963 gave the Federal Government authority
to help States and local communities plan effective programs to com-
bat pollution.
In 1965, at my request, the Congress strengthened that Act by
empowering the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to set
standards controlling automobile exhaust pollution—a major and
mobile source of air contaminants.
Last year we took a giant step with the Air Quality Act of 1967,
That Act:
—Will help our States abate pollution in the only practical way—
on a regional basis. For air knows no man-made boundary.
—Gives the Government standby power to impose Federal stand-
ards or enforce State standards, if the States do not act.
—Gives the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare new
power to stop serious cases of pollution that present a clear
hazard to the public's health.
—Through accelerated research and testing, will help provide the
technological answers to this baffling problem: How can we most
economically and effectively prevent pollution at its source—in
the fuels, while those fuels are being burned, or before the fumes
reach the air?
To carry out our efforts to fight air pollution, I am seeking some
$128 million for Fiscal 1969—more than we have committed in any
past year.
I have directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
to designate the Nation's principal Air Quality Control Regions within
the next few months, and to publish Air Quality criteria and related
information on control techniques. This information will give States,
local governments and industry the cost and control data they need
to carry out their responsibilities.
One day we will have clean air over America—but only if all
levels of Government and industry work closely and conscientiously.
The legislation now on the books provides the framework for a part-
nership without precedent, matching the dimension of the need. The
problem deeply affects us all, and all of us share the responsibility
for solving it.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2007
I am confident that those responsibilities will be carried out—and
that we can return to the American people a fundamental right of
their national heritage: the right to breathe clean air.
ASSISTANCE IN HARDSHIP CASES
We have looked carefully into the question whether water and air
pollution control will have a serious economic impact on American
industry.
According to recent studies, the cost should be small for most firms.
In some cases, however, pollution control costs may present undue
financial hardships to both a business and a community. I have asked
the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Small Bus-
iness Administration to give priority attention to providing assistance
in these hardship situations.
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
In the field of pollution, it is not enough for an enlightened Federal
Government to stimulate the work of the States, localities and private
industry. It must also set a good example for the Nation.
[p. 8]
Across America, federal installations are adopting the latest air
and water pollution control methods. During the coming year, that
effort will be intensified.
We expect to devote $53 million to the task, for thirteen separate
federal agencies and 360 air and water pollution abatement projects.
NOISE CONTROL
What was once critically described as "the busy hum of traffic"
has now turned into an unbearable din for many city dwellers.
The crescendo of noise—whether it comes from truck or jack-
hammer, siren or airplane—is more than an irritating nuisance. It
intrudes on privacy, shatters serenity and can inflict pain.
We dare not be complacent about this ever-mounting volume of
noise. In the years ahead, it can bring even more discomfort—and
worse—to the lives of people.
I am directing all departments of Government to take account of
noise factors in choosing the location and design of buildings, high-
ways and other facilities whose construction is assisted by Federal
funds.
I also urge the Congress to take prompt action on legislation to
strengthen the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to deal
with aircraft noise. We need greater capacity to deal with the rap-
idly growing noise problem created by our expanding air transporta-
tion system.
-------
2008 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SURFACE MINING
An air traveler over some of the richest country in America can
look down upon deep scars gouging the earth, acres of ravaged soil
stretching out on either side.
Advances in mining technology have allowed us to extract the
earth's minerals economically and swiftly.
But too often these new techniques have been used unwisely and
stripping machines have torn coal and other minerals from the surface
of the land, leaving 2 million acres of this Nation sterile and de-
stroyed. The unsightly scars of strip mining blight the beauty of
entire areas, and erosion of the damaged land pours silt and acid into
our streams.
Under present practices, only one-third of the land being mined is
also being reclaimed. This start has been made by responsible indi-
viduals, by mining companies, and by the States that have already
enacted laws to regulate surface mining.
America needs a nationwide system to assure that all lands dis-
turbed by surface mining in the future will be reclaimed. This can
best be achieved through cooperative efforts between the States and
the Federal Government.
I propose the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1968. Under this
Act:
—Criteria will be established which the States will use in develop-
ing their own regulatory plans.
—The States, assisted by Federal grants, will develop their own
plans within two years and submit them to the Secretary of the
Interior for review and approval.
—The Secretary will impose Federal standards if the State plans
are inadequate or if they are not submitted.
Surface mining also occurs on Federal lands. To enable Govern-
ment to take the lead in this important conservation effort, I have
directed that:
—Federal Agencies assure that their regulations require the recla-
mation of Federal lands leased for surface mining.
[p. 9]
—From now on, Federal contracts for the purchase of coal and
other surface-mined minerals contain effective reclamation
clauses.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
In 1965, I recommended and the Congress approved a national
planning, research and development program to find ways to dispose
of the annual discard of solid wastes—millions of tons of garbage and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2009
rubbish, old automobile hulks, abandoned refrigerators, slaughter-
house refuse. This waste—enough to fill the Panama Canal four
times over—mars the landscapes in cities, suburbia and countryside
alike. It breeds disease-carrying insects and rodents, and much of it
finds its way into the air and water.
The problem is not only to learn how to get rid of these sub-
stances—but also how to convert waste economically into useful ma-
terials. Millions of dollars of useful by-products may go up in smoke,
or be buried under the earth.
Already scientists working under the 1965 Act have learned much
about how soils absorb and assimilate wastes. States and local com-
munities have drawn up their plans for solid waste disposal.
That Act expires in June, 1969.
To continue our efforts, I recommend a one-year extension of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
In addition, I am directing the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology working with the appropriate Cabinet officers to under-
take a comprehensive review of current solid waste disposal tech-
nology. We want to find the solutions to two key problems:
—How to bring down the present high costs of solid waste disposal.
—How to improve and strengthen government-wide research and
development in this field.
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
The new agricultural and land management techniques that in-
crease the productivity of our farms have also brought new problems:
—Soil and other substances polluting our streams are the result of
the erosion of farmlands and other areas. This cause of pollution
has never been fully controlled and rapidly expanding suburban
development has aggravated it.
—Added amounts of animal wastes are generated from the efficient
concentration of cattle, hogs and sheep in feed lots.
We must not permit harmful effects on fish, other wildlife and on
drinking water supplies of chemicals from fertilizer and pesticides—
whatever their source.
Many of these problems can be dealt with through existing pro-
grams. But some will require new research and new approaches.
I am instructing the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a govern-
ment-wide review of these problems.
THE SPLENDOR OF A CONTINENT
Before anything else, Americans had the splendor of a continent.
Behind the facade of our cities, beyond the concrete ribbons that
connect them, much of that splendor remains.
-------
2010 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
It is there because men of vision and foresight—men like Gifford
Pinchot, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt—determined
[p. 10]
that the people's oldest legacy, the inheritance of a spacious land,
must be preserved.
It is for each generation to carry on that work.
In our time, the task has become more difficult—but ever more
urgent. Our numbers grow, our cities become more crowded, the
pace of our lives quickens—but man's need to raise his spirits and
expand his vision still endures.
A clear stream, a long horizon, a forest wilderness and open sky—
these are man's most ancient possessions. In a modern society, they
are his most priceless.
NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS
In the past several years, we have authorized the addition of more
than 2.2 million acres to the Nation's Park System.
We are actually preserving more lands—over 1.7 million acres in
1967—for conservation and the recreational enjoyment of America's
families than the bulldozer and power shovel are taking over.
A park, however splendid, has little appeal to a family that cannot
reach it.
The magnificent areas preserved in the early days of conservation
were remote from the cities—and many Americans had to travel half
a continent to visit them.
The new conservation is built on a new promise—to bring parks
closer to the people. The man who works hard all week—the laborer,
the shopkeeper, the subway rider—deserves a chance to escape the
city's crush and congestion. He should have the opportunity to give
his children a weekend of recreation and beauty and fresh air.
To provide this chance is the purpose of our program.
In the last several years, 32 of the 35 areas set aside by the new
conservation—seashores, lakeshores, and parks—were located near
large urban centers—North, West, East, and South. They are within
easy driving distance of 120 million of our people. For example:
—The resident of New York City can within an hour or so reach
the beaches and waters of the Fire Island National Seashore,
established in 1965.
—A family living in the Washington, D.C. area has—since 1965—
been able to enjoy the advantages and scenic wonders of Assa-
teague Island National Seashore, only three hours away by car.
—Citizens of Chicago will soon be able to visit the conveniently
located Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, whose development
began last year.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2011
—A father in Kentucky can take his son hunting and camping in
the new "Land Between the Lakes" recreation area, which will
serve millions of Americans in the Southeast.
—Boy Scout troops in the Southwest can explore and hike through
the Guadalupe National Park in Texas.
—People in North Carolina will have easy access to the Cape Look-
out National Seashore, now underway.
In 1967, almost 140 million visits were made to National Park
areas. These visits are increasing steadily—a tribute to the quality
and importance of our parks. It is also a signal that more parks are
needed.
Paramount among our last-chance conservation opportunities is
the creation of a Redwood National Park in Northern California to
[p. 11]
preserve the tallest, most ancient sentinels of nature on the American
continent. A park in this region would benefit millions of Americans
living on the West Coast who could reach the park within an after-
noon's drive.
I urge the House to seize this opportunity and complete action on a
Redwood bill this year.
I also recommend that the House complete action on two other
major additions to the Park System that we sought and the Senate
approved last year:
—North Cascades National Park in Washington State, the Ameri-
can Alps, an unsurpassed spectacle of mountain beauty in the
great Northwest.
—Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, along Wisconsin's most
scenic water areas.
We can achieve a new concept in conservation—greater than a
park, more than the preservation of a river—by beginning this year
to make the Potomac a living part of our national life.
That great river, coursing through Maryland, Virginia and West
Virginia, cradles much of our early history. Five million people live
within 50 miles of its shores, and its legend beckons millions more
from every part of the Nation. For the Potomac is truly the Amer-
ican River.
I urge the Congress to authorize the development of a uniquely his-
toric area—the Potomac National River. Failure to act now will
make us the shame of generations to come.
SCENIC TRAILS, RIVERS AND WILDERNESS AREAS
The urgent work of conservation leads us into three other areas.
A citizen should be able to leave his car behind and explore a scenic
trail on foot, by bicycle or horse. He can do that if we establish a
-------
2012 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
nationwide network of scenic trails, many near our large cities and
through historic areas. Once again, I urge the Congress—as I did
last year—the authorize a network of scenic trails.
"The time has come," I said in 1965, "to identify and preserve free-
flowing stretches of our great scenic rivers before growth and de-
velopment make the beauty of the unspoiled waterway a memory."
Let this be the session of Congress that grasps the opportunity.
Last year the Senate passed a bill to save seven wild rivers and five
scenic rivers. I urge the Congress to complete action this year on
legislation which would establish a scenic rivers system.
One of the greatest delights for an American is to visit a primitive
area of his land in its natural splendor.
In 1964, the Congress passed the Wilderness Act—a milestone in
conservation policy. It permits the Government to set aside, at little
cost to the taxpayer, some of the truly unspoiled areas of our
continent.
Last year I asked the Congress to add the first four wilderness
areas to the system: San Rafael in California, Mount Jefferson in
Oregon, San Gabriel in California, and Washakie in Wyoming.
I urge the Congress to complete action on these wilderness areas.
I am today recommending the addition of seven new areas to the
wilderness system,, embracing more than 400,000 acres of mountain
and forest and lake. These new wilderness areas are:
—Mt. Baldy in Arizona's Apache National Forest.
—The Desolation Wilderness in California's Eldorado National
Forest.
[p. 12]
—The Flat Tops, in Colorado's Roult and White River National
Forests.
—Pine Mountain in Arizona's Prescott and Tonto National Forests.
—The Spanish Peaks, in Montana's Gallatin National Forest.
—The Ventana Wilderness in California's Los Padres National
Forest.
—Sycamore Canyon in Arizona's Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott
National Forests.
We are now surveying unspoiled and primitive areas in Arkansas,
Oklahoma, Georgia, and Florida as further possible additions to the
Wilderness system.
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
The machinery to finance the acquisition of Federal recreation
lands and to help the States plan, acquire and develop their own
parks and forests is provided by the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2013
That Fund draws upon revenues from motorboat fuel taxes, Fed-
eral recreation area admission charges, and proceeds from the sale of
surplus Federal lands.
For Fiscal 1969,1 recommended new obligational authority of $130
million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund—an increase of
$11 million over 1968.
But this alone may not be enough. The need for more recreation
acreage to serve our growing population—along with rising land
costs—requires that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be
enlarged.
The longer we wait to acquire land for recreational purposes, the
more those lands will cost.
A suitable addition to those sources of revenues now authorized
can be found in the receipts from our mineral leases in the Outer
Continental Shelf. That Shelf belongs to the people, and it is only
right that revenues from it be used for the people's benefit. I rec-
ommend that the Congress authorize the use of part of these revenues
to augment the Land and Water Conservation Fund to raise it up to a
level of $200 million a year for the next five years.
THE NATION'S HIGHWAYS
More than any other mark we make upon the land, the signature of
mid-20th Century America is found in the more than 3 million miles
of highways that cross and link a continent.
It is not enough that those highways be roads of utility. They must
also be safe and pleasant to travel.
We have embarked on a major campaign to make them safe, in the
Highway and Traffic Safety Acts of 1966.
In 1965—in the Highway Beautification Act—we set out to make
them attractive. In partnership with the States, we determined to
remove and control the eyesores that mar the landscape—auto grave-
yards, unsightly billboards, junk heaps.
Early last year I asked the Congress to extend that Act—which ex-
pired on June 30, 1967—for two additional years. The Senate passed
a one-year extension. It is still awaiting House action. The High-
way Beautification Act represents an important item of unfinished
business before the Congress. I urge the Congress to complete action
on the bill
[p. 13]
so that we can get on with the job of making America a more beauti-
ful place to live.
Our highways must be in harmony with the communities and
countrysides of which they are part. Too often in the past, this need
-------
2014 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
has received little more than lip-service.
A distinguished Citizens' Advisory Committee on Recreation and
Natural Beauty, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Laurance Rocke-
feller, has reported:
Highways have effects that reach far beyond those who drive on them; yet our
present devices for choosing locations are still based mostly on requirements of
the highway user rather than the community at large.
Under the new authority in the Department of Transportation Act,
we are moving now to assure that natural beauty and recreational
factors are woven into the highway and freeway planning process,
along with traditional engineering and cost considerations.
—The Secretary of Transportation is requiring States to give full
consideration to the views of local groups—and private citizens
in preparing their route selections for Federally supported high-
ways.
—The Secretaries of Transportation, Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, Interior, and Agriculture will review exceptional cases
which raise questions concerning a proposed highway route's
impact on scenic and historic values.
ROADSIDE PARKS
A highway should not be an unending ribbon of concrete from
point to point.
American families traveling on their roads should be able to stop,
to stretch their legs, to open a picnic lunch and relax before going
on their way.
A park along the roadside—with landscaped grounds, an outdoor
stove and tables, a path to explore—should be part of every travel
experience. These way stations are not expensive. But they can add
immeasurably to the comfort and enjoyment of a family on a trip.
1 have directed the Secretary of Transportation to work with the
Governors and Highway Commissioners of each State on a priority
program to increase substantially the number and quality of rest and
scenic areas along the Federal-aid Highway System.
VOLUNTEERS FOR CONSERVATION
All across America, men and women, boys and girls are making
their cities and communities better places to live. In garden clubs
and civic leagues, in Scout troops, 4-H clubs, and Junior Chambers
of Commerce, they are planning and painting, cleaning and building,
growing and repairing.
This is the army of conservation volunteers, and they number in
the millions.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2015
I propose this action program for volunteers to make America a
place of beauty, enriching its communities and raising the spirits of
their people, volunteers to:
—Increase local conservation efforts in every community through
the full participation of all citizens.
[p. 14]
—Extend the National Paint-Up, Clean-Up, Fix-Up Week, now
an annual event, to a seasonal event, four times a year.
—Encourage every city to beautify its approaches, through the
planting of trees, shrubs and flowers native to the area.
—Impress upon every citizen the contribution he can make simply
by observing the "No litter" signs as he drives along the high-
way and walks along the street. Clean-up is costly. For ex-
ample, it takes $2,000 of the taxpayers' money each year to keep
each mile of highway leading into the Nation's capital free of
refuse.
—Call upon the news media to encourage the conservation work of
local groups. Television and radio stations, which are granted
the public airways, have a special obligation to highlight these
worthy public events.
The volunteer work for conservation deserves recognition and
honor. It deserves help in mobilizing for greater effort in the years
ahead.
Accordingly,, I am asking the President's Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty and the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with
the Governors and Mayors to join with private organizations in spon-
soring a series of regional workshops to focus attention on those areas
where greater private conservation efforts would be particularly
productive.
THE OCEANS
The seas are the world's oldest frontiers. As Longfellow observed,
they not only separate—but unite—mankind.
Even in the Age of Space, the sea remains our greatest mystery.
But we know that in its sunless depths, a richness is still locked
which holds vast promise for the improvement of men's lives—in all
nations.
Those ocean roads, which so often have been the path of conquest,
can now be turned to the search for enduring peace.
The task of exploring the ocean's depth for its potential wealth—
food, minerals, resources—is as vast as the seas themselves. No one
nation can undertake that task alone. As we have learned from prior
ventures in ocean exploration, cooperation is the only answer.
-------
2016 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I have instructed the Secretary of State to consult with other na-
tions on the steps that could be taken to launch an historic and
unprecedented adventure—an International Decade of Ocean Ex-
ploration for the 1970s.
Together the countries which border the seas can survey the
ocean's resources, reaching where man has never probed before.
We hope that those nations will join in this exciting and important
work.
Already our marine technology gives us the ability to use the ocean
as a new and promising source of information on weather and climate.
We can now build and moor electronic buoys in deep water. Un-
attended, these scientific outposts can transmit to shore data for ac-
curate long-range forecasts.
The benefits will be incalculable—to farmers, to businessmen, to
all travelers.
This year we can begin development of improved ocean buoys. I
urge the Congress to approve my request for $5 million in the Fiscal
1969 Coast Guard budget for this program.
As we turn more and more of our attention to the exploration and
the promise of the seas, America must train more ocean scientists and
engineers.
[p. 15]
In 1966, I signed the National Sea Grant College and Program Act.
This new partnership between the Federal Government and the
Nation's universities will prepare men and women for careers in the
Marine Sciences.
I recommend that the Congress appropriate $6 million in Fiscal
1969 to advance this program.
THE CRISIS OF CHOICE
Three years ago, I said to the Congress:
"...beauty must not be just a holiday treat, but a part of our
daily life."
I return to that theme in this message, which concerns the air we
breathe, the water we drink and use, the oceans that surround us, the
land on which we live.
These are the elements of beauty. They are the forces that shape
the lives of all of us—housewife and farmer, worker and executive,
whatever our income and wherever we are. They are the substance
of The New Conservation.
Today, the crisis of conservation is no longer quiet. Relentless and
insistent, it has surged into a crisis of choice.
Man—who has lived so long in harmony with nature—is now
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2017
struggling to preserve its bounty.
Man—who developed technology to serve him—is now racing to
prevent its wastes from endangering his very existence.
Our environment can sustain our growth and nourish our future.
Or it can overwhelm us.
History will say that in the 1960s the Nation began to take action
so long delayed.
But beginning is not enough. The America of the future will re-
flect not the wisdom with which we saw the problem, but the de-
termination with which we saw it through.
If we fail now to complete the work so nobly begun, our children
will have to pay more than the price of our inaction. They will have
to bear the tragedy of our irresponsibility.
The new conservation is work not for some Americans—but for
all Americans. All will share in its blessings—and all will suffer if
the work is neglected. That work begins with the family. It extends
to all civic and community groups. It involves city hall and State
capitol. And finally it must engage the concern of the Federal
Government.
I urge the Congress to give prompt and favorable consideration to
the proposals in this Message.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, March 8, 1968.
[p. 16]
1.21 RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1970
December 31,1970, Pi,. 91-611, Titie I, §§120,123, 84 Stat. 1823
SEC. 120. Paragraph (1) of subsection (p) of section 11 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is amended by
inserting after the word "size," in the first sentence thereof, a new
clause as follows: "but not including any barge that is not self-
propelled and that does not carry oil as cargo or fuel".
SEC. 123. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain,
subject to the provisions of subsection (c), contained spoil disposal
facilities of sufficient capacity for a period not to exceed ten years,
to meet the requirements of this section. Before establishing each
such facility, the Secretary of the Army shall obtain the concurrence
-------
2018 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of appropriate local governments and shall consider the views and
recommendations of the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and shall comply with requirements of section 21 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969. Section 9 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1899 shall not apply to any facility authorized by this section.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engi-
neers, shall establish the contained spoil disposal facilities author-
ized in subsection (a) at the earliest practicable date, taking into
consideration the views and recommendations of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency as to those areas which,
in the Administrator's judgment, are most urgently in need of such
facilities and pursuant to the requirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
(c) Prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate
State or States, interstate agency, municipality, or other appropriate
political subdivision of the State shall agree in writing to (1) furnish
all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of the facility; (2) contribute to
the United States 25 per centum of the construction costs, such
amount to be payable either in cash prior to construction, in install-
ments during construction, or in installments, with interest at a rate
to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the begin-
ning of the fiscal year in which construction is initiated, on the
basis of the computed average interest rate payable by the Treasury
upon its outstanding marketable public obligations, which are neither
due or callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue;
(3) hold and save the United States free from damages due to con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of the facility; and (4) except
as provided in subsection (f), maintain the facility after completion
of its use for disposal purposes in a manner satisfactory to the Secre-
tary of the Army.
(d) The requirement for appropriate non-Federal interest or in-
terests to furnish an agreement to contribute 25 per centum of the
construction costs as set forth in subsection (c) shall be waived
by the Secretary of the Army upon a finding by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency that for the area to which
such construction applies, the State or States involved, interstate
agency, municipality, and other appropriate political subdivision of
the State and industrial concerns are participating in and in com-
pliance with an approved plan for the general geographical area of
the dredging activity for construction, modification, expansion, or
rehabilitation of waste treatment facilities and the Administrator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2019
has found that applicable water quality standards are not being
violated.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all costs of dis-
posal of dredged spoil from the project for the Great Lakes connect-
ing channels, Michigan, shall be borne by the United States.
(f) The participating non-Federal interest or interests shall retain
title to all lands, easements, and rights-of-way furnished by it pur-
suant to subsection (c). A spoil disposal facility owned by a non-
Federal interest or interests may be conveyed to another party only
after completion of the facility's use for disposal purposes and after
the transferee agrees in writing to use or maintain the facility in
a manner which the Secretary of the Army determines to be satis-
factory.
(g) Any spoil disposal facilities constructed under the provisions
of this section shall be made available to Federal licensees or per-
mittees upon payment of an appropriate charge for such use. Twenty-
five per centum of such charge shall be remitted to the participating
non-Federal interest or interests except for those excused from
contributing to the construction costs under subsections (d) and (e).
(h) This section, other than subsection (i), shall be applicable only
to the Great Lakes and their connecting channels.
(i) The Chief of Engineers, under the direction of the Secretary
of the Army, is hereby authorized to extend to all navigable waters,
connecting channels, tributary streams, other waters of the United
States and waters contiguous to the United States, a comprehensive
program, of research, study, and experimentation relating to dredged
spoil. This program shall be carried out in cooperation with other
Federal and State agencies, and shall include, but not be limited to,
investigations on the characteristics of dredged spoil, and alternative
methods of its disposal. To the extent that such study shall include
the effects of such dredge spoil on water quality, the facilities and
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be utilized.
-------
2020 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.21(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL
ACTS OF 1970
DECEMBER 8, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19877]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 19877) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation
of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood
control, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
[p. 1]
*******
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental statements for all projects in this bill have been
filed with the Committee in accordance with the requirements of sec-
tion 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The
Committee notes that many of the project proposals impact on and
impose changes on our natural and human environment, but con-
siders such changes are inevitable if our nation is to continue to be
responsive to the needs of present and future generations. The con-
cern of this Committee is, therefore, that these needs be met by proj-
ects that not only minimize injurious environmental impacts, but also
which contribute positively to an improved environment for the well-
being of our people. The National Environmental Policy Act was
approved January 1, 1970, and guidelines for making environmental
statements were promulgated by the Council on Environmental Qual-
ity on April 30, 1970. In view of the short period of time which has
elapsed since the promulgation of the guidelines and the requirements
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2021
for extensive coordination, the environmental statements reflect a
satisfactory degree of analysis based on available information, both
with respect to alternative solutions and to the inclusion of measures
to protect and improve the quality of the environment.
[p. 3]
SECTION 111
This section provides for a program of construction of contained
spoil disposal facilities in the Great Lakes in order to eliminate pol-
lution associated with open water disposal of contaminated dredged
spoil. The section is similar in import to a proposal submitted earlier
this year by the Administration. It varies from the Administration
proposal mainly in the area of cost sharing, by providing for waiver
of the required local cooperation where the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency finds that the local interests are
participating in an approved plan for the construction, modification,
expansion, or rehabilitation of waste treatment facilities and are
making progress satisfactory to the Administrator. The Committee
feels that this provision is appropriate in view of the fact that the
section contemplates the construction of disposal facilities only for
a ten-year period, at which time the sources of the polluted materials
are expected to be eliminated, and local interests who are expending
money to eliminate the source of the pollutants should not be pe-
nalized by requiring them to participate in the costs of the interim
measures authorized by this section.
[p. 29]
The section provides that, in any case where the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency determines that dredged spoil
from an area within an authorized Federal navigation project is sig-
nificantly polluted, and the Secretary of the Army thereafter deter-
mines that dredged spoil disposal facilities are available, then open
water disposal of such dredged spoil shall be discontinued. No deter-
minations as to significant pollution and availability of disposal areas
are to be made except after consultation with the Governors of the
affected States.
The section authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, to construct contained spoil disposal facili-
ties, subject to conditions of non-Federal cooperation, as soon as prac-
ticable. The priority of construction of the various facilities would be
determined after considering the views and recommendations of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Before es-
tablishing any spoil disposal facility, the Secretary of the Army
would be required to obtain the concurrence of appropriate local gov-
ernments and consider the views and recommendations of the Ad-
-------
2022 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ministrator and other appropriate heads of Federal agencies with
respect to the location and the effect of the proposed facility on the
quality of the water and land resources involved, and on the en-
vironment.
Subsection (f) provides that all costs of the disposal of dredged
spoil from the connecting channels of the Great Lakes shall be borne
by the Federal Government. This provision was added for two rea-
sons: First, some of the connecting channels, while maintained by
the United States, are in Canada. Second, the channels serve all of the
Great Lakes, and it would be inequitable to assess the costs of dis-
posal of channel materials to one particular locality simply because it
happened to be geographically near the channel.
It is the intent of this section that the construction of any new facil-
ities, or the expansion of existing ones, when accomplished for the
purposes of this section, shall be done in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section, notwithstanding any previously enacted provi-
sion of law or contract or agreement to the contrary.
The Committee recognizes that in certain cases the disposal of par-
ticularly hazardous spoil by open waters dumping would be so con-
trary to the public interest that it should not and will not be permitted
at all, notwithstanding the fact that alternative disposal areas are not
available.
[p. 30]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2023
1.21(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-1422,91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
PUBLIC WORKS AUTHORIZATIONS, 1970, RIVERS AND
HARBORS—FLOOD CONTROL AND MULTIPLE-PURPOSE
PROJECTS
DECEMBER 8.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted
the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4572]
The Committee on Public Works, reporting on the original bill
(S. 4572) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of
certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood con-
trol, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill is to authorize construction of certain
navigation, beach erosion control, flood control, multiple purpose and
related projects on which favorable recommendations have been
made by the Chief of Engineers. S. 4572 is an omnibus rivers and
harbors and flood control bill similar to those which have been en-
acted at intervals of 2 to 4 years.
The bill is divided into two parts. Title I covers river and harbor
works, which include navigational projects for the control of beach
erosion, and authorization for navigation and beach erosion control
surveys to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers.
*******
[p. 1]
Section 11 of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 imposed
a form of absolute liability on those who carry oil, and residual lia-
-------
2024 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
bility on those who may cause accidents resulting in the discharge of
oil in the navigable waters. Since non-self-propelled dry cargo barges
would not be directly liable under the act, it does not at this time
seem necessary for owners of such barges to meet the same financial
responsibility requirements imposed upon owners of vessels which
carry oil as either cargo or fuel. In addition, it should be noted that
with only the exception of a very small number in Canada, all owners
and operators of such non-oil-carrying barges are domestic corpora-
tions with assets readily accessible should a liability under act occur.
It should be clear that the amendment in no way affects the liability
imposed by the act. Rather, it simply exempts owners and operators
of non-oil-carrying inland and coastal non-self-propelled barge units
from the requirement of establishing, with the Federal Maritime
Commission, evidence of financial responsibility to meet costs of
removal of oil discharged as a result of an act involving barges and
for which the act imposes liability.
[p. 61]
1.21(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1782, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL ACTS OF
1970
DECEMBER 17,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19877]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 19877)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2025
authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood control, 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 House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amend-
ment insert the following:
*******
[p- 1]
SEC. 120. Paragraph (1) of subsection (p) of section 11 of the
federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is amended by in-
serting after the word "size," in the first sentence thereof, a new
clause as follows: "but not including any barge that is not self-pro-
pelled and that does not carry oil as cargo or fuel,"
SEC. 123. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, is authorized to construct, operate, and maintain, sub-
ject to the provisions of subsection (c), contained spoil disposal facil-
[p. 7]
ities of sufficient capacity for a period not to exceed ten years, to meet
the requirements of this section. Before establishing each such facil-
ity, the Secretary of the Army shall obtain the concurrence of ap-
propriate local governments and shall consider the views and
recommendations of the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and shall comply with requirements of section 21 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act of 1969. Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899 shall not apply to any facility authorized by this section.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engi-
neers, shall establish the contained spoil disposal facilities authorized
in subsection (a) at the earliest practicable date, taking into consid-
eration the views and recommendations of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency as to those areas which, in the
Administrator's judgment, are most urgently in need of such facilities
and pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(c) Prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate State
or States, interstate agency, municipality, or other appropriate politi-
cal subdivision of the State shall agree in writing to (1) furnish all
lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facility; (2) contribute to the
United States 25 per centum of the construction costs, such amount to
-------
2026 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
be payable either in cash prior to construction, in installments during
construction, or in installments, with interest at a rate to be deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treasury, as of the beginning of the
fiscal year in which construction is initiated, on the basis of the com-
puted average interest rate payable by the Treasury upon its out-
standing marketable public obligations, which are neither due nor
callable for redemption for fifteen years from date of issue; (3) hold
and save the United States free from damages due to construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facility; and (4) except as provided
in subsection (f), maintain the facility after completion of its use
for disposal purposes in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of the
Army.
(d) The requirement for appropriate non-Federal interest or
interests to furnish an agreement to contribute 25 per centum of the
construction costs as set forth in subsection (c) shall be waived by
the Secretary of the Army upon a finding by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency that for the area to which such
construction applies, the State or States involved, interstate agency,
municipality, and other appropriate political subdivision of the State
and industrial concerns are participating in and in compliance with
an approved plan for the general geographical area of the dredging
activity for construction, modification, expansion, or rehabilitation of
waste treatment facilities and the Administrator has found that appli-
cable water quality standards are not being violated.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all costs of dis-
posal of dredged spoil from the project for the Great Lakes connect-
ing channels, Michigan, shall be borne by the United States.
(f) The participating non-Federal interest or interests shall retain
title to all lands, easements, and rights-of-way furnished by it pursu-
ant to subsection (c). A spoil disposal facility owned by a non-Federal
[p. 8]
interest or interests may be conveyed to another party only after com-
pletion of the facility's use for disposal purposes and after the trans-
feree agrees in writing to use or maintain the facility in a manner
which the Secretary of the Army determines to be satisfactory.
(g) Any spoil disposal facilities constructed under the provisions
of this section shall be made available to Federal licensees or per-
mittees upon payment of an appropriate charge for such use.
Twenty-five per centum of such charge shall be remitted to the par-
ticipating non-Federal interest or interests except for those excused
from contributing to the construction costs under subsections (d)
and (e).
(h) This section, other than subsection (i), shall be applicable only
to the Great Lakes and their connecting channels.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2027
(i) The Chief of Engineers, under the direction of the Secretary
of the Army, is hereby authorized to extend to all navigable waters,
connecting channels, tributary streams, other waters of the United
States and waters contiguous to the United States, a comprehensive
program of research, study, and experimentation relating to dredged
spoil. This program shall be carried out in cooperation with other
Federal and State agencies, and shall include, but not be limited to,
investigations, on the characteristics of dredged spoil, and alternative
methods of its disposal. To the extent that such study shall include
the effects of such dredge spoil on water quality, the facilities and
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be utilized.
[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
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 19877) authorizing the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for naviga-
tion, flood control, and for other purposes, submit the following state-
ment in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment struck out all of the House bill after the
enacting clause and inserted a substitute. The House recedes from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, with an amendment
which is a substitute for both the House bill and the Senate amend-
ment. The differences between the House bill and the substitute
agreed to in conference are noted below except for minor technical
and clarifying changes made necessary by reason of the conference
agreement.
[P- 21]
EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Senate amendment Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act—relating to the discharge of oil—to exempt owners and
operators of nonoil carrying, nonself propelled barge units from
requirements of filing with the Federal Government evidence of
financial responsibility to meet any liability imposed by the act.
The House bill does not contain this provision.
The conference substitute is the same as the Senate amendment.
[p. 24]
GREAT LAKES DREDGING
The House bill contained a provision which provides that in any
case where the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
-------
2028 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Agency determines that dredged spoil from an area within an author-
ized Federal navigation project is significantly polluted, and the Sec-
retary of the Army thereafter determines that dredged spoil disposal
facilities are available, then open water disposal of such dredged spoil
shall be discontinued. No determinations as to significant pollution
and availability of disposal areas are to be made except after con-
sultation with the Governors of the affected States.
The section authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, to construct contained spoil disposal facilities,
subject to conditions of non-Federal cooperation, as soon as prac-
ticable. The priority of construction of the various facilities would
be determined after considering the views and recommendations of
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Before
establishing any spoil disposal facility, the Secretary of the Army
would be required to obtain the concurrence of appropriate local gov-
ernments and consider the views and recommendations of the Admin-
istrator and other appropriate heads of Federal agencies with respect
to the location and the effect of the proposed facility on the quality
of the water and land resources involved, and on the environment.
The requirement that local interests contribute to the United States
25 per centum of the construction costs may be waived where the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency finds that
the local interests are participating in an approved plan for the con-
struction, modification, expansion, or rehabilitation of waste treat-
ment facilities and are making progress satisfactory to the
Administrator.
Subsection (f) provides that all costs of the disposal of dredged
spoil from the connecting channels of the Great Lakes shall be borne
by the Federal Government.
The Senate amendment contains no similar provision.
The conference substitute is essentially the same as the provisions
of the House bill with the following exceptions:
(1) The first subsection relating to dual determinations by the
Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of the Army is deleted.
(2) The provisions of Section 21 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are
specifically required to be complied with.
(3) The provision relating to waiver of the 25 per centum cost of
construction is modified to require that prior to waiver that the
[p. 25]
Administrator of EPA must make a finding that applicable water
quality standards are not being violated.
(4) To the extent that the study authorized in subsection (i) in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2029
eludes the effect of dredged spoil on water quality the facilities and
personnel of EPA shall be utilized.
[p. 26]
1.21(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.21(4) (a) Dec. 7: Passed House, pp. 40139, 40143, 40145-40147, 40149
SEC. 111. (a) In any case where the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency determines that dredged spoil from
an area within an authorized Federal navi-
gation project is significantly polluted and
the Secretary of the Army thereafter deter-
mines that dredged spoil disposal facilities
are available for the disposition of such spoil,
then open water disposal of such dredged
spoil shall be discontinued The Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Secretary of the Army shall
not make any determination under this sec-
tion except after consultation with the Gov-
ernors of all affected States.
(b) The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall under-
take to establish the contained spoil disposal
facilities authorized in subsection (c) at the
earliest practicable date, taking into consid-
eration the views and recommendations of
the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency as to those areas which, in
the Administrator's judgment, are most ur-
gently in need of such facilities
(c) The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, is author-
ized to construct, operate, and maintain,
subject to the provisions of subsection (d),
contained spoil disposal facilities of sufficient
capacity to meet the requirements of this
section for a period not to exceed ten years.
Before establishing each such facility, the
Secretary of the Army shall obtain the con-
currence of appropriate local governments
and shall consider the views and recom-
mendations of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and other
appropriate heads of Federal agencies with
respect to the effect of the proposed facility
on the quality of the water and land re-
sources involved, and on the environment.
Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899
shall not apply to any facility authorized by
this section.
(d) Prior to construction of any such fa-
cility, the appropriate non-Federal interest
or interests shall agree in writing to (1)
furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-
way necessary for the construction, opera-
tion, and maintenance of the facility; (2)
contribute to the United States 25 per centum
of the construction costs, such amount to be
payable either in cash prior to construction,
in installments during construction, or in in-
stallments, with interest at a rate to be de-
termined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which
construction is initiated, on the basis of the
computed average interest rate payable by
the Treasury upon its outstanding marketable
public obligations, which are neither due nor
callable for redemption for fifteen years from
date of issue, (3) hold and save the United
States free from damages due to construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facility;
and (4) except as provided in subsection (g),
maintain the facility after completion of its
use for disposal purposes in a manner satis-
factory to the Secretary of the Army.
(e) The requirement for appropriate non-
Federal interest or interests to furnish an
agreement to contribute 25 per centum of the
construction costs as set forth in subsection
(d) shall be waived by the Secretary of the
Army upon a finding by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency that
the State or States involved, interstate agen-
cy, municipality, or other appropriate po-
litical subdivision of the State or industrial
concern is participating in an approved plan
for the general geographical area of the
dredging activity for construction, modifica-
tion, expansion, or rehabilitation of waste
treatment facilities and is making progress
satisfactory to the Administrator.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, all costs of disposal or dredged spoil
from the project for the Great Lakes con-
necting channels, Michigan, shall be borne by
the United States.
(g) The participating non-Federal interest
or interests shall retain title to all lands,
easements, and rights-of-way furnished by it
pursuant to subsection (d). A spoil disposal
facility owned by a non-Federal interest or
-------
2030
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
interests may be conveyed to another party
only after completion of the facility's use for
disposal purposes and after the transferee
agrees in writing to use or maintain the fa-
cility in a manner which the Secretary of the
Army determines to be satisfactory.
(h) Any spoil disposal facilities constructed
under the provisions of this section shall be
made available to Federal licensees or per-
mittees upon payment of an appropriate
charge for such use. Twenty-five per centum
of such charge shall be remitted to the par-
ticipating non-Federal interest or interests
except for those excused from contributing
to the construction costs under subsections
(e) and (f).
(i) This section, other than subsection (j),
shall be applicable only to the Great Lakes
and their connecting channels.
(j) The Chief of Engineers, under the di-
rection of the Secretary of the Army, is
hereby authorized to extend to all navigable
waters, connecting channels, tributary waters,
connecting channels, tributary streams, other
waters of the United States and water con-
tiguous to the United States, a comprehensive
program of research, study, and experimenta-
tion relating to dredged spoil. This program
shall be carried out in cooperation with
other Federal and State agencies, and shall
include, but not be limited to, investigations
on the characteristics of dredged spoil, al-
ternative methods of its disposal, and its
effects on receiving waters.
[p. 40139]
Mr. BLATNIK.
Section 111 provides for a program of
construction of contained spoil disposal
facilities in the Great Lakes in order to
eliminate pollution associated with open
water disposal of contaminated dreged
spoil. The section is similar in import to
a proposal submitted earlier this year by
the administration. It varies from the
administration proposal mainly in the
area of cost sharing, by providing for
waiver of the required local cooperation
where the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency finds that the
local interests are participating in an
approved plan for the construction,
modification, expansion, or rehabilita-
tion of waste treatment facilities and
are making progress satisfactory to the
Administrator.
The section provides that, in any case
where the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency determines
that dreged spoil from an area within an
authorized Federal navigation project is
significantly polluted, and the Secretary
of the Army thereafter determines that
dredged spoil disposal facilities are
available for the disposition of such spoil,
then open water disposal of such dredged
spoil shall be discontinued. No deter-
minations as to significant pollution and
availability of disposal areas are to be
made except after consultation with the
Governors of the affected States.
[p. 40145]
The section further authorizes the
Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, to construct con-
tained spoil disposal facilities, subject to
conditions of non-Federal cooperation,
as soon as practicable. The priority of
construction of the various facilities
would be determined after considering
the views and recommendations of the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
One point we would note is that we
recognize that in certain cases the dis-
posal of particularly hazardous spoil by
open waters dumping would be so con-
trary to the public interest that it should
not and will not be permitted at all, not-
withstanding the fact that alternative
disposal areas are not available.
H.R. 19877, is another forward move in
the extension of the Federal river and
harbor program which has produced the
best system of navigable harbors and
waterways possessed by any nation.
Since Congress initiated the program in
1824, considerable sums of money have
been appropriated for improving and
maintaining the Nation's navigable wa-
terways. These improved waterways
carry huge tonnage of foreign and inter-
state commerce and have made possible
free, easy, and unobstructed interstate
commerce, and have more than justified
the Federal expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the projects
in this bill, the Committee heard testi-
mony with respect to report recommen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2031
dations for a number of projects each
having an estimated Federal cost of less
than $10,000,000. These projects qualify
for authorization under the provisions of
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of
1965 which permits the Congressional
Committees on Public Works to approve
projects under $10,000,000 by resolution.
This committee presently has under ac-
tive consideration a number of flood con-
trol, navigation and beach erosion proj-
ects which qualify for authorization
under section 201.
The following tables summarize the
number of projects contained in the bill,
together with the estimated Federal cost:
Number
Amount
Title I:
Navigation projects ....
Beach erosion control
projects
Total, title I
Title II: Flood control and
multiple purpose projects
Grand total
10 $184,501,000
1 240,000
11 184,741,000
19 400,052,000
30 584,793,000
List of projects by States
Estimated
Project Federal cost
Alabama None
Alaska None
Arizona None
Arkansas: Navigation: Ouachita
and Black Rivers (also Loui-
siana) .... $13,500,000
California: Flood control:
Goleta and vicinity, Atas-
cadero Creek 13,830,000
Merced County Streams 37,260,000
Cotton wood Creek (channel
improvement and two
reservoirs) 40,000,000
Total, California 91,090,000
Colorado None
Connecticut None
Delaware None
Florida:
Navigation:
Port Sutton, Tampa Har-
bor Maintenance
Tampa Harbor 40,000,000
Beach erosion control: Lido
Key 240,000
Total, Florida 40,240,000
Georgia None
Hawaii None
Idaho None
Illinois None
Indiana None
Iowa: Flood control: Mississippi
River at Davenport (local pro-
tection and reservoir) 12,263,000
Kansas: Flood control:
Blue River, vicinity of Kansas
City (channel improvement
and four reservoirs). (See
Missouri.)
Arkansas-Red River Basin,
water quality control. (See
Oklahoma.)
Total, Kansas
Kentucky
None
None
Louisiana:
Navigation: Ouachita and Black
Rivers. (See Arkansas.)
Flood control:
Eastern Rapides and South-
Central Avoyelles Parishes ..(15,333,000)
Sabine River Basin (local
protection, 3 reservoirs,
and navigation channel).
(See Texas )
Total, Louisiana (15,333,000)
Maine None
Maryland: Navigation: Baltimore
Harbor (also Virginia) 40,000,000
Massachusetts: Navigation: Pleas-
ant Bay 10,221,000
Michigan: Flood Control: Red Run
Drain and Lower Clinton River
(channel improvement) 40,000,000
Minnesota: Flood Control: Wild
Rice River, Twin Valley Reser-
voir 8,359,000
Mississippi None
Missouri: Flood control: Blue
River, vicinity of Kansas City
(channel improvement and 4
reservoirs) (also Kansas) 40,000,000
Montana None
Nebraska: Navigation: Missouri
River (also North Dakota and
South Dakota) 35,981,000
Nevada None
New Hampshire None
New Jersey None
New Mexico None
New York: Flood control: Ellicott
Creek, Sandridge Reservoir 19,070,000
North Carolina: Navigation:
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay 10,769,000
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Bridges (also Virginia) 11,220,000
Total, North Carolina 21,989,000
-------
2032
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
North Dakota:
Navigation: Missouri River.
(See Nebraska.)
Flood control:
Missouri River, Oahe Reser-
voir 732,000
Cheyenne River, Kindred
Reservoir 20,000,000
Souris River, Burlington
Reservoir 29,240,000
Total, North Dakota 49,972,000
Ohio: Flood control: Mill Creek
(channel improvement) 32,642,000
Oklahoma: Flood control:
Deep Fork River, Arcadia Res-
ervoir 24,900,000
Arkansas-Red River Basin,
water quality control (also
Texas and Kansas).
Oregon: Navigation: Coos Bay .... 9,100,000
Pennsylvania None
Rhode Island None
South Carolina None
South Dakota: Navigation: Mis-
souri River (see Nebraska) None
Tennessee None
Texas:
Navigation: Freeport Harbor .... 13,710,000
Flood control:
Arkansas-Red River Basin,
water quality control. (See
Oklahoma.)
Sabine River Basin (channel
improvement, 3 reservoirs,
and navigation channel)
(also Louisiana) 40,000,000
Total, Texas 53,710,000
Utah None
Vermont None
Virginia: Navigation:
Baltimore Harbor. ( See Mary-
land )
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
Bridges. (See North Carolina.)
Total, Virginia None
Washington None
West Virginia None
Wisconsin None
Wyoming None
Puerto Rico: Flood Control:
Portugues River, Portugues
Reservoir 11,110,000
Cerrillos River, Cerrillos Res-
ervoir 16,351,000
Ponce, channel improvements .... 14,295,000
Total, Puerto Rico 41,756,000
Grand total 584,793,000
The following table lists the projects
in "the River and Harbor Act of 1970,
project document number and estimated
Feleral cost:
TITLE I.—RIVERS AND HARBORS NAVIGATION
PROJECTS
Project
H. Doc.
No.
Federal cost
of new work
Pleasant Bay, Mass 91- $10,221,000
Baltimore Harbor, Md. and Va. 91- 40,000,000
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
bridges, North Carolina 91- 11,220,000
Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, N.C. 91-303 10,769,000
Port Sutton, Fla 91-150
Tampa Harbor, Fla 91-401 40,000,000
Freeport Harbor, Tex 91- 13,710,000
Quachita-Black Rivers naval
project, Arkansas and
Louisiana 91- 13,500,000
Missouri River, N. DaH., and
Nebr 91- 35,981,000
Coos Bay, Oreg 91-151 9,100,000
Subtotal 184,501,000
Beach erosion; Lido Key, Fla. 91-320 240,000
Total of title I 184,741,000
[p. 40146]
Mr. Speaker, I urge favorable con-
sideration of H.R. 19877.
[p. 40147]
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI.
* * * * *
Section 111 provides for a program of
construction of contained spoil disposal
facilities in the Great Lakes in order to
eliminate pollution associated with open
water disposal of contaminated dredged
spoil. This should go a long way toward
resolving the complaints pertaining to
the Corps of Engineers disposal of pol-
luted materials in the Great Lakes.
[p. 40149]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2033
1.21(4) (b) Dec. 9: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40594, 40598
Mr. RANDOLPH.
* # * * *
Section 113 amends Section 11 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act-
relating to the discharge of oil—to ex-
empt owners and operators of nonoil
carrying, nonself propelled barge units
from requirements of filing with the
Federal Government evidence of finan-
cial responsibility to meet any liability
imposed by the act. The amendment
does not in any way affect liability un-
der the act.
[p. 40594]
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) also
described, in individual views filed in
the report with reference to specific
projects, difficulties with problems that
arise in the authorization of corps proj-
ects.
Mr. President, during the considera-
tion of the omnibus bill, it was brought
to the attention of the committee that
the requirement in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act for evidence of fi-
nancial responsibility, as it was being
implemented by regulations, was causing
a hardship to certain owners and opera-
tors of vessels that was in no way
related to the objectives of the require-
ment in the act to show financial respon-
sibility. Because of the timing involved,
the committee chose to make a clarify-
ing amendment to the financial respon-
sibility subsection of the Water Pollution
Control Act in the omnibus bill in order
to avoid such hardship and administra-
tive redtape. The very limited amend-
ment provides that owners and operators
of non-oil-carrying, non-self-propelled
barge units do not have to show evidence
of financial responsibility to meet liabil-
ities imposed by the act. It should be
pointed out further that the amendment
in no way affects liabilities imposed by
the act. I ask unanimous consent that
at this point in the RECORD the section in
the report describing the amendment be
printed.
There being no objection, the descrip-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SECTION 113
Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended was added by the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970,
Public Law 91-224, April 3, 1970.
Section 11 of the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1970 imposed a form of absolute
liability on those who carry oil, and residual
liability on those who may cause accidents
resulting in the discharge of oil in the navi-
gable waters. Since non-self-propelled dry
cargo barges would not be directly liable
under the act, it does not at this time seem
necessary for owners of such barges to meet
the same financial responsibility require-
ments imposed upon owners of vessels which
carry oil as either cargo or fuel. In addi-
tion, it should be noted that with only the
exception of a very small number in Canada,
all owners and operators of such non-oil-
carrying barges are domestic corporations
with assets readily accessible should a lia-
bility under act occur.
It should be clear that the amendment in
no way affects the liability imposed by the
act. Rather, it simply exempts owners and
operators of non-oil-carrying inland and
coastal non-self-propelled barge units from
the requirement of establishing, with the
Federal Maritime Commission, evidence of
financial responsibility to meet costs of re-
moval of oil discharged as a result of an act
involving barges and for which the act im-
poses liability.
[p. 40598]
-------
2034
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.21 (4) (c) Dec. 18: House agreed to conference report, pp. 42509, 42512
Mr. BLATNIK.
* * * * *
Section 123 provides for a program of
construction of contained spoil disposal
facilities in the Great Lakes in order to
eliminate pollution associated with open
water disposal of contaminated dredged
spoil. The section is similar in import to
a proposal submitted earlier this year by
the administration. It differs from the
administration proposal mainly in the
area of cost sharing, by providing for
waiver of the required local cooperation
where the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency finds that the
local interests are participation in an ap-
proved plan for the construction, modi-
fication, expansion, or rehabilitation of
waste treatment facilities and are
making progress satisfactory to the Ad-
ministrator.
The section authorizes the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, to construct contained spoil
disposal facilities subject to conditions of
non-Federal cooperation, as soon as
practicable. Construction priority of the
various facilities would be determined
after considering the views and recom-
mendations of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
[p. 42509]
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
would the gentleman from Minnesota
yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I will be delighted to
yield to the distinguished minority
leader.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, approximately 2 years
ago I introduced legislation that would
have prevented the Army Corps of Engi-
neers from dumping in the Great Lakes
the dredgings that they acquire from
their various operations. Earlier this
year the President of the United States
also recommended to the Congress that
such prohibiting legislation be approved
by the House and the Senate.
I was reading the conference report
on page 25, and would the gentleman
from Minnesota explain what has been
done in this legislation that involves this
particular problem? Because we do
have a serious situation concerning the
dumping of soil dredgings, particularly
in the Great Lakes from the various op-
erations of the Corps of Engineers and
others.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, the gen-
tleman from Michigan raises not only a
very important question, but the gentle-
man is directing himself to a very vexing
problem.
Section 123 of the legislation as
agreed to by both the Senate and the
House, has a program for construction
of spoil disposal facilities for the Great
Lakes in order to eliminate this very
serious problem. We did not adopt all of
the recommendations made by the ad-
ministration. I would point that the
basic difference was in cost sharing, be-
cause at this stage much of this will be
of an advanced demonstration program
of what to do with these materials. The
gentleman knows, the problem can vary
from place to place.
Again let me emphasize that the dif-
ference was not in concept but merely in
cost sharing. The administration asked
for a 50-50 sharing between the local
units and the Federal Government. We
changed that to a requirement for local
cooperation of 25 percent. Also in some
instances the Corps of Engineers, with
proper justification, can waive the local
contribution because the local interests
are in compliance with an ongoing pro-
gram of sewage treatment facility con-
struction.
We do make what is, in our judgment,
a very significant forward step in coping
with this problem in a workable manner,
and in as efficient a manner as we can to
handle this problem of disposal.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2035
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
if the gentleman will yield further, let
me say that I applaud the action taken
by the conference, even though it does
not go the full length recommended by
the administration. This is a forward
advance from the conditions of the past,
and perhaps after -we have had some ex-
perience with this law perhaps we can
take further steps in the future to pro-
hibit this kind of a problem from exist-
ing at all.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I appre-
ciate the good words from the distin-
guished minority leader.
I also want the RECORD to show the
gentleman's persistent and continuing
interest in advocating that action be
taken on this important problem.
[p. 42512]
1.21(4) (d) Dec. 19: Senate agreed to conference report, p. 42724
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, an
item of importance in the report agreed
to in conference deals with the matter
of construction of spoil disposal facilities
in the Great Lakes in order in eliminate
pollution associated with open-water
disposal in contaminated dredged spoil.
The provision is similar to one proposed
by the administration earlier this year.
The main difference is in the area of
cost sharing.
Your conferees are aware of opposition
expressed by some Members of the Sen-
ate to this provision and thorough con-
sideration was given to their views.
However, the situation with respect to
the Great Lakes is critical and the hour
is late. Action is required now if we are
to save these valuable resources and
permit the uninterrupted flow of com-
merce on these waterways.
[p. 42724]
1.2m EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED FUNDS FOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1971
July 9, 1971, P.L. 92-50, §§2, 3, 85 Stat 124
An Act to extend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, for three
months.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 446 et seq.), is amended by inserting after
-------
2036 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"$10,000,000" the following: ", and for the three-month period ending
September 30, 1971, $2,500,000."
SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 8 (d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended
by striking "and $1,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971." and inserting in lieu thereof "$1,250,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971; and $500,000,000 for the three-month period
ending September 30, 1971."
Approved July 9, 1971.
[p. 124]
1.2m(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
S. REP. No. 92-234, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
JUNE 23, 1971.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MANSFIELD (for Mr. MUSKIE) , from the Committee on Public
Works, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2133]
The Committee on Public Works reports an original bill (S. 2133)
to extend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, for
3 months, and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
Authorizations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, expire on June 30, 1971. While the Committee on
Public Works has completed hearings and commenced markup on
pending legislation which would extend these authorizations, final
action will not be taken until after July 1 of this year. In order to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2037
allow time for the Congress to complete action on a major revision of
the water pollution control legislation and preserve the continuity of
the water pollution control program, this bill would extend expiring
authorizations until September 30, 1971.
Funds authorized for research, investigations, training, and infor-
mation under section 5, and for research and development under sec-
tion 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, would remain available until September 30,
1971.
Grants for State water pollution control programs under section 7
would be authorized at $2,500,000 for that 3-month period, a level
which is 25 percent of the fiscal year 1971 authorization.
Construction grants under section 8 would be authorized at $500
million for the 3-month period ending June 30, 1971, a level which is
25 percent of the administration's budget request for this program.
Three months should allow ample time for the Congress to complete
its task of extending water pollution legislation.
In the opinion of the Committee on Public Works it is necessary to
dispense with the requirements of subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, pertaining to the printing of changes in
existing law, in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
[p. 1]
1.2m(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
1.2m(2)(a) June 23: Considered and passed Senate, p. S9807
EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL WA-
TER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed immediately to the
consideration of S. 2133, reported today
from the Committee on Public Works.
The bill is at the desk, and as I under-
stand, it is a matter that has been cleared
by the minority.
I ask unanimous consent that the time
consumed in acting on this measure not
be charged under rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the present con-
sideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the bill (S.
2133) was considered, ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.
[p. S9807]
-------
2038
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2m(2)(b) July 1: Considered and passed House, pp. H6229-H6230
EXTENDING THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the Senate bill (S. 2133)
to extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, for 3 months.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Min-
nesota?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as fol-
lows:
S. 2133
An act to extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, for three months
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
oj Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
funds authorized to be appropriated in sec-
tion 5(n) and 6(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U S.C.
466 et seq.), for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, shall remain available until September
30,1971.
[p. H6229]
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U S.C.
466 et seq.), is amended by inserting after
"$10,000,000" the following: ", and for the
three-month period ending September 30,
1971, $2,500,000".
SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 8
(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is
amended by striking "and $1,250,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 " and
inserting in lieu thereof "$1,250,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971; and
$500,000,000 for the three-month period end-
ing September 30, 1971."
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, for the
last month the Committee on Public
Works has been holding oversight hear-
ings on the operation of the water pol-
lution control program. We have heard
from representatives of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and State and
local governments on the many problems
involved in the implementation of this
most important program. The hearings
have been extremely helpful in review-
ing the status of the program and in
spotlighting many of the major issues
which must be solved.
These oversight hearings will prob-
ably continue for another week. There-
after, the committee will consider the
various legislative proposals now pend-
ing before it. The legislative hearings
will be in depth and, in all probability,
will continue beyond the August recess
before the Committee will report out a
bill for the consideration of the House.
Because of the necessity to continue
the funding for programs under the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, it is
necessary to call up S. 2133 for immedi-
ate House consideration. The bill in-
cludes three sections.
Section 2 authorizes $2,500,000 for
grants for State water pollution control
programs for the 3-month period ending
September 30, 1971, a level which is 25
percent of the fiscal year 1971 authoriza-
tion.
Section 3 authorizes construction
grants for the 3-month period ending
September 30, 1971, in the amount of
$500 million, a level which is consistent
with the administration's budget request
for this program.
I would emphasize that the Committee
on Public Works is well aware of the
importance of this program. This exten-
sion is needed at the present time and
it may be necessary to later request a
further extension if the committee has
not completed action on the bills pend-
ing before the committee by September
30. I would urge the immediate passage
of S. 2133.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
join my colleague, the distinguished
chairman of the Public Works Commit-
tee, in supporting S. 2133.
This bill would extend expiring au-
thorizations for parts of our water pol-
lution control program for 33 months.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2039
In so doing, it would provide time neces-
sary for the Public Works Committee to
continue the difficult task of evaluating
existing legislation for water pollution
control programs and to develop com-
prehensive water pollution control legis-
lation, probably by the end of the 3
months.
S. 2133 would preserve the continuity
of the water pollution control program
while providing additional time.
Section 2 of S. 2133 authorizes the
appropriation of $2,500,000 for grants to
States for water pollution control pro-
grams for the 3-month period ending
September 30, 1971. This authorization
is at the same annual rate as the $10
million authorized to be appropriated by
section 7 of the Water Pollution Control
Act for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971. These grants assist the State and
interstate agencies in meeting the cost
of establishing and maintaining adequate
measures for the prevention and control
of water pollution, including the train-
ing of personnel of public agencies.
Section 3 of S. 2133 authorizes the
appropriation of $500 million for grants
to States, municipalities, and intermu-
nicipal and interstate agencies for the
construction of waste treatment works.
The $500 million for the 3-month period
is equal, on an annual rate basis, to the
$2 billion requested by the administra-
tion for such grants for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1972, 1973, and
1974, which amount the House approved
by passage of the Agriculture-Environ-
mental Protection Appropriation Act
last week. This increase in authoriza-
tion is consistent with the need for an
increase in the rate of construction of
treatment works and it will prevent de-
lay in the acceleration of this needed
construction.
Mr. Speaker, because of major legis-
lation on accelerated public works, eco-
nomic development, and Appalachia
programs, the Public Works Committee
was precluded from starting considera-
tion of water pollution legislation as
early as desired. The oversight hearings
presently being held have also demon-
strated that existing legislation requires
major revisions in some areas. Thus, the
completion of this task in the thorough
manner required, dictates that the ex-
tension authorized in S. 2133 is urgently
required. We must, at this point, take
the time and make the effort required to
develop workable, effective, and efficient
legislation.
The product of the committee's time
and effort must be the providing of the
legislative and fiscal tools needed to
bring the Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments' programs along with private,
industrial, land use, and agricultural
projects and programs into harmony.
Also, our Nation's industries which, I
believe, are willing to shoulder their
portion of the burden of investment in
the environment, must be in a position
to base their future investment decisions
on a predictable legal environment.
In addition, we must develop an en-
vironmental maintenance framework
which includes more effective support of
and reliance upon State efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the Public Works Com-
mittee will start legislative hearings on
the comprehensive water pollution con-
trol legislation and the required fiscal
authorizations after the July 4 recess.
Because of the comprehensive nature of
the legislation, the Public Works Com-
mittee will probably not be able to report
a bill to the House by October 1. It may
be necessary either to come back for ad-
ditional authorizations for a short period
or to have a period of time during which
no authorizations will be available to
continue the program. This, however,
can be determined as the legislative
hearings proceed, and at this time we ask
only for a 3-month authorization.
The Public Works Committee recog-
nizes that the additional authorizations
are not as desirable as having compre-
hensive and effective legislation avail-
able on July 1. However, it is also
necessary to recognize that the expira-
-------
2040
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion of the fiscal year should not in any
way preclude the completion of the com-
mittee's work. It is a difficult and time-
consuming task and it must be completed
in the detail required to provide the ef-
fective, comprehensive, and lasting pro-
gram for water pollution control that our
Nation requires. I urge your support
of S. 2133.
The Senate 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.
[p. H6230]
1.2n EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT OF 1971
October 13, 1971, P.L. 92-137, 85 Stat. 379
AN ACT to extend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, for one
month
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended by inserting after
the first sentence thereof the following: "There is authorized to be
appropriated not to exceed $7,000,000 for the period ending October
31, 1971, in addition to funds made available under Public Law
92-50."
SEC. 2. The funds authorized to be appropriated in section 6 (e) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466
et seq.), for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, shall remain avail-
able until October 31, 1971.
SEC. 3. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended by striking "and for
the three month period ending September 30, 1971, $2,500,000." and
inserting in lieu thereof "and for the four month period ending
October 31, 1971, $4,000,000."
SEC. 4. The second sentence of section 8 (d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended
by striking "$500,000,000 for the three-month period ending Sep-
tember 30, 1971." and inserting in lieu thereof "$650,000,000 for the
four-month period ending October 31, 1971."
Approved October 13,1971.
[p. 379]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2041
1.2n(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 92-383, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
ONE-MONTH EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
SEPTEMBER 29, 1971 —Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2613]
The Committee on Public Works reports an original bill, to which
was referred the bill (S. 2613) to extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, for 1 month, and recommends that the bill
do pass.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
Authorizations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended earlier this year, expire on September 30, 1971.
While the Committee on Public Works is nearing completion of
markup on pending legislation which would extend these authoriza-
tions, final action will not be taken until after October 1 of this year.
In order to allow time for Congress to complete action on a major
revision of the water pollution control legislation and preserve the
continuity of the water control programs, this bill would extend
expiring authorizations until October 31, 1971.
Funds authorized for research, investigations, training and infor-
mation under section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
would be increased by $7 million for the period of the extension, in
addition to funds made available by the earlier 3-month extension.
Funds authorized for research and development under section 6
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, would remain available until October 31, 1971.
Grants for State water pollution control programs under section 7
would be authorized at $4 million for a 4-month period, an increase
of $1,500,000 over the earlier extension through September.
Construction grants under section 8 would be authorized at $650
-------
2042
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
million for the 4-month period ending October 31, 1971, including an
additional $150 million for the added month. An extra month
should allow ample time for the Congress to complete its task of
extending water pollution legislation.
[p. 1]
1.2n(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
1.2n(2) (a) Sept. 29: Passed Senate, p. S15406
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
call up a bill, which was reported earlier
today, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
A bill (S. 2613) to extend the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act, as amended, for
one month.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the
Committee on Public Works has re-
ported unanimously this 1-month exten-
sion of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. I would advise my col-
leagues that the authorizations contained
in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as amended earlier this year expire
on September 30, 1971.
Our committee is nearing the comple-
tion of the markup on pending legisla-
tion which would extend these
authorizations, but final action will not
be taken before October 1.
The distinguished Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. COOPER), the ranking minor-
ity member of the committee, is in the
Chamber. We are just attempting at
this time to allow Congress to work its
will in a major revision of the proposed
legislation, but we do not want to break
the continuity of the present control
program, and that is the reason why we
bring the measure today. It is a matter
of timing.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Do I cor-
rectly understand that this matter has
been cleared on the other side of the
aisle?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, it has. Sena-
tor COOPER is here, and I believe he has
discussed it with the leadership. That is
my understanding. I have had the priv-
ilege of discussing it with Senator
MANSFIELD and Senator HYRD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to amendment. If there be no
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on the engrossment and third reading
of the bill.
The bill (S. 2613) was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 2613
Be it enacted by the Senate and House oj
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That—
SECTION 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended by Inserting
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2043
after the first sentence thereof the following:
"There is authorized to be appropriated not
to exceed $7,000,000 for the period ending
October 31, 1971, in addition to funds made
available under Public Law 92-50."
SEC. 2. The funds authorized to be appro-
priated in section 6(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, shall remain available until October
31,1971.
SEC. 3. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) is amended by striking "and for
the three month period ending September
30, 1971, $2,500,000." and inserting in lieu
thereof "and for the four month period end-
ing October 31, 1971, $4,000,000."
SEC. 4. The second sentence of section 8
(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) is
amended by striking "$500,000,000 for the
three-month period ending September 30,
1971." and inserting in lieu thereof "$650,-
000,000 for the four-month period ending
October 31, 1971."
Mr. RANDOLPH. I move to reconsi-
der the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. S15406]
1.2n(2) (b) Sept. 30: Passed House, pp. H8939-H8940
EXTENDING WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent for the immediate con-
[p. H8939]
sideration of the Senate bill (S. 2613) to
extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, for 1 month.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as
follows:
S. 2613
An act to extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, for one month
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States o/
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U S.C. 466 et seq.), is amended by insert-
ing after the first sentence thereof the
following: "There is authorized to be appro-
priated not to exceed $7,000,000 for the pe-
riod ending October 31, 1971, in addition to
funds made available under Public Law
92-50."
SEC. 2 The funds authorized to be ap-
propriated in section 6(e) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, shall remain available
until October 31, 1971.
SEC. 3. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.), is amended by striking "and
for the three-month period ending Septem-
ber 30, 1971, $2,500,000." and inserting in
lieu thereof "and for the fourth month pe-
riod ending October 31, 1971, $4,000,000.".
SEC. 4. The second sentence of section 8(d)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), Is
amended by striking "$500,000,000 for the
three-month period ending September 30,
1971." and inserting in lieu thereof "$650,-
000,000 for the four-month period ending
October 31,1971."
Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, in July 1971,
the Congress ^xtended the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act for 90 days to
permit the Committee on Public Works
sufficient time to complete its hearings
and consideration on revision of the
water pollution control program. The
committee has now held the most exten-
sive and fruitful hearings which have
ever been held on this program. How-
ever, we have not yet been able to com-
plete our action.
-------
2044
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
S. 2613 passed by the Senate on yester-
day, Wednesday, September 29, 1971,
would extend for an additional month
to October 31, 1971, the authorization for
the basic sections of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
Section 1 of the bill extends section
5(n) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act which authorizes an addi-
tional $7 million for research, investiga-
tions, training, and information
programs under the jurisdiction of EPA.
Section 2 authorizes further funding
for research and development programs
under section 6 (e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
Section 3 of the bill authorizes $4 rail-
lion for section 7 (a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This al-
lows the States to carry on the planning
of their programs.
Section 4 of the bill authorizes $650
million for section 8(d) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which is
the basic grant program for waste treat-
ment facilities.
The need for this authorization is
urgent since the program must be con-
tinued until the Committee on Public
Works completes its consideration of the
proposed water pollution legislation now
pending in the committee.
We'are attempting at this time to al-
low the committee and eventually the
Congress to work its will on a major
revision of the water pollution control
program, but we do not wish to break
the continuity of the present program.
I would urge the immediate passage
of S. 2613.
The Senate 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.
[p. H8940]
1.2o EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1971
March 1,1972, P.L. 92-240, 86 Stat. 47
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Section 5 (n) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is further amended by
inserting after the first sentence thereof the following: "There is
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $9,000,000 for the period
commencing November 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972, for the
purpose of salaries and related expenses incurred during that period
under this section, in addition to funds made available under Public
Law 92-50 and Public Law 92-137. There is authorized to be ap-
propriated not to exceed $30,000,000 for the period commencing
November 1, 1971, and ending April 30, 1972, for otherwise carrying
out this section and such amount shall be in addition to any other
funds authorized for this section.".
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2045
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1157 (a)) is amended by striking out "and for the four-
month period ending October 31, 1971, $4,000,000." and inserting in
lieu thereof "and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
$15,000,000.".
[p. 47]
SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 8 (d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1158(d)) is amended by striking
out $650,000,000 for the four-month period ending October 31, 1971."
and inserting in lieu thereof $1,650,000,000 for the period ending
April 30, 1972.".
Approved March 1, 1972.
[p. 48]
1.2o(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 92-602, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT
FEBRUARY 3, 1972.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3122]
The Committee on Public Works reports an original bill (S. 3122)
to extend sections 5 (n) and 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended, until the end of fiscal year 1972, and recom-
mends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
Authorizations contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended last year, expired on October 31, 1971. Since the
House Committee on Public Works has not concluded markup on
legislation similar to S. 2770, which would extend these authorizations
-------
2046 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
final action on a major revision probably cannot be taken until later
in March. However, it is vital that this program not be extended in
unamended form longer than absolutely necessary, so that the major
revisions of policy and authority contemplated for the water pollu-
tion program under S. 2770 and comparable House legislation can
take effect as soon as possible. Without a partial extension, salaries
of some 1,300 employees of the Environmental Protection Agency
could no longer be paid, and State water pollution control programs
would have to be curtailed for lack of promised support grante. In
order to allow time for the Congress to complete action and preserve
the continuity of water pollution control programs, this bill would
extend authorizations for salaries under section 5 (n) and for section
7 (a) until June 30, 1972.
Funds utilized for salaries and related expenses under section 5 (n)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act would be authorized at
$9 million for the period from November 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972.
Grants for State water pollution control programs under section 7
would be authorized at $15 million for the fiscal year, an increase
of $11 million over the earlier extension through October.
[p. 1]
1.2o(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 92-812, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
FEBRUARY 3, 1972.—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
[To accompany H R. 12741]
The Committee on Public Works to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 12741) to extend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2047
through June 30, 1972, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Since June 30, 1971, the programs under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act have been carried out under the authority of two
temporary resolutions. The latest extension expired on October 31,
1971. It has been expected that this would allow sufficient time
for the Committee on Public Works to complete its hearings and
recommend new legislation to extend and revise the water pollution
control program. The committee on December 15, after completing
the most extensive and constructive hearings ever held on this
program, ordered reported H.R. 11896, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. However, it is not anticipated
that this will be enacted into law in the immediate future.
Section 1 of H.R. 12741 extends section 5 (n) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and provides an additional authorization of
$45 million for the period ending June 30, 1972, for research, investi-
gations, training and information programs.
Section 2 provides an additional $11 million for section 7 (a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the period ending June 30,
1972. This will permit the States to continue the planning of their
programs in an orderly fashion.
Section 3 increases the authorization for the basic grant program
for waste treatment facilities under section 8 (d) to $2 billion, or an
increase of $1.350 billion.
[p. 1]
This bill to extend portions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act until June 30, 1972, specifically does not include authorization
for the obligation of any funds for reimbursement of prefinanced
sewage treatment works projects pursuant to Section 8 (c) of the
existing act, 33 U.S.C. 1158 (c).
S. 2770 passed by the other body and H.R. 11896 as amended and
ordered to be reported by the Committee on Public Works of the
House of Representatives each authorizes a maximum Federal con-
struction grant of at least 70 percentum for projects meeting the
statutory requirements. Grants at this increased level will be
applicable to construction during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972.
The initial allotment to the individual States of the $2 billion for
construction of treatment works as authorized by this bill and as ap-
propriated by Public Law 92-73 is a fixed sum of money. The con-
struction plans for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, must
-------
2048 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
recognize that Federal grants will be at a level from 60 to 75 percent
of the construction cost depending upon the final language of the
pending amendments tp the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and the participation by the individual States in paying a portion
of the cost of construction of treatment works. This compares with
the 30 to 55 percentum level of prior years. Thus, extreme care
must be taken to make sure that the construction in any given State
at the increased grant level of the pending legislation does not ex-
ceed the individual State's allotment for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972.
Neither reimbursement nor advanced financing are authorized by
this bill and there is no provision in the law for the States or munic-
ipalities to recover their expenditures if, because of the increased
Federal grant levels, the allotment to the individual State is insuffi-
cient to recover the grant levels at the increased rates.
The need for this authorization is urgent since the program must
be continued until permanent legislation has been passed by the
Congress. The waste treatment program is vital to this Nation and
has gathered momentum during the past 2 years. We must continue
to move forward and complete the program at the earliest practicable
date. The committee urges the immediate passage of H.R. 12741.
In accordance with rule XIII (7) of the House of Representatives,
the estimated costs to the United States which would be incurred in
carrying out H.R. 12741 is $1,406 million.
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 re-
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
*******
[p. 2]
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 5. * * *
*******
(g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of trained
personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treat-
ment works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing
substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the
Secretary shall finance a pilot program, in cooperation with State
and interstate agencies, municipalities, educational institutions, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2049
other organizations and individuals, of manpower development and
training and retraining of persons in, on entering into, the field of
operation and maintenance of treatment works and related activi-
ties. Such program and any funds expended for such a program
shall supplement, not supplant, other manpower and training pro-
grams and funds available for the purposes of this paragraph. The
Secretary is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he
deems appropriate, to enter into agreements with one or more States,
acting jointly or severally, or with other public or private agencies
or institutions for the development and implementation of such a
program.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with
public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to
develop and maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply
of, and demand for, various professional and other occupational
categories needed for the prevention, control, and abatement of water
pollution in each region, State, or area of the United States and, from
time to time, to publish the results of such forecasts.
*******
(n) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion, other than subsection (g) (1) and (2), not to exceed
$65,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years ending June
30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971. There is authorized to
be appropriated not to exceed [$7,000,000 for the period ending
October 31, 1971] $52,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, in addition to funds made available under Public Law 92-50.
Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended. There
is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (g) (1) of
this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. There is au-
thorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (g) (2) of this
section $2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971.
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year
to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, for
[p. 3]
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 and for
the [four-month period ending October 31, 1971, $4,000,000] fiscal
-------
2050 LEGAL COMPILATION — WATER
year ending June 30, 1972, $15,000,000 for grants to States and to
interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing
and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control
of water pollution, including the training of personnel of public
agencies.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 8. * * *
*******
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the
sum of $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated,
for the purpose of making grants under this section, $80,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $150,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967; $450,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968; $700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969; $1,000,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970; $1,250,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1971; and {$650,000,000 for the four-
month period ending October 31, 1971] $2,000,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972. 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 munic-
ipalities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or
under.
[p. 4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2051
1.2o(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 92-834, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
FEBRUARY 9, 1972.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. JONES of Alabama, from the committee of conference, submitted
the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 3122]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3122) to ex-
tend sections 5 (n) and 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, until the end of fiscal year 1972, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend 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:
Section 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is further amended by in-
serting after the first sentence thereof the following: "There is au-
thorized to be appropriated not to exceed $9,000,000 for the period
commencing November 1,.1971, and ending June 30, 1972, for the
purpose of salaries and related expenses incurred during that period
under this section, in addition to funds made available under Public
Law 92-50 and Public Law 92-137. There is authorized to be ap-
propriated not to exceed $30,000,000 for the period commencing
November 1, 1971, and ending April 30, 1972, for otherwise carrying
out this section and such amount shall be in addition to any other
funds authorized for this section."
Sec. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1157 (a)) is amended by striking out "and for the four-
month period ending October 31, 1971, $4,000,000." and inserting in
lieu thereof "and for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972, $15,000,000,".
-------
2052 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Sec. 3. The second sentence of section 8 (d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1158 (
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2053
related expenses necessary in connection with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
House amendment: The House* amendment authorized an addi-
tional $45 million for the purposes of carrying out section 5 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which would include salaries
as well as research activities.
Conference substitute: The conference substitute provides $9
million for salaries in the same manner as does the Senate bill. In
addition, it authorizes $30 million for research and otherwise carry-
ing out section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act through
the period ending April 30, 1972.
SECTION 2
Senate bill: The Senate bill authorized an additional $11 million
for carrying out section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act for the period ending June 30, 1972.
House amendment: This is the same as the Senate bill.
Conference substitute: Same as both the Senate bill and the House
amendment.
SECTION 3
Senate bill: The Senate bill contained no provision extending the
authorizations for construction grants.
House amendment: The House amendment provided an additional
$1.350 billion for the construction grant program under section 8 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the period ending
June 30, 1972.
Conference substitute: Conference substitute authorizes an addi-
tional $1 billion for the construction grant program under section 8
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the period ending
April 30, 1972.
TITLE
Senate bill: The title of the Senate bill indicated sections 5 (n) and
7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act were extended until
the end of fiscal year 1972.
[p. 3]
House amendment: The House amendment provided that the title
be amended so as to read "An Act to extend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act through June 30, 1972."
-------
2054
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Conference substitute: The conference substitute proposes a title
which more accurately describes the text of the conference substitute.
ROBERT E. JONES,
HAROLD T. JOHNSON,
W. J. BRYAN DORN,
WM. H. HARSHA,
JAMES R. GROVER, JR.,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
THOMAS F. EAGLETON,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
J. CALEB BOGGS,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
tP' 4]
1.2o(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 118 (1972)
1.2o(4)(a) Feb. 3: Considered and passed Senate, pp. S1165-S1166
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER)
is in the Chamber. As we know, he is
the ranking minority member of the
Senate Committee on Public Works.
[p. S1165]
I report from the Committee on Public
Works an original bill to extend sec-
tions 5 (n) and 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, un-
til the end of fiscal year 1972.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a letter dated February 1, 1972,
from Mr. William Ruckelshaus, Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., February 1,1972.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAB MR. CHAIRMAN: As you may know,
authority under Section 5(n) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act expired on
June 30, 1971. Authority under that provi-
sion was extended by Public Law 92-50 and
Public Law 92-137 through October 31, 1971.
I am forwarding herewith a draft bill
which would extend the authority of Section
5 (n) from the date of its expiration through
the end of the fiscal year.
It is respectfully recommended and urged
that the Congress extend the authority of
Section 5(n) as expeditiously as possible.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration
of the bill as reported.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, the Senator is
asking unanimous consent to proceed
to the immediate consideration of the
bill?
Mr. RANDOLPH. That is what we
would like to do because the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has indicated
that without certain action in the Senate,
which we propose today, there will not
be the payment
Mr. GRIFFIN. The distinguished
ranking Member on our side is on the
floor.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, we have
been considering this subject in the com-
mittee since the Senate returned. I have
talked with every Member on the mi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2055
nority side. We all know that this must
be done. It is a very critical situation.
We are only providing funds until the
end of this fiscal year to assure the pay-
ment of salaries and expenses, $9 mil-
lion, and $15 million to meet the contract
obligations.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I have no objection.
Mr. COOPER. I wholly concur with
the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3122) to extend sections 5(n) and
7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, until the end of fiscal year
1972.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration
of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
have no desire to speak on this measure.
It has been clarified by my distinguished
colleague from Kentucky as to why we
ask for this legislation. I would have
made that explanation. I am delighted
that it has been made.
The Senate has previously acted, but
we have not had any action yet from
the House—and that is no criticism—
but this is rather in the nature of stop-
gap legislation.
If dedicated and capable employees
are to be paid for their services, passage
in both Senate and House will take care
of the problem. We trust that it can be
speedily handled not only here, as we
are doing now, but also in the other
body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there
be no amendment to be proposed, the
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill (S. 3122) was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed, as follows:
S. 3122
A bill to extend sections 5(n) and 7 (a) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, until the end of fiscal year
1972
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That—
SECTION 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is further amended by
inserting after the first sentence thereof the
following: "There is authorized to be appro-
priated not to exceed $9,000,000 for the pe-
riod commencing November 1, 1971, and end-
ing June 30, 1972, for the purpose of salaries
and related expenses incurred during that
period under this section, in addition to
funds made available under Public Law 92-50
and Public Law 92-137."
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq ) is amended by striking "and
for the four-month period ending October
31, 1971, $4,000,000." and inserting in lieu
thereof "and for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, $15,000,000."
[p. S1166]
1.2o(4)(b) Feb. 7: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. H801-H808
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 12741) to extend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act through
June 30, 1972.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 12741
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
second sentence of section 5(n) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1155 (n)) is amended by striking out
"$7,000,000 for the period ending October 31,
1971," and inserting in lieu thereof
"$52,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972.".
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1157(a)) Is
amended by striking out "and for the four-
month period ending October 31, 1971,
$4,000,000." and inserting in lieu thereof
"and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
-------
2056
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$15,000,000.".
SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 8(d)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S C. 1158 (d)) is amended by striking
out "$650,000,000 for the four-month period
ending October 31, 1971." and inserting in
lieu thereof "$2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1972.".
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-
manded?
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
since June 30, 1971, the programs under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
have been carried out under the author-
ity of two temporary resolutions. The
latest extension expired on October 31,
1971. It had been expected that this
would allow sufficient time for the Com-
mittee on Public Works to complete its
hearings and recommend new legislation
to extend and revise the water pollution
control program. The committee on De-
cember 15, after completing the most
extensive and constructive hearings ever
held on this program, ordered reported
[p. H801]
H.R. 11896, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. How-
ever, it is not anticipated that this will
be enacted into law in the immediate
future.
Section 1 of H.R. 12741 extends sec-
tion 5 (n) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and provides an additional
authorization of $45 million for the pe-
riod ending June 30, 1972, for research,
investigations, training and information
programs.
Section 2 provides an additional $11
million for section 7 (a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act for the pe-
riod ending June 30, 1972. This will per-
mit the States to continue the planning
of their programs in an orderly fashion.
Section 3 increases the authorization
for the basic grant program for waste
treatment facilities under section 8 (d) to
$2 billion, or an increase of $1,350
billion.
Mr. Speaker, although H.R. 12741 au-
thorizes a total of $1,406 billion, it should
be noted that the enactment of this leg-
islation will not require the appropria-
tion of any additional moneys. Public
Law 92-73 approved iast August in-
cluded the necessary moneys for this
program subject to later authorizations.
This bill is the authorization to utilize
the funds previously appropriated.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my ap-
preciation to the gentlemen from Ohio
(Mr. HARSHA) and New York (Mr.
GROVER) for their splendid assistance in
expediting this needed bill so as to pre-
vent further delays in continuing this
extremely important program.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. I say to the gentleman, is
it not true that this bill increases the
authorization for the water pollution
program by $1,406 million.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The answer
is "Yes."
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield
further, we are again in the position of
authorizing legislation after the fact for
an appropriation that has already been
committed, but in a sense this does, in
continuing the authorization, add on ad-
ditional billions of dollars to the pre-
viously authorized act. Is that not true?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I would say
to the gentleman that the appropria-
tions have already been made in Public
Law 92-73. The bill merely authorizes
the use of these previous appropriations.
Mr. HALL. Can the gentleman ex-
plain the last sentence in his report
wherein it says:
Section 3 increases the authorization for
the basic grant program for waste treatment
facilities under section 8(d) to $2 billion, or
an increase of $1,350 billion.
Does not the money here add any in-
creased authorization?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The gentle-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2057
man is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the
gentleman from Michigan.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, H.R.
12741 would extend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act until June 30,1972.
In my view, this extension is needed to
enable us to work out some very serious
problems created by the administration
in connection with the pending water
pollution legislation, particularly the
Senate-passed bill S. 2770.
Last week, the administration sent to
several Members of Congress, including
myself, a farreaching amendment to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
which is designed to limit severely the
scope of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. The amendment
would do two things:
First, with respect to Federal license
or permit applications covering activities
"which may result in any discharge into
navigable waters," a section 102 envi-
ronmental impact statement would be
required, but the permitting or licensing
agency would not be required to ex-
amine any problem of water quality.
The chief objective of this amendment is
to render moot one of the principal con-
clusions of the court in Calvert Cliffs
v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d
1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
Second, environmental impact state-
ments will not be required in the case
of "specified environmentally protec-
tive regulatory actions"—whatever that
means—taken by EPA or any other Fed-
eral agency identified by regulations is-
sued by the Council on Environmental
Quality. Under this amendment, the
CEQ, not Congress, would decide which
agencies and agency actions require en-
vironmental impact statements, and
which do not. The chief objective of
this amendment is to render moot the
conclusions of the court in Kalur v.
Resor, 3 ERC 1458 (Dec. 22, 1971).
These are amendments to the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act. That
law emanated from the Merchant Ma-
rine and Fisheries Committee, and not
the Public Works Committee. EPA and
CEQ know that. I do not look kindly
to the administration proposing to an-
other House Committee amendments to
NEPA that would bypass our committee.
The matters to be considered here are
fundamental. The objective of NEPA
and the environmental impact state-
ments is to require that all Federal agen-
cies review and put down on paper the
environmental effects of a proposed
action before the agencies decide
whether or not to take or permit that
action. At this juncture, the public and
other Federal and State agencies have
an opportunity to review this paper and
to learn of the agency's judgments and
reasons which support a proposed action.
Only a few weeks ago, the Corps of
Engineers—to its great credit—aban-
doned a proposal in Florida on the envi-
ronmental grounds after preparing an
environmental impact statement.
In my view, this approach to the
decisionmaking process is sound. I see
no reason why EPA—like the corps or
any other agency—should be exempt
from this requirement of NEPA. Even
environmentally oriented agencies make
decisions that are not always environ-
mentally sound or are subject to pres-
sure that cause them to strike a balance
weighted toward approving a permit
which, absent that pressure, they might
not approve. The recent newspaper
articles revealing that the CEQ had
abandoned a proposed executive order
on clear-cutting after protests by
timbercutters show that such pressures
are quite effective.
Environmentally concerned citizens
have successfully fought in the courts
to require Federal agencies to consider
the environmental impact of their deci-
sions through these statements. These
NEPA amendments of the administra-
tion seek to wipe out many of those
-------
2058
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
successes. I strongly oppose those
amendments.
The House Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Wildlife will soon be holding exten-
sive hearings on the implementation of
NEPA. These hearings will include a
comprehensive review by the General
Accounting Office of NEPA and its im-
plementation. We will be looking into
the concerns which the administration
cites as the reasons for these amend-
ments. We will want concrete facts, not
just conjecture, that a real problem
exists. I recall that early last year, the
administration and industry were crying
the blues over the prospects of 40,000 to
100,000 Refuse Act permit applications,
only to learn that a more realistic num-
ber of 20,000.
I urge environmentalists to review
these proposed administration amend-
ments and those that would repeal the
Refuse Act of 1899 and tell the admin-
istration, and the Congress, about your
concerns.
I also call to the attention of all envi-
ronmentalists a provision in section
511 (b) of the Senate-passed bill (S.
2770) which would amend the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. This statute
now requires that, before the Corps of
Engineers or any other Federal agency
issues any Federal permit or license
which would modify a waterway, the
agency must obtain the views and rec-
ommendations of the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, NOAA, and the
State fish and game agencies. This
amendment would eliminate that re-
quirement as to Refuse Act permits and
as to discharge permits issued by EPA.
I oppose that amendment. The Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act has pro-
ven to be a most valuable means for
protecting environmental issues and re-
quiring Federal permitting and licensing
agencies to take actions that would pro-
tect our fisheries and wildlife resources.
It will be a black day for environmen-
talists if the Refuse Act is repealed, the
National Environmental Policy Act
weakened, and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act gutted, all in the name
of water pollution control.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that all Mem-
bers have 5 legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks on the pending
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
[p. H802]
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Has this money been
budgeted?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Yes. All the
amounts have been budgeted, I will say
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman have
any idea as to where it is proposed to get
this kind of money?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I am sorry;
I fail to understand the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Where is it proposed to
get this kind of money, this kind of an
increase, up to $2 billion? Where is it
proposed to get the money? Does the
gentleman have any good idea as to
where it is coming from—off a printing
press, or where?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I guess it is
off the same press that has been print-
ing it since the beginning of the Repub-
lic. I do not know of any new source.
It has already been appropriated. We
sat here and voted for it.
Mr. GROSS. As sure as death and
taxes, it is not in the U.S. Treasury, is
it?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I will say to
the gentleman from Iowa, I believe that
one of the most important things we
can do for our country is to preserve the
waters of the great land. The Appropri-
ations Committee has already made the
necessary appropriations. All we are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2059
trying to do is to legislate the authoriza-
tion for their proper expenditure.
Mr. GROSS. Is there some reason
why those doing the polluting cannot
take care of it?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The Public
Works Committee recently ordered re-
printed H.R. 11896, the Federal Waters
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972.
In this bill which we will shortly bring
to the floor we make some very specific
recommendations as to the responsibili-
ties for paying the cost of water pollu-
tion by those who create the situation.
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GROVER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I urge
support of H.R. 12741 as an essential
continuation of the Nation's water pol-
lution control program during the period
which the House Public Works Commit-
tee continues its drafting of H.R. 11896
and the preparing of the bill report.
The House Committee on Public
Works has spent many weeks in hear-
ings, committee deliberations, and staff
preparations in order to complete work
on H.R. 11896. The Committee on Public
Works on December 15, 1971, ordered
H.R. 11896 to be reported. At the present
time the staff is incorporating the
amendments to H.R. 11896 which were
passed by the committee during execu-
tive sessions held in December. There
were a number of amendments which
required a detailed and thorough study
of their effect on other sections of the
bill. Because of the length and com-
plexity of this bill, the Committee on
Public Works has taken the position that
sufficient time will be made available to
complete the committee report in the
detail and with the thoroughness that is
required for a bill as complex and with
as broad a spectrum as H.R. 11896. The
committee fully intends that the bill and
the report will not be allowed to suffer
from a lack of the necessary time to com-
plete this task in the manner our Na-
tion's water pollution control program
deserves. Thus, the time needed to
complete this large task plus the time
which will be required for conference on
the differences with the other body
makes it necessary that we again extend
the funding authorizations under the
existing law, as we said previously we
would have to do.
While it can be argued that to not
have an extension would put added
pressure on the committee to complete
the bill and report it at an earlier date,
to do so would be foolhardy. We must
give this bill the time it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I have two comments on
the report of the Committee on Public
Works accompanying H.R. 12741.
First, in the second paragraph of page
2 of the report, we state:
Grants at this increased level will be ap-
plicable to construction during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972.
By this we mean that such—at least up
to 70 percent—grants will be applica-
ble to funds obligated from the $2 bil-
lion authorized and appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972.
Second, this bill does not change the
authority of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to
make grants from the $2 billion author-
ized for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, for reimbursement of prefinancing
of the Federal share of treatment works
construction costs in any fiscal year
ending on or before June 30, 1971. Por-
tions of the $2 billion for grants for the
construction of treatment works for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, may be
used for outstanding prior-year
reimbursables.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROVER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. TERRY) .
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I should
like to ask the gentleman a question with
respect to the report. I refer to page 2
of the report, where it is stated:
Neither reimbursement nor advanced fi-
nancing are authorized by this bill and there
-------
2060
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
is no provision in the law for the States or
municipalities to recover their expenditures
if, because of the increased Federal grant
levels, the allotment to the individual State
is insufficient to recover the grant levels at
the increased rates.
I wonder if the gentleman might clar-
ify the meaning of that language?
Mr. GROVER. If I may respond, the
bill does not change the authority of the
administrator of EPA to make grants
from the $2 billion authorized for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, for re-
imbursement or prefinancing of the Fed-
eral share of treatment works and
construction costs in any year ending
before June 30,1971.
Mr. TERRY. Then is it the intent of
Congress that no State or municipality
can prefinance the Federal share of the
cost of any project approved after July 1,
1971, for which they would be eligible
for reimbursement?
Mr. GROVER. I think there is a cau-
tion in there, and that is that the funds
authorized in this bill do not permit it.
However, we do hope to incorporate in
the legislation we are working on now
prefinancing conditions and language
which I think will be satisfactory to all
of those who are prefinancing. How-
ever, there just does not seem to be
enough money to go around, so we are
very cautious with this.
As I thought I indicated earlier in my
comments, it would be very difficult for
the other body in its present mood to
accept the prefinancing regulation lan-
guage in this bill.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The gentle-
man is, of course, aware that probably
one of the most complicated issues which
the Committee on Public Works had to
deal with in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 was
the matter of reimbursement to States
for advanced construction. The gentle-
man has been quite diligent and active in
raising this point before the committee
on numerous occasions.
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller testified con-
vincingly on this subject on two occa-
sions during our many months of
hearings. As a result of our hearings,
we have in our bill, which is waiting for
the completion of the committee report,
provisions for generously reimbursing
those communities and States which
went forward by prefinancing their own
treatment plants. We have also in-
cluded generous provisions permitting
reimbursement for prefinancing in the
future. The Senate has also included
provisions for repayment in its bill
which it has passed.
However, we had to draw the line
somewhere. There has in fact been no
prefinancing since July 1971. This is
February. I would hope that the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 would be approved in the
next few months. A further extension
of the existing prefinancing or reim-
bursement procedures in H.R. 12741
might seriously hamper the implementa-
tion of the new policy requirements of
the pending legislation. Accordingly, I
suggest that the provisions of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, which we antici-
pate bringing to the House shortly, will
resolve the problems which have been
raised before the committee and I am
sure will be most satisfactory to the
gentleman.
Mr. GROVER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Hampshire (Mr.
CLEVELAND) .
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inquire concerning the
question of the intent of this measure.
I am going to address myself to either
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
GROVER) or the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. JONES) , and my question is this:
Several of the States are now faced
with a problem. Following this collo-
quy, I will insert letters from New
Hampshire testifying to the problem.
The Senate has passed a bill that in-
creases the Federal share from the cur-
rent level, from 30 to 55 percent, to a
level of 60 to 70 percent. The House
committee reported
[p. H803]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2061
a bill which increases the level of Fed-
eral participation by an even greater
amount; that is, up to 75 percent.
The question facing many States and
municipalities at this time in history is
that if they proceed with the current fi-
nancing, will they get the old or the new
rate? The Senate and the House bills
go back 1 year and give that retroactive
feature, but in this measure which we
are authorizing now, the question is
raised the State or municipality will be
able to obtain the larger Federal
participation.
It is my understanding it is the intent
of the Congress that it will be at the
new and increased rate of participation.
I want to make this crystal clear, be-
cause otherwise a great many projects
will come to a grinding halt in this coun-
try and in New Hampshire.
Mr. GROVER. The gentleman from
New Hampshire has raised a good point.
When the pending amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act are
enacted, it is anticipated that the maxi-
mum grant for treatment works con-
struction for this fiscal year, which ends
June 30, 1972, will be between 70 and 75
percentum because these higher levels
are reflected in S. 2770 as passed by the
other body and H.R. 11896 which was
ordered to be reported by the House
Committee on Public Works. They
compare with the 30 to 55 percentum
level in existing law. States upon pas-
sage of H.R. 12741 may go ahead with
new projects at the 30 to 55 percentum
level. However, they must clearly rec-
ognize that such new construction will
be eligible for the higher grant levels
from the 1972 authorizations when the
pending legislation is enacted.
Thus, they must use care to make sure
they do not exceed their allotment of the
$2 billion for this fiscal year. In fact, the
States, if they chose, could proceed with
a prefinancing of the 70 percentum Fed-
eral grant level with the high probability
of enactment of the higher grant levels.
Again, however, a word of warning.
The States must exercise extreme care
to not exceed their allocation of grant
funds for fiscal year 1972, so as to be able
to increase the Federal share of the costs
of all projects for which grants have
been made from 1972 authorizations.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Then, let me say
this: Precisely then the gentleman is as-
suring me that if New Hampshire acts
under this authorization we can expect
to do it under the rate of 70 percent
participation or the 75 percent participa-
tion rate, whichever one is finally en-
acted into law sometime later this year,
assuming of course such rates are
enacted.
Mr. GROVER. Assuming it is enacted
into law with the present language we
are contemplating in the House bill, I
think it will do so.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Can you be any
more positive?
Mr. GROVER. I am pretty positive.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Will the gen-
tleman yield to me?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I concur in
the answer of the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, the
letters I referred to earlier are as
follows:
CONCOBD, N.H.
January 21,1972.
Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JIM: The purpose of this letter is
to bring your attention to the fact that
the pollution control construction program
in New Hampshire is rapidly coming to a
grinding halt because of continued lack
of action by the Congress with regard to
funding for the pollution control program.
We are aware that both the House and
Senate bills which would amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act promise sub-
stantial increases in the level of Federal
participation as well as authorizations for
the associated funds. However, we cannot,
in good conscience, in the face of the pres-
ent inaction of Congress, encourage com-
munities to proceed with construction of
needed projects. Obviously, if the partici-
pation formula is changed from fifty per-
cent to seventy or seventy-five percent, (as
provided for in the legislative proposals)
-------
2062
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
financial losses are in prospect, not only
for communities, I might add, but also for
the State Government, itself, which is heav-
ily engaged in our State aid program.
Since many other states are in similar
position, it seems to me that the Congress
should move expeditiously in the matter or
at the very least immediately incorporate
an appropriate provision in the legislation
which would assure states and communi-
ties that they will not be penalized by rea-
son of having proceeded in good faith,
pending final action on these bills.
Sincerely,
WALTER PEIERSON,
Governor.
WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION
CONTROL COMMISSION,
Concord, N.H., January 21, J972.
Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JIM: This will confirm my discussion
with you of earlier today concerning the
status of program grant funds allocated to
New Hampshire under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
As you know, while the legislation extend-
ing the Federal pollution control program
has been pending, funds were appropriated
for both construction and program grants by
means of a continuing resolution. Under this
system, this agency has received a total of
$25,960 as of October, 1971, when the last
payment was made. The regular allocation
for New Hampshire for Fiscal 1971 amounted
to $64,300, and a like sum -would certainly be
minimum for Fiscal 1972. In any event, ex-
penditures to date amount to $34,049; thus,
we are in the position of prefinancing not
only construction grant money but also pro-
gram grant funds. Four members of the staff
are employed by reason of Federal contribu-
tions; hence, there is an obvious degree of
urgency involved.
Undoubtedly, many other states are sim-
ilarly being deprived of the Federal assist-
ance to which they are entitled. In this
sense, if you are successful in securing fa-
vorable action on our behalf, it will provide
parallel relief for administrators in other
states who are equally concerned that this
matter be resolved.
Enclosed is a copy of my recent communi-
cation to Mr. John A. S. McGlennon, Re-
gional Administrator of EPA in Boston, on
this same subject. I am sure he would be
interested in being aware of our appeal to
you for assistance, and a copy of this letter
is being forwarded to him.
Kind personal regards,
Sincerely,
WILLIAM A HEALY,
Executive Director.
JANUARY 18, 1972.
Mr. JOHN A. S. McGLENNON,
Regional Administrator, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston, Mass.
DEAR MR. MCGLENNON: The purpose of this
letter is to request your assistance in ob-
taining program grant funds in accordance
with the payment schedules normally ad-
hered to by your office. At this writing, our
records indicate that only $25,960 has been
received by the State of New Hampshire to
date for fiscal 1972, and that last payment
occurred in October, 1971.
We are aware that full appropriations have
not yet been authorized by the Congress
because of still pending amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Never-
theless, program funds are utilized here to
employ personnel and the absence of regular
payments threatens the security of these
positions.
We would urge your assistance in obtain-
ing additional funding or, failing this, a
letter of assurance that the State of New
Hampshire will be reimbursed for any funds
which it may have to advance for the period
until Federal program funds are made
available.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM A. HEALY,
Executive Director.
(Mr. CLEVELAND asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. PEYSER) .
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment at this time that I very
much support this bill.
I think the gentleman from New
Hampshire raised a question, and I am
glad to have the assurance that this does
mean money under this act would be
available at the rate of either 70 or 75
percent.
I would like to point out to the House
that in my own State of New York the
Congress really committed itself as far
as the State of New York is concerned,
anyway, to making up nearly $1.3 billion
that our State prefmanced on the as-
sumption that the Congress was going to
make this money available for programs.
Now, this move right now in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2063
House, as I understand it, will produce
approximately $109 million for the State
of New York.
New York State 2 weeks ago canceled
167 programs dealing with water pollu-
tion and water pollution abatement be-
cause of insufficient funds and because
the prefinancing was not available any
longer under Federal programs.
So, No. 1, it is my hope that this bill
will pass and, second, it is my hope
that the bill that is going to be acted on
in the House will contain the provisions
of retroactive pay to the State of New
York and many other States that are
prefinancing in order that they can go
ahead with their programs.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, while I
favor
[p. H804]
the early enactment of an effective
water pollution bill such as S. 2770 which
passed the Senate last fall, I am anxious
that this program continue while the
pending legislation is being considered.
I therefore think that an extension of
the program as proposed today in H.R.
12741 is sound.
A few days ago, the administration
pushed the panic button and circulated
in Congress two amendments to the
water pollution control legislation now
pending in Congress. One of these
would emasculate the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. The other would
repeal the Refuse Act of 1899 as an anti-
pollution tool.
I oppose both of these amendments of
the administration. I urge all environ-
mentally concerned citizens to do so.
I note, too, that the Senate-passed bill
does not repeal the Refuse Act, particu-
larly its provisions regarding citizen
participation.
This 1899 law, for 2 years now, has
been the backbone of the Federal anti-
water-pollution program. Under this
law, the Government has initiated over
100 enforcement actions against pollut-
ers. In many instances, the moving
force behind the Government's action
has been the citizen. The citizen has
provided information that has caused the
Government to file a criminal or civil
suit against the polluter.
Take, for example, the Armco case.
Last December Attorney General
Mitchell announced a suit against Armco
Steel Co.'s Sheffield, Tex., plant for
violating the 1899 Refuse Act. The Jus-
tice Department charged then that the
"effluent wastes being deposited in the
waters of the Houston ship channel"
daily by Armco without a corps permit
"are highly toxic and constitute an im-
mediate health hazard to all life—which
might come into substantial contact with
such waters—and cause irreparable in-
jury to the ecological balance" of the
channel and the Gulf of Mexico. The
wastes are described as cyanide, phe-
nols, sulfides, chlorides, manganese, and
ammonia.
The Justice Department took this ac-
tion when Dr. Don Berthelsen, a resi-
dent of southwest Houston, filed a
complaint with the U.S. attorney. Last
August, the Houston Post said that Mr.
Berthelsen filed the complaint against
Armco because "they seemed to be our
most gross polluter and their manage-
ment attitude was most flippant about
the problem." At that time, Mr. Berthel-
sen said he "was fairly proud of the re-
sponse of the Government." He said it
"gives you faith that if you just will
make an effort, the thing is likely to
work."
We have also seen examples where
criminal actions have been filed and the
citizen is entitled to one-half the fine.
Only yesterday the New York Times re-
ported that the Hudson River Fisher-
men's Association would receive $25,000
for supplying evidence of pollution by
the Anaconda Copper Co. which led to
its conviction of violating the Refuse
Act.
But the administration's new proposal
would effectively repeal the Refuse Act
and preclude forever any further citizen
participation of this nature.
The Nixon administration has adopted
-------
2064
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the position of the National Association
of Manufacturers, which last September
urged the House of Representatives to
amend the Refuse Act so as to limit it
to consideration of navigation only.
This in effect repeals the Refuse Act.
Ships can navigate through a sea of crud,
but this does not make pollution
desirable.
Mr. Nixon would take away an effec-
tive and simple tool for citizen partici-
pation and substitute a complex and
cumbersome law which will result in less
effective pollution control. Not even an
empty shell would be left of the 1899 law.
The administration has said that citi-
zen participation in the environmental
movement is a healthy thing. But here
we have a law which enables the citizen
to act environmentally and to see the
fruits of his efforts and, rather than re-
tain it and urge its use, the administra-
tion seeks to repeal it. This law lets the
citizen discover polluters and gather evi-
dence against them at little or no cost to
him. He does not need a lawyer to file a
lawsuit for him. He does not need ex-
pert witnesses. He needs only to ferret
out the polluter, tell the appropriate
U.S. attorney, and wait for him to act
civilly or criminally.
The Refuse Act has given the citizen
this role. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act has not. Nor will the pend-
ing legislation. Oh yes, it will provide
for civil suits—a much needed provision
—but those cost money. The average
citizen who is environmentally con-
cerned cannot afford the costs or time
associated with such suits.
I urge that the administration drop its
efforts to repeal the Refuse Act. The
administration should reject the argu-
ments of the NAM and think of the
citizens of this Nation who deplore the
condition of our waterways. The Refuse
Act and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act have operated successfully
in tandem for 2 years. Let them con-
tinue to work together for many more
years until our waterways once again
are of good quality.
I also join in the remarks of my col-
league from Michigan, Congressman
DINGEIA, opposing the administration's
proposed amendments to weaken the
National Environmental Policy Act and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the continuing resolution.
Last Monday, January 31, I introduced
H.R. 12751, a bill to extend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act until June
30, 1972. This legislation, which was
referred to the Committee on Public
Works, was cosponsored by my distin-
guished colleague (Mr. DULSKI).
Since October 31, 1971, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has been
without authorization for important
areas of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Authority had been ex-
tended since the expiration date of June
30,1971, by Public Law 92-50 and Public
Law 92-137.
Last Thursday, February 3, our col-
leagues in the Senate considered and
passed a bill to extend sections 5 (n) and
7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended, until the end of
fiscal year 1972. This legislation would
provide funds to assure the payment of
salaries and expenses, $9 million, and
$15 million to meet contract obligations
until the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the
Senate has acted promptly on this im-
portant matter, but I very much regret
that they did not include in their bill
provisions contained in proposed House
legislation which would provide for vital
environmental programs.
The bill reported to the House today
by the Committee on Public Works
would not only accomplish the aims of
the Senate-passed legislation, but would
also provide an additional authorization
of $45 million for the period ending June
30, 1972, for research, investigations,
training, and information programs. I
am disappointed that we cannot specifi-
cally earmark funds at this time for the
crash program to help restore the Great
Lakes and for reimbursement. How-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2065
ever, it is my understanding that the in-
crease to $2 billion in the grant program
from $1.3 billion does not include moneys
for the Great Lakes and particularly
Lake Erie.
Mr. Speaker, the costs of not institut-
ing a program to abate pollution on the
Great Lakes would incur damages which
far exceed the expenses of such a
program.
The pollution of the Great Lakes, and
particularly Lake Erie, have been an en-
vironmental focal point for more than a
decade. No other body of water has
been given more attention by the media.
As early as 1960 the then Secretary of
the Interior declared that Lake Erie had
the highest priority with respect to
cleanup over any other river or lake in
the Nation. Numerous elected and ap-
pointed officials, as well as most of the
leading aquatic scientists in the world,
have stated that the rejuvenation of
Lake Erie will be the model and incen-
tive for the saving of our Nation's water
resources.
To curtail this effort would be a seri-
ous blow to the morale of our country
as well as a serious blow to Canadian-
United States relations. The Canadian
federal, provincial, and local govern-
ments have kept their pledges made at
meetings of the International Joint Com-
mission and other conferences. The per-
centage of their economy which has been
and will continue to be expended on wa-
ter pollution is more than triple even the
most costly of the proposed U.S. plans.
Most of the Canadians' efforts as well as
the nearly one-half billion dollars of pre-
vious abatement efforts by the public
and private sector of our economy will
be for naught if we do not implement
the proposed clean-up program.
It is imperative that we keep in mind
two essential facts. First, we have the
technology and manpower to abate the
pollution. The only factor blocking our
path is the lack of funding. Secondly,
the actual cost of not abating the pollu-
tion or postponing our efforts far ex-
ceeds the cost of clean-up. I would like
to give some examples of the latter.
The cost of municipal sewage plant
construction has more than doubled dur-
ing the past 5 years. Even with inflation
under restraint, it will cost considerably
more 2 years from now if we put off con-
struction. At least one of the Lakes—
Lake Erie—is on the brink of an ecolog-
ical cliff. A joint 1970 study by the Gov-
[p. H805]
ernments of Canada and the United
States—Project Hypo—has shown that
unless the wastes being added to the
lake, particularly from cities and towns,
is substantially reduced in the next 5
years, Lake Erie may go beyond the
point where it can be changed from a
liability to an asset. These scientists
found that a larger section of the lake
bottom was becoming devoid of oxygen
for a longer period of time each summer.
This was due to the death and decay of
algae, whose overpopulation had been
caused by municipal wastes. When the
oxygen level at bottom reached zero, the
nutrients that had accumulated on the
bottom for more than a hundred years
were released. Swept up into the water,
these nutrients induced the growth of
more algae. This perpetuated the vicious
cycle. Conditions are now being ap-
proached that the amount of nutrients
released may be sufficient to perpetuate
a year-round algae bloom. If this oc-
curs, even if we cease all pollution of
the lake, it will remain a festering pot of
foul smelling slime.
Under oxygen-less conditions, other
undesirable processes occur. Mercury
and other heavy metals are released in
the water. The mercury that was added
to Lake Erie and the Niagara and De-
troit Rivers probably would have caused
little problem if it were not for the low
dissolved oxygen in the bottom of these
waters.
Mr. Speaker, the mercury pollution
damage to the Lake Erie fishing indus-
try, which was the most profitable of all
the Great Lakes for both the United
States and Canada, will exceed $60 mil-
-------
2066
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lion. The costs on the sports fishing
industry probably will exceed $100
million.
The impact of pollution on recreation
should not be ignored, particularly from
an economic point of view. Despite the
fact that more boats are owned by peo-
ple residing in the Great Lakes Basin
than any other area of the country, the
percentage of those people who sail on
the Great Lakes is less than 25 percent.
Instead, they trailer their boats to other
areas, particularly Canada. One survey,
conducted by the Great Lakes Labora-
tory of the State University College at
Buffalo, demonstrated that the money
spent by Americans who crossed into
Canada via three bridges on the Niagara
Frontier for summer boating vacations
in Canada, far exceeded the amount
spent by Americans in Europe during a
comparable number of months. When
asked why they had not taken a similar
vacation on the Great Lakes, the over-
whelming reply was that they did not
like the pollution.
The closing of beaches along Lakes
Michigan, Erie, and Ontario has not only
resulted in the loss of revenue for local
governments but it has induced further
spending for the construction and main-
tenance of municipal and private pools.
Likewise, the closing of motels and other
tourist oriented businesses along the
Great Lakes in Wisconsin, Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York has
dealt serious economic blows to these
areas. If the problem is not checked,
even more losses can be expected.
It is clearly evident that when all the
costs are examined, it is far less expen-
sive to abate pollution of the Great
Lakes now, rather than postpone our
efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I have received assur-
ances that reimbursement provisions will
be in the omnibus bill which will be
brought to the floor in March, where I
will continue the fight for New York and
our Great Lakes at that time.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of H.R. 12741, the bill to extend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
through next June 30.
The need for this resolution is obvious.
Action is long overdue. The House has
sought to deal with this matter before,
but our earlier action now is outdated.
It is indeed strange how this crisis
should arise when we are dealing with a
subject which everyone seems to feel is
urgent. Yet, we find the program now in
such a bind that the Agency does not
even have the money needed to pay sal-
aries, let alone act on the hundreds of
pending pollution control applications.
In speaking critically, I want to make
it very plain that I have no complaint
either against this body or, in particular,
against the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK) , chairman, and
the members of his Committee on Public
Works. All have tried hard to break the
deadlock.
The problem, it seems to me, lies with
foot-dragging downtown. They claim to
want a pollution control program, but
they are nit-picking it to death.
OWN BILL WENT FURTHER
A week ago, I cosponsored, with Con-
gressman KEMP of New York, a resolu-
tion which is similar in part to the
pending bill. My resolution went one
step further and authorized payments to
States which have prefinanced water
pollution control work.
The omission of the reimbursement
feature from the pending resolution hits
New York State in an extremely tender
spot—its treasury. New York already
has prefinanced eligible Federal projects
to the tune of more than $1 billion.
With no Federal funds in sight, the
State has ordered an end to prefinancing
until the Federal payments catch up.
As a result, the State has put 157 sewer
projects on the back burner, including
some 29 in my own western end of the
State.
This is a deplorable backward step in
our all-out effort to deal with water
pollution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2067
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS
What is more, it has international im-
plications since it means the United
States is going to move even slower in
dealing with pollution on the Great
Lakes and the connecting channels.
Our colleague from Minnesota (Mr.
BLATNIK) is fully aware of the situation
as it applies to the Great Lakes since he
is chairman of the Conference of Great
Lakes Congressmen.
Mr. Speaker, I support the pending
resolution as a step in the right direction.
I am quite aware that the Committee on
Public Works has ordered reported a
basic pollution control bill and floor
action is expected to be scheduled by
mid-March.
I regret very much the stumbling
blocks that have been put in the way of
final action on the basic legislation. I
am even more distressed, if that is pos-
sible, by the difficulties we have encoun-
tered in trying, at least, to keep the old
program in force until the new one is
enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I urge full support of the
pending bill.
Mr. Speaker, as part of my remarks I
include a pertinent recent editorial from
the Buffalo (N.Y.) Evening News:
FEDERAL SEWAGE Am Is VITAL
A memorandum from the State Department
of Environmental Conservation, laying down
tougher guidelines for new building develop-
ments that would add to existing water pol-
lution in Erie County, underscores the
severity of the sewage treatment problems
now facing the county.
The state agency stops short of requiring
or encouraging a countywide moratorium on
construction. But that could obviously come
to pass if sewage overloading and stream
pollution in the county coi ,*inue to worsen.
In that event, the adverse economic as well
as environmental consequences for the
county would be obvious.
Although some communities, as the state
agency notes, are well along in planning new
sewage facilities, too many others have been
dragging their feet. Hence, the new state
memorandum makes it more vital than ever
that this county and all localities do every-
thing possible to accelerate measures aimed
at abating stream pollution.
However, the most pressing need of the
moment is for Congress to appropriate ade-
quate funds to finance the federal share of
water pollution control projects. It was the
inexcusable failure of Congress to deliver on
promised federal aid that largely caused the
state to suspend plans for 157 sewer projects,
including 29 in Western New York. The U.S.
already owes New York State more than $1
billion which the state prefinanced as the fed-
eral share for pollution-abatement projects.
Because of the resulting breakdown of the
state's pure waters program, the immediate
outlook for stepping up the attack on water
pollution in Erie County, as elsewhere, is
discouraging indeed. This, in turn, has grave
international implications since the United
States has pledged a joint cleanup of bound-
ary waters with Canada.
Our representatives in Congress thus have
a clear and urgent incentive to press for the
fastest action to provide the needed pollu-
tion-abatement funds
Mr. Speaker, I urge full support of the
pending bill.
Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup-
port of H.R. 12741, the extension of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The Public Works Committee will
shortly bring to the floor H.R. 11846,
probably the most important environ-
mental legislation ever to be considered
by the Congress. This will be a $27 bil-
lion program to combat water pollution
and to make our waters safe for the
American people.
In the meantime, however, the exist-
ing program has expired. H.R. 12741 will
extend the water pollution control pro-
gram to June 30, 1972, and permit the
Congress to continue its careful and
diligent work on H.R. 11846 which will
follow shortly.
Passage of H.R. 12741 would permit
EPA to carry on its research, training,
and information programs. At the same
time, the States will be able to continue
their own planning programs without
undue delay. Furthermore, EPA will
be able to move forward with the waste
treatment construction program.
I urge the passage of H.R. 12741.
[p. H806]
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I support
H.R. 12741 which would extend provi-
sions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act through June 30 of this
-------
2068
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
year. We are all aware that new water
pollution control legislation has been
passed by the Senate and that the House
Committee on Public Works has re-
ported out its own bill.
Because of the many sweeping
changes in Federal policy such legisla-
tion would effectuate and because of
the many uncertainties that have been
raised in the minds of the public about
these new proposals, it is unlikely that
final legislative action on them will
occur in the immediate future. Hence
the need to ensure the interim continu-
ation of the present program.
Few would argue with the necessity
of further support for the waste treat-
ment facilities construction program
authorized under this legislation. Au-
thority to meet existing contract obli-
gations and for the payment of salaries
and expenses is likewise required.
To continue the fight to reclaim and
preserve the purity of our Nation's wa-
terways, I urge the adoption of this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I have
no further requests for time.
Mr. JONES of Alabama, Mr. Speaker,
I have no further requests for time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. JONES) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the
bill H.R. 12741.
The question was taken.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify
absent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 338, nays 7, not voting 86, as
follows:
*****
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent for the imme-
diate consideration of the Senate bill
(S. 3122) to extend sections 5(n) and
7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, until the end
of fiscal year 1972.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ala-
bama?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill as
follows:
S. 3122
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Section 5(n) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
USC. 1151 et seq.), is further amended by
inserting after the first sentence thereof the
[p. H807]
following: "There is authorized to be appro-
priated not to exceed $9,000,000 for the period
commencing November 1, 1971, and ending
June 30, 1972, for the purpose of salaries and
related expenses incurred during that period
under this section, in addition to funds made
available under Public Law 92-50 and Public
Law 92-137."
SEC. 2. Section 7 (a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S C.
466 et seq.), is amended by striking "and for
the four month period ending October 31,
1971, $4,000,000." and inserting in lieu thereof
"and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
$15.000,000."
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES OF
ALABAMA
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Ala-
bama Strike out all after the enacting clause
of S. 3122 and insert in lieu thereof the pro-
visions of H.R. 12741, as passed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read
a third time, was read the third time,
and passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2069
To extend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act through June 30, 1972.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 12741) was
laid on the table.
[p. H808]
1.2o(4)(c) Feb. 16: House agreed to conference report,
pp. H1056-H1057
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 3122,
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I call up the conference report on the
bill (S. 3122) to extend sections 5(n)
and 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, until the end
of fiscal year 1972, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
agers be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, will the gentleman
take time to explain the conference re-
port, including the Senate amendments?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I shall do so.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Febru-
ary 9, 1972.)
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Alabama is recognized.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I should briefly like to explain the con-
ference report on the bill S. 3122.
Authorizations for programs contained
in the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act expired on June 30,1971. Since that
date the Congress has enacted two reso-
lutions permitting the continuance of
the programs to October 31, 1971.
On December 15, 1971, the Committee
on Public Works, after completing the
most extensive and constructive hear-
ings ever held on the water pollution
control program, ordered reported H.R.
11896, the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972. However,
it is not anticipated that this legislation
will be enacted into law in the immedi-
ate future.
In the interim, it is necessary that the
existing program be extended while the
Congress continues its careful and dili-
gent work on H.R. 11896, probably
most important environmental legisla-
tion ever to be considered.
On February 7, the House passed S.
3122 which included three sections.
Section 1 extended section 5(n) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and provided an additional authoriza-
tion of $45 million for the period ending
June 30, 1972, for research, investiga-
tion, training, and information programs.
Section 2 provided an additional $11
million for section 7 (a) for the period
ending June 30, 1972, so as to permit
the States to continue the planning of
programs in an orderly fashion. Finally,
section 3 increased the authorization for
the basic grant program for waste treat-
ment facilities, under section 8(d) to
$2 billion, or an increase of $1.350 bil-
lion. The bill authorized a total of
$1.406 billion.
On February 9, as a result of a con-
ference with our Senate colleagues, we
were able to iron out the differences
between the two bodies on this legisla-
tion. It was agreed in section 1 to extend
section 5(n) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to April 30, 1972, and
-------
2070
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
provide for an additional $30 million for
research, investigation, training and
information programs. An additional $9
million was authorized for salaries and
related expenses incurred during the
period of November 1, 1971, to June 30,
1972. Section 2 of S. 3122 authorizes an
additional $11 million for carrying out
section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to June 30,1972. This
is identical with what was contained in
the House-passed bill. Finally, in sec-
tion 3, in lieu of the $1.350 billion pro-
vided for in the House-passed bill for
the construction grant program, the con-
ference agreed to cut this back to $1
billion and extended the program to
April 30, 1972.
The conference report allows addi-
tional authorizations of $1.050 billion.
This is in lieu of the $1.406 billion au-
thorized in the House-passed bill. I
must point out, however, that the differ-
ence in the amount is primarily brought
about by extending section 5(n) and
8(d) to April 30, 1972, rather than June
30, 1972, as proposed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, although S. 3122 would
authorize a total of $1.050 billion, it
should be noted that the enactment of
this legislation will not require the ap-
propriation of any additional moneys.
Public Law 92-73, the Agriculture-En-
vironmental and Consumer Protection
Appropriation Act, 1972, included the
necessary moneys for this program sub-
ject to later authorizations. This bill is
the authorization to utilize the funds
previously appropriated.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the immediate pas-
sage of the conference report so as to
prevent further delays in continuing this
extremely important program.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I urge
immediate passage of the conference re-
port on S. 3122. The immediate passage
of the report will allow the Federal
water pollution control program to con-
tinue during the period that the House
Public Works Committee and the full
House complete their work on the 1972
amendments to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act.
The Committee on Public Works is
presently incorporating amendments
which were passed by the committee
during executive sessions held in De-
cember and is preparing the report to
accompany this comprehensive bill. This
is a difficult and time-consuming task
because of the length and complexity of
this bill. The bill itself will be over 200
pages long and will require a report of
equal length. The many matters and
issues in the bill are complex and it will
have significant effects on many aspects
of our Nation's life. This work must be
completed in a thorough and effective
manner or the effectiveness of the Na-
tion's water pollution control program
could be impeded. The time needed to
complete this large task, plus the time
which will be required for conference
on the differences with the other body,
makes it necessary that we extend fund-
ing authorizations under the existing
law as we previously said we would
have to do.
The conference substitute incorporates
most of the provisions of S. 3122, which
passed the House on February 7, 1972.
The conference substitute will extend
section 5(n), except authorizations for
salaries, through April 30, 1972, with an
additional authorization of $30 million.
The conference substitute will also au-
thorize $9 million for the period through
November 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, for
the payment of salaries and related ex-
penses necessary in connection with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The conference substitute for section
5 (n) authorizes a total of $39 million, as
compared with the House-passed bill
which would have extended funding for
section 5(n) for research, investigation,
training, and informational programs at
a level of $45 million through June 30,
1972.
The conference substitute accepted
the House provisions for section 7 (a) to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2071
continue the grants for State water pol-
lution control programs through June
30. 1972, with an additional $11 million
authorization.
The conference substitute on authori-
zations for treatment works construction
grant programs will extend the program
to April 30, 1972, at a total authorization
of $1.65 billion or $35 million less than
the $2 billion authorization through
June 30, 1972, contained in the House-
passed bill.
Mr. Speaker, S. 3122 will not require
the appropriation of any additional
moneys since Public Law 92-73, the
Agriculture-Environmental Consumer
Protection Appropriation Act of 1972,
has appropriated the necessary moneys
subject to later House authorizations.
What we are doing here is authorizing
the obligation of the needed, previously
appropriated funds.
Mr. Speaker, it is unlikely that the
House Public Works Committee and the
full House will be able to complete its
work in the manner required and then
also come to conference agreements
with the other body on the differences
between the two Houses before April 30,
1972. However, it is imperative that we
immediately approve the partial author-
ization for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, which is contained in the con-
ference report. At some time prior to
April 30, after a review of actual obli-
gations under the authorizations and
appropriations, it can be determined
[p. H1056]
whether an additional extension will be
required.
Mr. Speaker, while I believe that the
House passed measure is superior to the
bill from the other body, I believe that
the conference agreement will meet our
needs at this time. I urge immediate
passage.
Mr. Speaker, I have an additional
comment.
When the resolution was discussed on
the floor under suspension Mr. CLEVE-
LAND, of New Hampshire, made inquiry
of Mr. JONES and Mr. GROVER. His ques-
tion related to whether pollution abate-
ment programs undertaken this year
would qualify for any increase in Fed-
eral matching funds we may enact later
this year. I am pleased to inform the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
CLEVELAND) that the answers are still in
the affirmative.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. GROVER) .
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, I also
rise in support of the conference report.
I am sure I speak for the entire New
York delegation, when I say we are
quite concerned that the concept of re-
imbursement which we were discussing
when the original legislation was before
us a fortnight ago will be given very
favorable consideration by the commit-
tee and by the Congress at large. It is
extremely important to the States which
have taken broad and aggressive steps,
as New York State, under the visionary
leadership of Governor Rockefeller, has
in the past, with a billion dollar bond
issue authorized by the people of the
State directed to this very important
program of cleaning up our waters.
(Mr. GROVER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I support
the Conference Report on the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (S. 3122)
with some reluctance.
The bill as it comes from conference
does keep the Federal program going,
but the conference changes represent a
backward step from what the House
approved on February 7. Even the
House action was inadequate, as I said
at the time, and now we are winding up
with still less.
I recognize fully that this is an interim
measure and that a new authorization
bill has been ordered reported by the
Committee on Public Works. I am
hopeful that the new basic bill will
receive prompt consideration by the
House and earliest possible final action
by the Congress.
-------
2072
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Time is fleeting. Many projects al-
ready have been delayed—I am particu-
larly familiar with the many which have
been deferred in my own State of New
York. The essential momentum is in
danger of being lost in the drive to con-
trol water pollution and we simply can't
afford to let this happen.
I will vote for the conference report
today through simple necessity, but I
wanted to take this opportunity to ex-
press on the record once again my great
concern about the problem of water
pollution and the current interruption in
basic Federal legislation.
We have made great strides in com-
munities all across the country, but we
still have much more to be done. This
is not a matter which we can take for
granted in any degree.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I move the previous question on the
conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. H1057]
1.2o(4)(d) Feb. 16: Senate agreed to conference report, p. S1901
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT-
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I have been requested by the
distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) to submit a
report of the committee of conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the House to the
bill (S. 3122) to extend sections 5(n)
and 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, until the end
of fiscal year 1972.
I ask unanimous consent for the pres-
ent consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL) . Is there objection to the pres-
ent consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(The conference report is printed in
the House proceedings of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD of February 9, 1972, at
p. H987.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The conference report was agreed to.
[p. S1901]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2073
1.3 POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL, AS AMENDED,
33 U.S.C. §1001, ET SEQ. (1966)
Sec.
1001. Definitions.
1002. Prohibition against discharge of oil or oily mixtures; permissible
discharges; regulations.
1003. Excepted discharges; securing safety of ship; prevention of damage
to ship or cargo; saving- life; damaged ship or unavoidable leak-
age; residue from purificatior or clarification.
1004. Excepted discharges; oily mixtures from bilges.
1005. Penalties for violations; liability of vessel.
1006. Suspension or revocation of license of officers of offending vessels.
1007. Personnel for enforcement of provisions; arrest of offenders and
procedure; ship fittings and equipment; civil penalty.
1008. Oil record book.
(a) Printing; regulations by Secretary.
(b) Book supplied without charge; inspection and surrender.
(c) Operations requiring recordation.
(d) Entries; signatures.
(e) Rules and regulations.
(f) Penalties.
1009. Regulations.
1010. Boarding of ships; production of records; evidence of violations by
foreign ships.
1011. Prohibited zones; publication of reduction or extension of zones.
1012. Repealed.
1013. Appropriations.
1014. Effect on other laws.
1015. Effective date.
§ 1001. Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—
(a) The term "convention" means the International Convention
for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as
amended;
(b) The term "discharge" in relation to oil or to an oily mix-
ture means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
(c) The term "heavy diesel oil" means marine diesel oil, other
than those distillates of which more than 50 per centum, by
volume distills at a temperature not exceeding three hundred and
forty degrees centigrade when tested by American Society for the
Testing of Materials standard method D. 86/59;
(d) The term "mile" means a nautical mile of six thousand and
eighty feet or one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two meters;
(e) The term "oil" means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil,
and lubricating oil, and "oily" shall be construed accordingly. An
"oily mixture" means a mixture with an oil content of one hundred
parts or more in one million parts of mixture.
-------
2074 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(f) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, cor-
poration, or association; and any owner, operator, agent, master,
officer, or employee of a ship;
(g) The term "prohibited zones" means the zones described in
section 1011 of this title as modified by notices, if any, of exten-
sion or reduction issued by the Secretary;
(h) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Transporta-
tion;
(i) The term "ship", subject to the exceptions provided in
paragraph (1) of this subsection, means any seagoing vessel of
any type whatsoever of American registry or nationality, includ-
ing floating craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another
vessel making a sea voyage; and "tanker", as a type included
within the term "ship", means a ship in which the greater part
of the cargo space is constructed or adapted for the carriage of
liquid cargoes in bulk and which is not, for the time being, carrying
a cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo space.
(1) The following categories of vessels are excepted from all
provisions of this chapter:
(i) tankers of under one hundred and fifty tons gross ton-
nage and other ships of under five hundred tons gross
tonnage.
(ii) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling indus-
try when actually employed on whaling operations.
(iii) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes
of North America and their connecting and tributary waters
as far east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert lock at Mon-
treal in the Province of Quebec, Canada.
(iv) naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval
auxiliaries.
(j) The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline
from which the territorial sea of the territory in question is
established in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 2, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 402; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(2), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 372.
§ 1002. Prohibition against discharge of oil or oily mixtures;
permissible discharges; regulations
Subject to the provisions of sections 1003 and 1004 of this title,
it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge oil or oily mix-
ture from:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2075
(a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
(b) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the prohibited
zones, except when the ship is proceeding to a port not pro-
vided with facilities adequate for the reception, without caus-
ing undue delay, it may discharge such residues and oily mix-
ture as would remain for disposal if the bulk of the water had
been separated from the mixture: Provided, such discharge
is made as far as practicable from land.
(c) a ship of twenty thousand tons gross tonnage or more,
including a tanker, for which the building contract is placed
on or after the effective date of this chapter. However, if in
the opinion of the master, special circumstances make it
neither reasonable nor practicable to retain the oil or oily mix-
ture on board, it may be discharged outside the prohibited
zones. The reasons for such discharge shall be reported in
accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 3, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 402; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(3), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 373.
§ 1003. Excepted discharges; securing safety of ship; preven-
tion of damage to ship or cargo; saving life; damaged ship or un-
avoidable leakage; residue from purification or clarification
Section 1002 of this title shall not apply to—
(a) the discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship, preventing damage
to a ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
(b) the escape of oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from
damage to a ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable
precautions have been taken after the occurrence of the dam-
age or discovery of the leakage for the purpose of presenting
or minimizing the escape;
(c) the discharge of-residue arising from the purification
or clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil: Provided, That
such discharge is made as far from land as practicable.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 4, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 402; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(4), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 373.
§ 1004. Excepted discharges; oily mixtures from bilges
Section 1002 of this title shall not apply to the discharge from
the bilges of a ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than
lubricating oil which has drained or leaked from machinery
spaces.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 5, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 403; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(5), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 374.
-------
2076 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
§ 1005. Penalties for violations; liability of vessel
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, except
sections 1007 (b) and 1008 of this title, or any regulation pre-
scribed 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, or by both
such fine and imprisonment, for each offense. And any ship
(other than a ship owned and operated by the United States) from
which oil is discharged in violation of this chapter, or any regula-
tion prescribed in pursuance thereof, shall be liable for the pecuni-
ary penalty specified in this section, and clearance of such ship
from a port of the United States may be withheld until the
penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien on such
ship which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in the
district court of the United States for any district within which
the ship may be.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 6, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 403.
§ 1006. Suspension or revocation of license of officers of offend-
ing vessels
The Coast Guard may, subject to the provisions of section 239
of Title 46, suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or
other licensed officer of any ship found violating the provisions of
this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 7, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 403.
§ 1007. Personnel for enforcement of provisions; arrest of of-
fenders and procedure; ship fittings and equipment; civil penalty
(a) In the administration of sections 1001 to 1011 of this title,
the Secretary may make use of the organization, equipment, and
agencies, including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, em-
ployed under his direction in the improvement of rivers and har-
bors and in the enforcement of laws for the improvement of rivers
and harbors and in the enforcement of laws for the preservation
and protection of navigable waters. For the better enforcement
of the provisions of said sections, 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, and
officers and employees of the Bureau of Customs and the Coast
Guard, 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 said provi-
sions : Provided, That no person shall be arrested without process
for a violation not committed in the presence of some one of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2077
aforesaid officials: And provided further, That whenever any
arrest is made under the provisions of said sections 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. Representatives of the Secretary
and of the Bureau of Customs and Coast Guard of the United
States may go on board and inspect any ship in a prohibited zone
or in a port of the United States as may be necessary for enforce-
ment of this chapter.
(b) To implement article VII of the convention, ship fittings
and equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating. Any person
found violating these regulations shall, in addition to any other
penalty prescribed by law, be subject, to a civil penalty not in
excess of $100.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 8, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 403.
§ 1008. Oil record book—Printing; regulations by Secretary
(a) The Secretary shall have printed separate oil record books,
containing instructions and spaces for inserting information in
the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall be published
in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Book supplied without charge, inspection and surrender
(b) If subject to this chapter, every ship using oil fuel and every
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140 of Title 5
shall not apply. The ownership of the booklet shall remain in the
United States Government. This book shall be available for inspec-
tion as provided in this chapter and for surrender to the United
States Government pursuant to regulations of the Secretary.
Operations requiring recordation
(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion,
whenever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
(1) ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks
of tankers;
(2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
(3) settling in slop tanks and discharge of water from
tankers;
-------
2078 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(4) disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks
or other sources;
(5) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
tanks of ships other than tankers;
(6) disposal from ships other than tankers of oily residues
from bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
(7) accidental or other exceptional discharges or escapes
of oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture,
as is referred to in sections 1002 (c) and 1003 of this title, a state-
ment shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances of,
and reason for, the discharge or escape.
Entries; signatures
(d) Each operation described in subsection (c) of this section
shall be fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so that
all the entries in the book appropriate to that operation are com-
pleted. Each page of the book shall be signed by the officer or
officers in charge of the operations concerned and, when the ship
is manned, by the master of the ship.
Rules and regulations
(e) Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in the regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
Penalties
(f) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine
not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes
an entry in any records kept in accordance with this chapter or
regulations prescribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to
his knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, he
shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less
than $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months,
or both.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 9, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 404; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(6), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 374.
§ 1009. Regulations
The Secretary may make regulations for the administration of
sections 1002, 1003, 1004, 1007(a), 1008, and 1011 of this title.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 10, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 404; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(7), Sept. 1, 1066, 80 Stat. 375.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2079
§ 1010. Boarding of ships; production of records; evidence of
violations by foreign ships
(a) The Secretary may make regulations empowering such per-
sons as may be designated to go on board any ship to which the
convention applies, while the ship is within the territorial juris-
diction of the United States, and to require production of any rec-
ords required to be kept in accordance with the convention.
(b) Should evidence be obtained that a ship registered in an-
other country party to the convention has discharged oil in any
prohibited zone, such evidence should be forwarded to the State
Department for action in accordance with article X of the
convention.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 11, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 404.
§ 1011. Prohibited zones; publication of reduction or extension
of zones
(a) All sea areas within fifty miles from the nearest land shall
be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or reduction effectuated
in accordance with the terms of the Convention, which shall be
published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones
described under the terms of the Convention, the Secretary shall
give notice thereof by publication of such information in Notices
to Mariners issued by the United States Coast Guard and United
States Navy.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 12, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 404; Pub.L. 89-551,
§ 1(8), Sept. 1,1966, 80 Stat. 375.
§ 1012. Repealed. Pub.L. 89-551, § 1(9), Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat.
375
§ 1013. Appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 14, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 407.
§ 1014. Effect on other laws
Nothing in this chapter or in regulations issued hereunder shall
be construed to modify or amend the provisions of the Oil Pollu-
tion Act, 1924, or of section 89 of Title 14.
Pub.L. 87-167, § 16, Aug. 30,1961, 75 Stat. 407.
-------
2080 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.3a THE OIL POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1961
August 30,1961, P.L. 87-167, 75 Stat. 402
An Act to implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, may be cited as
the "Oil Pollution Act, 1961."
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—As used in this Act, unless the context other-
wise requires—
(a) The term "convention" means the International Convention
for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954;
(b) The term "discharge" in relation to oil or to an oily mixture
means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
(c) The term "heavy diesel oil" means marine diesel oil, other than
those distillates of which more than 50 per centum, by volume distills
at a temperature not exceeding three hundred and forty degrees
centigrade when tested by American Society for the Testing of
Materials standard method D. 158/53;
(d) The term "mile" means a nautical mile of six thousand and
eighty feet or one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two meters;
(e) The term "oil" means persistent oils, such as crude oil, fuel
oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oil. For the purposes of this
legislation, the oil in an oily mixture of less than one hundred parts
of oil in one million parts of the mixture, shall not be deemed to
foul the surface of the sea;
(f) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, corpo-
ration, or association; and any owner, operator, agent, master, officer,
or employee of a ship;
(g) The term "prohibited zones" means the zones described in
section 12 of this Act as modified by notices, if any, of extension or
reduction issued by the Secretary;
(h) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;
(i) The term "ship" means a seagoing ship of American registry
except—
(1) ships for the time being used as naval auxiliaries;
(2) ships under five hundred tons gross tonnage;
(3) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry;
(4) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes of
North America and their connecting and tributary waters as
far east as the lower exit of the Lachine Canal at Montreal in the
Province of Quebec, Canada.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2081
SEC. 3. (a) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, the dis-
charge by any person from any ship, which is a tanker, within any
of the prohibited zones of oil or any oily mixture the oil in which
fouls the surface of the sea, shall be unlawful.
(b) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, any discharge by
any person into the sea from a ship, other than a tanker, of oily
ballast water or tank washings shall be made as far as practicable
from land. As from July 26, 1961, paragraph (a) of this section
shall apply to ships other than tankers as it applies to tankers, except
that the prohibited zones in relation to ships other than tankers shall
be those referred to in the schedule.
SEC. 4. Section 3 shall not apply to—
(a) the discharge of oil or of an oily mixture from a ship for
the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, preventing damage
to the ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
[p. 402]
(b) the escape of oil, or of an oily mixture, resulting from
damage to the ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable pre-
cautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or
discovery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or mini-
mizing the escape;
(c) the discharge of sediment—
(i) which cannot be pumped from the cargo tanks of
tankers by reason of its solidity; or
(ii) which is residue arising from the purification or
clarification of oil fuel or lubricating oil,
Provided, That such discharge is made as far from land as is
practicable.
SEC. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges
of a ship—
(a) of any oily mixture, during the period of twelve months
after the United States accepts the convention;
(b) after the expiration of such period, of an oily mixture
containing no oil other than lubricating oil.
SEC. 6. Any person who violates any provision of this Act, except
sections 8 (b) and 9, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance there-
of, 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, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for
each offense. And any ship (other than a ship owned and operated
by the United States) from which oil is discharged in violation of
this Act, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance thereof, shall be
liable for the pecuniary penalty specified in this section, and clear-
-------
2082 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ance of such ship from a port of the United States may be withheld
until the penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien on
such ship which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in
the district court of the United States for any district within which
the ship may be.
SEC. 7. 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
ship found violating the provisions of this Act or the regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
SEC. 8. (a) In the administration of sections 1-12 of this Act, the
Secretary may make use of the organization, equipment, and agen-
cies, including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed
under his direction in the improvement of rivers and harbors and in
the enforcement of laws for the improvement of rivers and harbors
and in the enforcement of laws for the preservation and protection
of navigable waters. For the better enforcement of the provisions
of said sections, 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, and officers and employees of the
Bureau of Customs and the Coast Guard, 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 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 said sections 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 pro-
ceed in respect thereto as authorized by law in cases of crimes against
the United States. Representatives of the Secretary and of the
[p. 403]
Bureau of Customs and Coast Guard of the United States may go on
board and inspect any ship in a prohibited zone or in a port of the
United States as may be necessary for enforcement of this Act.
(b) To implement article VII of the convention, ship fittings and
equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in accord-
ance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating. Any person found violating
these regulations shall, in addition to any other penalty prescribed
by law, be subject to a civil penalty not in excess of $100.
SEC. 9. (a) There shall be carried in every ship an oil record book
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2083
in the form specified in section 13 of this Act. In the event of dis-
charge or escape of oil from a ship in a prohibited zone, a signed state-
ment shall be made in the oil record book, by the officer or officers in
charge of the operations concerned and by the master of the ship, of
the circumstances of and the reason for the discharge or escape.
(b) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act which is to his knowl-
edge false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
SEC. 10. The Secretary may make regulations for the administra-
tion of sections 3, 4, 5, 8 (a), and 9.
SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary may make regulations empowering
such persons as may be designated to go on board any ship to which
the convention applies, while the ship is within the territorial juris-
diction of the United States, and to require production of any records
required to be kept in accordance with the convention.
(b) Should evidence be obtained that a ship registered in another
country party to the convention has discharged oil in any prohibited
zone, such evidence should be forwarded to the State Department
for action in accordance with article X of the convention.
SEC. 12. (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the pro-
hibited zones in relation to tankers shall be all sea areas within fifty
miles from land, with the following exceptions:
(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
shall each extend for a distance of fifty miles from land, excepting
only the island of Vis.
(2) THE NORTH SEA ZONE.—The North Sea Zone shall extend
for a distance of one hundred miles from the coasts of the
following countries—
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one-hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limits of the fifty-
mile zone off the coast of Norway.
(3) THE ATLANTIC ZONE.—The Atlantic Zone shall be within
a line drawn from a point on the Greenwich meridian one hun-
dred miles in a north-northeasterly direction from the Shetland
-------
2084 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Islands; thence northward along the Greenwich meridian to lati-
tude 64 degrees north; thence westward along the 64th parallel
to longitude 10 degrees west; thence to latitude 60 degrees north,
longitude 14 degrees west; thence to latitude 54 degrees 30
minutes north, longitude 30 degrees west; thence to latitude 44
[p. 404]
degrees 20 minutes north, longitude 30 degrees west; thence to
latitude 48 degrees north, longitude 14 degrees west; thence east-
ward along the forty-eighth parallel to a point of intersection
with the fifty-mile zone off the coast of France: Provided, That
in relation to voyages which do not extend seaward beyond the
Atlantic Zone as defined above, and which are to points not pro-
vided with adequate facilities for the reception of oily residue,
the Atlantic Zone shall be deemed to terminate at a distance of
one hundred miles from land.
(4) THE AUSTRALIAN ZONE.—The Australian Zone shall ex-
tend for a distance of one hundred and fifty miles from the coasts
of Australia, except off the north and west coasts of the Austra-
lian mainland between the point opposite Thursday Island and
the point on the west coast at 20 degrees south latitude.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section the prohibited zones
in relation to ships other than tankers shall be all sea areas within
fifty miles from land with the following exceptions:
(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
shall each extend for a distance of twenty miles from land, ex-
cepting only the Island of Vis. After the expiration of a period
of three years following the application of prohibited zones to
ships other than tankers in accordance with section 3 (b) of this
Act the said zones shall each be extended by a further thirty
miles in width unless the two Governments agree to postpone
such extension. In the event of such an argeement, the Conven-
tion provides for notification to be given accordingly to the
Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization by said
governments not less than three months before the expiration of
such period of three years and for notification to be given to all
contracting governments by the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization.
(2) THE NORTH SEA AND ATLANTIC ZONES.—The North Sea
and Atlantic Zones shall extend for a distance of one hundred
miles from the coasts of the following countries:
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2085
Ireland,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one-hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the fifty-
mile zone off the coast of Norway.
(c) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones de-
scribed above effectuated under the terms of the Convention, the
Secretary of the Army shall give notice thereof by publication of such
information in Notices to Mariners issued by the United States Coast
Guard and United States Navy.
SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate booklets
which set forth instructions and spaces for inserting information as
follows:
(1) FOR TANKERS.—
(A) Date of entry.
(B) Ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo
tanks.
(i) Identity numbers of tank (s).
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s).
[p. 405]
(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast water.
(v) Place or position of ship.
(vi) Approximate amount of oil contaminated water
transferred to slop tank (s).
(vii) Identity numbers of slop tank (s).
(C) Cleaning of cargo tanks.
(i) Identity numbers of tank (s) cleaned.
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s).
(iii) Identity numbers of slop tank(s) to which
washings transferred.
(iv) Dates and times of cleaning.
(D) Settling in slop tank (s) and discharge of water.
(i) Identity numbers of slop tank (s).
(ii) Period of settling (in hours).
(iii) Date and time of discharge of water.
(iv) Place or position of ship.
(v) Approximate quantities of residue.
(E) Disposal from ship of oily residues from slop tanks
and other sources.
(i) Date and method of disposal.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
-------
2086 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(F) Signature of Officer or Officers in Charge of the oper-
ations concerned with Signature of the Master.
(2) FOR SHIPS OTHER THAN TANKERS.—
(A) Date of entry.
(B) Ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker
fuel tanks.
(i) Identity number of tank.
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank.
(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast or wash-
ing water.
(v) Place or position of ship.
(vi) Whether separator used: if so, give period of
* use.
(vii) Disposal of oily residue retained on board.
(C) Disposal from ship of oily residues from bunker fuel
tanks of other sources.
(i) Date and method of disposal.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
(D) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
(3) FOR ALL SHIPS.—
(A) Date of entry.
(B) Accidental and other exceptional discharges of
escapes of oil.
(i) Date and time of occurrence.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Approximate quantity and type of oil.
(iv) Circumstances of discharge or escape and gen-
eral remarks.
(C) Signature of office or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
(b) The booklet shall be furnished free to all seagoing ships of
American registry subject to this Act. The provisions of section 140
of title 5, United States Code shall not apply. The ownership of the
[p. 406]
booklet shall remain in the United States Government. This booklet
shall be available for inspection as provided in this Act and for sur-
render to the United States Government pursuant to regulations of
the Secretary.
SEC. 14. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2087
SEC. 15. If a provision of this Act or the application of such pro-
vision of any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the re-
mainder of the Act and the application of such provision to persons
or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall not
be affected thereby.
SEC. 16. Nothing in this Act or in regulations issued hereunder shall
be construed to modify or amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution
Act, 1924 (33 U.S.C. 431-437), or of section 89 of title 14, United
States Code.
SEC. 17. This Act shall become effective upon the date of its enact-
ment, or upon the date the United States becomes a party to the con-
vention, whichever is the later date.
Approved August 30, 1961.
[p. 407]
1.3a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 666, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL
AUGUST 4,1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2187]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 2187) to implement the provisions of the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, hav-
ing considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The oil pollution problem in coastal waters is becoming more acute
each year, and is a problem to Government officials, the shipping
industry, persons interested in wildlife preservation, resort owners,
and those who frequent the beaches for recreation.
Accordingly, in 1954 a conference was held in London to develop
-------
2088 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
a convention for the purpose of preventing the pollution of the seas
by oil, in which the United States participated.
Your committee was informed in public hearing that while our
country was wholeheartedly committed to the objectives intended to
be achieved, it was not satisfied with the convention. Because of this
dissatisfaction, the Secretary of State established a National Com-
mittee for the Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by Oil to study the
problem and to recommend a course of action.
Eventually this committee recommended the convention be sub-
mitted to the Senate for approval with certain reservations. The
Secretary of State did so on February 15, 1960, and by a vote of
92 to 0, May 17, 1961, the Senate agreed. It has now been accepted
by the United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Ireland, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Sweden, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
[p. 1]
THE CONVENTION
A summary of the convention, submitted by the Department of
State, follows:
Article I contains definitions of expressions used throughout
the convention.
Article II provides that the convention shall apply to sea-
going ships registered in any territories of a contracting govern-
ment except (i) ships used as naval auxiliaries, (ii) ships of
under 500 tons gross tonnage, (iii) ships engaged in the whaling
industry, (iv) ships navigating the Great Lakes of North Amer-
ica and their connecting and tributary waters, as set forth
therein.
Article III, paragraph (1), prohibits the discharge from tankers
of oil or oily mixtures (as defined therein) within prohibited
zones referred to in annex A. Paragraph (2) provides that,
in the case of ships other than tankers, discharges shall be made
as far as practicable from land for the first 3 years after the con-
vention comes into force. Thereafter paragraph (1) of the article
shall apply to such ships as it applies to tankers, with certain
exceptions, including an exception set forth in subparagraph (b)
providing that discharge of oil or of an oily mixture shall not be
prohibited when a ship is proceeding to a port not provided with
reception facilities. This article is subject to the provisions of
articles IV and V. Contravention of the article is made an
offense punishable under the laws of the country in which the
ship is registered.
Article IV specifies a number of circumstances under which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2089
article III does not apply but provides that discharges made in
such cases must be explained in the oil record book required by
article XI.
Article V inferentially provides that article III shall not apply
to discharge from bilges of a ship of lubricating oil and shall not
apply, during a period of 12 months following the coming into
force of the convention with respect to the territory in which the
ship is registered, to discharge from bilges of a ship of oily
mixtures.
Article VI requires that the penalties imposed under the laws
of a contracting government in respect to unlawful discharges
outside its territorial waters shall not be less than those applicable
to discharges within its territorial waters.
Article VII requires that by 1 year after the convention conies
into force ships must be so fitted as to prevent the escape of oil
into bilges the contents of which are discharged into the sea
without being passed through an oily water separator.
Article VIII requires that within 3 years after the convention
comes into force in respect of any of the territories of a con-
tracting government that government shall insure the provision
in each main port of adequate facilities for the reception of oily
wastes.
Article IX requires that an oil-record book, in the form speci-
fied in annex B, be carried aboard ships to which the con-
vention applies and provides for inspection of such books.
[p. 2]
Article X provides that any contracting government may fur-
nish written evidence of contravention to the contracting govern-
ment in the territory of which the offending ship is registered.
Upon receiving such particulars, the latter government shall
investigate and may request the former government to furnish
more or better particulars. If satisfied that sufficient evidence
is available the government of the ship's flag shall take legal
proceedings against the ship's owner or master.
Article XI provides that nothing in the convention shall be
construed as in derogation of powers of any contracting govern-
ment to take measures within its jurisdiction or as extending
the jurisdiction of any government.
Article XII requires contracting governments to send to the
Bureau copies of laws, regulations, official reports, or summaries
of such reports, etc.
Article XIII provides that any dispute between contracting
governments which cannot be settled by negotiation shall be
-------
2090 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
referred at the request of either party to the International Court
of Justice unless the parties agree to submit it to arbitration.
Article XIV relates to signature and acceptance of the
convention.
Article XV provides that the convention will come into force
12 months after 10 governments have become parties, including
5 governments of countries each with not less than 500,000 gross
tons of tanker tonnage. Pursuant to this article the convention
entered into force on July 26, 1958. The article further provides
that for each government accepting on or after that date it shall
come into force 3 months after deposit of acceptance.
Article XVI relates to amendments to the convention. It
provides that any contracting government may propose an
amendment, which shall be communicated by the Bureau to all
contracting governments for consideration. Pursuant to para-
graph (2) such proposed amendment shall be deemed to have
been accepted and shall come into force 6 months after it has been
communicated, unless a contracting government declares not less
than 2 months before the expiration of that period that it does
not accept the amendment. The article also provides for amend-
ment by two-thirds majority vote of a conference of the con-
tracting governments. Such an amendment will come into force
for all contracting governments, except those which before it
comes into force declare that they do not accept it, 12 months
after acceptance by two-thirds of the contracting governments.
Article XVII provides for denunciation of the convention.
Article XVIII deals with application of the convention to ter-
ritories for whose foreign relations a contracting government is
responsible.
Article XIX provides for suspension in time of war or other
hostilities.
Article XX provides for registry of the convention with the
Secretary General of the United Nations.
[p. 3]
Article XXI states that the duties of the Bureau shall be
carried out by the United Kingdom until IMCO takes them over.
THE LEGISLATION
The bill, in implementing the convention, would—
1. prohibit American ships from discharging wastes in any of
the zones named in the amended bill, including 50 miles around
our own coasts;
2. provide for the keeping of records showing where such
waste was discharged;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2091
3. provide for the inspection of oil record books, and of such
books kept by foreign ships, whose governments were parties to
the convention, when they were within our waters;
4. violations would be misdemeanors punishable by a fine of
$500 up to $2,500, imprisonment for 1 year, or both; further, the
Coast Guard could revoke a ship officer's license for a violation;
and
5. provide a $100 civil penalty for violation of Coast Guard
regulations re equipment designed to prevent the escape of oil,
and the operation thereof.
The bill would require a signed statement by the officers in charge
and the master in the record book if oil was discharged or escaped in
a prohibited zone. A violation of this requirement would subject such
officers to a fine, from $500 to $1,000, and, if a false or misleading
entry was made with knowledge, the penalty could be 6 months'
imprisonment, the fine, or both.
RESERVATIONS
With respect to understanding, reservations, and recommendations,
the following were suggested by the State Department, recommended
by your Committee on Foreign Relations, and approved:
Understanding:
In accepting the convention the United States declares that
it does so subject to the understanding that article XI effectively
reserves to the parties to the convention freedom of legislative
action in territorial waters, including the application of existing
laws, anything in the convention which may appear to be con-
trary notwithstanding. Specifically, it is understood that offenses
in U.S. territorial waters will continue to be punishable under
U.S. laws regardless of the ship's registry.
Reservations:
1. The United States accepts article VIII of the convention,
subject to the reservation that, while it will urge port authorities,
oil terminals or private contractors to provide adequate disposal
facilities, the United States shall not be obliged to construct,
operate, or maintain shore facilities at places on U.S. coasts or
waters where such facilities may be deemed inadequate, or to
assume any financial obligation to assist in such activities;
2. The United States accepts the convention subject to the
reservation that amendments communicated to contracting
governments under the provisions of paragraph (2) of article
[p. 4]
XVI will become binding upon the United States of America
-------
2092 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
only after notification of acceptance thereof has been given by
the United States.
Recommendations:
The United States of America, in accepting the convention
subject to the aforesaid understanding and reservations, recom-
mends that the parties give consideration to the formulation of
amendments to the convention at the earliest practicable date
to bring about—
(1) International uniformity in fines and penalties;
(2) International uniformity of enforcement;
(3) A more realistic definition of what shall constitute
oil pollution;
(4) The right of access of each contracting government
to the official reports of other contracting governments filed
with the bureau which relate to its own vessels; and
(5) A more flexible arrangement for fixing the time within
which contracting governments shall notify the bureau
whether or not they accept an amendment.
THE AMENDMENTS
Amend section 2 (e) to read as follows:
(e) The term "oil" means persistent oils, such as crude oil,
fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oil. For the purposes
of this legislation, the oil in an oily mixture of less than one
hundred parts of oil in one million parts of the mixture, shall
not be deemed to foul the surface of the sea;
Add two new sections that would describe the prohibited zones, and
the makeup of the oil-record book.
Renumber sections 12, 13, 14, and 15.
Your committee agrees with the State Department that these
amendments should be made:
The amendment to section 2 (e) is to.make uniform the definition of
"oil" in the bill and the convention.
The new sections, 12 and 13, would amend the bill so as to describe
the prohibited zones, and the information required by the oil-record
book. This information was submitted as "schedules" when the draft
bill was sent up by the Department of State.
Your committee agrees the foregoing should be incorporated in the
legislation.
The remaining amendments merely renumber the sections of the
bill.
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Your Committee on Foreign Relations in its report on the conven-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2093
tion urging favorable action (Ex. Kept. No. 4, 87th Cong., 1st sess.,
p. 8) stated:
The committee in reporting the convention does not intend to
gloss over its shortcomings. Its history alone testifies to them.
Yet, at the present time, there is no other or better instrument
to deal with the problem of oil pollution of the high seas. As
long as the United States remains outside the
[p. 5]
convention, it has little or no opportunity to improve the con-
vention by amendments. The administration has made clear that
it intends to recommend consideration by governments of various
changes through the machinery of the Intergovernmental Mari-
time Consultative Organization. The industry spokesman has
testified that acceptance of the convention will not result in a
lowering of the voluntary control standards now employed by
the U.S. merchant marine.
Under these circumstances, the committee believes that the
best interests of the United States are served by accepting the
convention. It recommends that the Senate give its advice and
consent to ratification subject to the understanding, and reserva-
tions and with the recommendations referred to in section 5 of
this report.
The Secretary General of the Intergovernmental Maritime Con-
sultative Organization (IMCO) has announced that it is proposed to
hold a conference from March 28 to April 12, 1962, on the prevention
of pollution of the sea by oil. The purposes of this conference will be
to review (i) the present situation in regard to oil pollution of the sea;
(ii) the working of the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954; (iii) any amendments to the pro-
visions of the 1954 convention proposed by governments; and (iv) the
practicability of securing complete avoidance of the discharge of
persistent oils into the sea.
As long as the United States remains outside the convention it has
little or no opportunity to improve the convention by amendments.
Because the forthcoming conference will offer the only opportunity
for possibly several years to make the changes desired, it is hoped that
acceptance of the 1954 convention can soon be deposited by the
United States. By completing the ratification, the United States
would be in a much stronger position to obtain acceptance of its
recommended changes in the convention. Any rewrite of the 1954
convention presumably could not enter into force in less than 2 years
in view of the time needed for ratification by the requisite number of
governments. By ratifying the 1954 convention now, the United
-------
2094 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States would be a full participating member in the antipollution effort
during the period while the 1962 conference is in session.
The State Department explained, when it submitted the convention
to the Senate, that implementing legislation would be necessary
before the U.S. instruments of acceptance of the convention could be
deposited. This bill is the implementing legislation.
POSITION OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY
Your committee believes that the following testimony given by
Ernest A. Lister, Deputy Director of the Office of Transport and
Communications, Department of State, covers this point:
In view of the fine voluntary action already taken by the
American shipping industry, the Department does not believe
the legislation proposed by S. 2187 will place any significant addi-
tional burden on the American shipowner. With respect to ob-
servance by American ships of the zones prohibited by the
convention, the various American steam-
[p. 6]
ship associations in 1954 issued a combined bulletin calling upon
American ships to observe, when in zones where discharge of oil
is prohibited by the convention, the same antipollution measures
which they were already applying with a good measure of suc-
cess, in American waters. The industry authorized the chairman
of the U.S. delegation to announce at the 1954 conference that the
American industry would so cooperate. It is pertinent, and most
praiseworthy, that in the 7 years since the announcement was
made, there has been no complaint by any foreign government
that any American ship has violated this pledge. Furthermore,
the American industry has voluntarily agreed to employ good
housekeeping practices in waters to which the 1954 convention
has not extended. Upon hearing that oil off Newfoundland was
killing the birds on which the Eskimos and Indians depended for
food, the American industry agreed to observe care at least 300
miles off the coasts.
It should be noted that existing law governing oil pollution domes-
tically is the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, which applies to all navigable
waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and this
act will continue to apply notwithstanding any of the provisions of the
convention.
RECOMMENDATION
Your committee urges the approval of the bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2095
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
The Department of State submitted the draft bill. The Depart-
ments of Commerce and Interior and the Coast Guard favor enact-
ment; the Department of Justice and the Comptroller General had no
comments to offer.
The National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation,
and many other organizations have indicated they favor the bill.
The reports from the Departments follow:
U.S. COAST GUARD,
Washington, D.C., July 12,1961.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There was held in London in 1954 a confer-
ence to develop a convention for the purpose of preventing the pollu-
tion of the seas by oil. The United States participated in this
conference, and, though wholeheartedly committed to the objectives
sought, was not entirely satisfied with the resulting convention. Be-
fore presenting the convention to the Senate for advice and consent
to ratification, the Secretary of State established a National Commit-
tee for the Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by Oil composed of the
interested U.S. departments and agencies for the purposes primarily
of studying the problem in relation to the proposed convention and
recommending a course of action. It was my honor to accept the
chairmanship of this committee.
After considerable deliberation and discussion with the petroleum
industry, the shipping industry, with the organizations interested in
[p. V]
the conservation of wildlife, and with representatives of municipali-
ties, the National Committee recommended that the convention be
submitted for ratification, with certain reservations. This was done
on February 15, 1960, but it was explained that implementing legisla-
tion would be necessary with respect to certain provisions of the
convention before formal deposit of a U.S. instrument of acceptance
could take place. The Senate on May 17, 1961, by the significant
vote of 92 to 0 agreed to ratification of the convention. On June 16
of this year, the Secretary of State submitted legislation to implement
the convention and enable the completion of U.S. ratification, which
legislation has now been introduced by you in the Senate as S. 2187.
As Chairman of the National Committee, I should like respectfully
to urge that the Committee on Commerce give this bill early attention
in the hope that the implementing legislation may be enacted into
law in the current session.
-------
2096 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
As background information on the reason for the desirability of
expeditious action in the case, the following considerations should be
of interest to your committee:
The oil pollution problem in coastal waters, not only along certain
portions of our own coasts but particularly in Nova Scotia, New-
foundland, and northern European waters, has been particularly
acute in recent years, causing concern not only to Government offi-
cials, but to persons interested in wildlife preservation and resort
owners, as well as those who frequent the beaches for recreation.
There is a prevalent feeling that the 1954 convention, if generally
adopted, would do much to ameliorate the existing serious pollution
problem, and the delay of the United States in taking action while the
matter was being studied has subjected this country to some criticism
in foreign circles, and considerable criticism at home.
The U.S. official position in the international field has been that the
1954 convention must be considerably strengthened before any major
gain in solving the problem can be attained, and to this end has for
the last several years strongly advocated another conference to be
held as soon as possible, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization.
At the insistence of the United States, the Maritime Safety Com-
mittee of IMCO agreed to the holding of such a further conference in
March-April 1962, and this action was adopted at the recent meeting
of the assembly of IMCO as final only after repeated efforts by the
U.S. delegation succeeded in defeating proposals to delay the holding
of the next conference.
Under the auspices of the National Committee, representatives of
Government and industry are presently busily engaged in shaping
recommendations as to the U.S. position for the forthcoming confer-
ence in March of next year. At a recent meeting of a committee of
experts in London, making preliminary plans for the conference, the
approaching ratification by the United States of the 1954 convention
was hailed by the representatives of other countries as a significant
contribution to the international effort to combat pollution. I feel
that the position of the U.S. delegation to the 1962 conference would
be immeasurably enhanced if the Congress of the United States would
give speedy action to the legislation to implement the 1954 convention.
Conversely, I think that the prestige of the United States would suffer
greatly if it is unable to show that action, initiated in February of
I960,
[P. 8]
when the convention was first submitted to Congress for ratifi-
cation, had not been consummated by March 1962, indicating a lack of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2097
interest which is by no means the case. This is particularly true since
there appears to be no opposition to the substance of the convention
in the United States.
I further believe the effectiveness of the U.S. delegation in securing
amendments to the 1954 convention which are desired by all inter-
ested persons both in and out of our Government will be greatly di-
luted at the 1962 conference if we are not at the time a participating
party to the antipollution convention.
It may be considered that in view of the forthcoming 1962
conference, there is not a compelling need to urge the passage of this
implementing legislation, but I would point out in this case that it
will probably be at least a year or so after the 1962 conference before
any new convention can be brought into force, and, therefore, the
immediate adoption of the legislation necessary to implement the
1954 convention would be effective for 2 or 3 years at a minimum
before any amendments would be required.
Because of the importance to the prestige of the United States of
this noncontroversial piece of legislation, I am taking the liberty of
calling it to your attention because of the imminence of the adjourn-
ment of Congress, and the knowledge that it might be overlooked in
the press of work which always devolves upon your committee at this
time of the year.
Sincerely yours,
A. C. RICHMOND,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chairman, U.S. National
Committee for Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by Oil.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., July 19,1961.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Your committee has requested a re-
port on S. 2187, a bill to implement the provisions of the International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954.
We recommend the enactment of this bill.
This proposal would establish procedures for enforcement of the
1954 International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of
the Sea by Oil. This Department, because of its responsibilities in
the field of conservation, is particularly interested in this matter. We
have cooperated with other Federal agencies in a study of this prob-
lem. We expect to continue such cooperation and to follow closely
-------
2098 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the enforcement activities that we anticipate will be authorized by
this bill. Oil pollution of the sea has been the cause of much damage
to waterfowl, fisheries, and recreational facilities. Such pollution
must be controlled in the national interest.
[P. 9]
We have been 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 yours,
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, July 28, 1961.
Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request of
July 5, 1961, for the views of this Department with respect to S.
2187, a bill to implement the provisions of the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
As stated in the title, the purpose of the bill is to implement the
provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of the
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which was signed at London on
May 12, 1954, by the parties to the convention but not by the United
States.
The obligations imposed by the provisions of the convention cannot
be fulfilled by the United States until such time as implementing
legislation is enacted with respect to the provisions of the conven-
tion. S. 2187 would fulfill this purpose.
The damages and harmful effects to marine life and human life
resulting from the pollution of the oceans by the discharge of oily
wastes from vessels are well known. The need for effective inter-
national control of the problem is clearly recognized by all responsi-
ble maritime nations. The Department therefore recommends that
favorable consideration be given to the legislation.
The Bureau of the Budget advises there is no objection to the
submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
program.
Sincerely,
FRANK L. BARTON,
(For C. D. Martin, Jr.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2099
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
There are no changes in existing law.
[p. 10]
1.3a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE
AND FISHERIES
H.R. REP. No. 838, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF THE POLLUTION
OF THE SEA BY OIL, 1954
AUGUST 2, 1961.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BONNER, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8152]
The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 8152) to implement the provisions of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by
Oil, 1954, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
On page 2, line 14, delete the word "is" and insert in lieu thereof
the word "in".
On page 2, line 14, after the words "an oily mixture of", insert the
words "less than".
On page 2, line 15, delete the words "or more".
On page 2, line 16, after the words "mixture shall", insert the word
"not".
On page 2, line 21, delete the words "the schedule to" and insert in
lieu thereof the words "section 12 of".
On page 7, line 7, delete the words "the schedule to" and insert in
lieu thereof the words "section 13 of".
On page 8, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following two new
sections 12 and 13:
SEC. 12. (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the
-------
2100 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
prohibited zones in relation to tankers shall be all sea areas
within 50 miles from land, with the following exceptions:
[p. 1]
(1) The Adriatic Zones
Within the Adriatic Sea the prohibited zones off the coasts
of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively shall each extend for a
distance of 50 miles from land, excepting only the island of Vis.
(2) The North Sea Zone
The North Sea Zone shall extend for a distance of 100 miles
from the coasts of the following countries: Belgium; Denmark;
the Federal Republic of Germany; the Netherlands; and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but not
beyond the point where the limit of a 100-mile zone off the west
coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the 50-mile zone off the
coast of Norway.
(3) The Atlantic Zone
The Atlantic Zone shall be within a line drawn from a point
on the Greenwich meridian 100 miles in a north-northeasterly
direction from the Shetland Islands; thence northwards along
the Greenwich meridian to latitude 64 degrees north; thence
westward along the 64th parallel to longitude 10 degrees west;
thence to latitude 60 degrees north, longitude 14 degrees west;
thence to latitude 54 degrees 30 minutes north, longitude 30 de-
grees west; thence to latitude 44 degrees 20 minutes north,
longitude 30 degrees west; thence to latitude 48 degrees north,
longitude 14 degrees west; thence eastward along the 48th
parallel to a point of intersection with the 50-mile zone off the
coast of France: Provided, That in relation to voyages which do
not extend seaward beyond the Atlantic Zone as denned above,
and which are to points not provided with adequate facilities
for the reception of oily residue, the Atlantic Zone shall be
deemed to terminate at a distance of 100 miles from land.
(4) The Australian Zone
The Australian Zone shall extend for a distance of 150 miles
from the coasts of Australia, except off the north and west coasts
of the Australian mainland between the point opposite Thursday
Island and the point on the west coast at 20 degrees south
latitude.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section the prohibited
zones in relation to ships other than tankers shall be all sea areas
within 50 miles from land with the following exceptions:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2101
(1) The Adriatic Zones
Within the Adriatic Sea the prohibited zones off the coasts of
Italy and Yugoslavia respectively shall each extend for a dis-
tance of 20 miles from land, excepting only the Island of Vis.
After the expiration of a period of three years following the
application of prohibited zones to ships other than tankers in
accordance with section 3 (b) of this Act the said zones
[P. 2]
shall each be extended by a further 30 miles in width unless the
two Governments agree to postpone such extension. In the event
of such an agreement, the convention provides for notification
to be given accordingly to the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization by said Governments not less than
three months before the expiration of such period of three years
and for notification to be given to all contracting Governments
by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization.
(2) The North Sea and Atlantic Zones
The North Sea and Atlantic Zones shall extend for a distance
of 100 miles from the coasts of the following countries: Belgium;
Denmark; the Federal Republic of Germany; Ireland; the
Netherlands; and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, but not beyond the point where the limit of a
100-mile zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of
the 50-mile zone off the coast of Norway.
(c) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones
described above effectuated under the terms of the convention,
the Secretary of the Army shall give notice thereof by publica-
tion of such information in notices to mariners issued by the
U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy.
Sec. 13. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate book-
lets which set forth instructions and spaces for inserting informa-
tion as follows:
(1) For Tankers
(A) Date of entry.
(B) Ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks:
(i) Identify numbers of tank (s).
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s).
(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast water.
(v) Place or position of ship.
(vi) Approximate amount of oil contaminated water
transferred to slop tank (s).
(vii) Identity numbers of slop tank (s).
-------
2102 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(C) Cleaning of cargo tanks:
(i) Identity numbers of tank(s) cleaned.
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s).
(iii) Identity numbers of slop tank (s) to which wash-
ings transferred.
(iv) Dates and times of cleaning.
(D) Settling in slop tank (s) and discharge of water:
(i) Identity numbers of slop tank (s).
(ii) Period of settling (in hours).
(iii) Date and time of discharge of water.
(iv) Place or position of ship.
(v) Approximate quantities of residue.
[p. 3]
(E) Disposal from ship of oily residues from slop tanks and
other sources:
(i) Date and method of disposal.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
(F) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the operations
concerned and signature of the master.
(2) For Ships Other Than Tankers
(A) Date of entry.
(B) Ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
tanks:
(i) Identity number of tank.
(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank.
(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast or washing
water.
(v) Place or position of ship.
(vi) Whether separator used: if so, give period of use.
(vii) Disposal of oily residue retained on board.
(C) Disposal from ship of oily residues from bunker fuel
tanks and other sources:
(i) Date and method of disposal.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
(D) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the operations
concerned and signature of the master.
(3) For All Ships
(A) Date of entry.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2103
(B) Accidental and other exceptional discharges or escapes
of oil:
(i) Date and time of occurrence.
(ii) Place or position of ship.
(iii) Approximate quantity and type of oil.
(iv) Circumstances of discharge or escape and general
remarks.
(C) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the operations
concerned and signature of the master.
(b) The booklet shall be furnished free to all seagoing ships
of American registry subject to this Act. The provisions of
section 140 of title 5, United States Code shall not apply. The
ownership of the booklet shall remain in the United States
Government. This booklet shall be available for inspection as
provided in this Act and for surrender to the United States
Government pursuant to regulations of the Secretary.
On page 8, line 10, delete "12." and insert in lieu thereof "14."
On page 8, line 13, delete "13." and insert in lieu thereof "15."
On page 8, line 18, delete "14." and insert in lieu thereof "16."
On page 8, line 22, delete "15." and insert in lieu thereof "17."
[p. 4]
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this bill is to implement the provisions of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by
Oil. The convention was ratified by the Senate on May 16, 1961, with
certain reservations.
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The present legislation is necessary to place into effect the agree-
ments contained in the treaty. Although ratification of the treaty
by the United States was delayed for some 7 years the fact of the
matter is that virtually all ships have meticulously observed the
provisions of the convention since its promulgation in 1954.
The increasing traffic upon the seas and the increasing damage done
by oil pollution urgently demands action of the type spelled out in
the present legislation.
AMENDMENTS
Section 2 (e) of the bill as introduced specified that the oil in an oily
mixture which shall be deemed to foul the surface of the sea shall
consist of 100 or more parts of oil per million. The convention itself
places this in the negative, that a mixture of less than 100 parts shall
not be deemed to foul the surface of the sea. The committee adopted
the language of the convention.
-------
2104 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
A typographical error appeared in the bill as introduced and on
page 2, line 14, of the bill the word "is" was changed to the word "in."
The bill as submitted by Executive Communication No. 1053 from
the Secretary of State did not specify the areas subject to the terms
of the convention and did not provide for the maintenance of record
books. At the suggestion of the Department of State and the Coast
Guard, these schedules were inserted in the bill itself.
This bill would make no changes in existing law.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
The bill was the subject of an executive communication from the
Secretary of State, a copy of which follows. Departmental reports on
the bill also follow.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, June 16,1961.
The Honorable SAM RAYBURN,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department submits and recommends for
consideration of the House of Representatives a draft bill, to im-
plement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
A certified copy of the convention (see Senate Executive C, 86th
Cong., 2d sess.) was transmitted by the President to the Senate on
February 15, 1960, with a view to receiving its advice and consent to
acceptance. An outline of the provisions of each article of the con-
vention is contained in the "Commentary" in Senate Executive C.
The report of the Secretary of State, which was included in the
President's transmittal to the Senate, stated that implementing
[p. 5]
legislation would be necessary and that the U.S. instrument of rati-
fication would not be deposited until after adoption of the legislation.
The Senate, by its resolution of May 16, 1961, gave its advice and
consent to ratification of the International Convention for the Pre-
vention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, subject to the following
understanding, reservations, and recommendation:
"The acceptance by the United States of America of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, is subject to the following understanding:
"In accepting the convention the United States declares that it
does so subject to the understanding that article XI effectively re-
serves to the parties to the convention freedom of legislative action
in territorial waters, including the application of existing laws,
anything in the convention which may appear to be contrary not-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2105
withstanding. Specifically, it is understood that offenses in U.S.
territorial waters will continue to be punishable under U.S. laws
regardless of the ship's registry;
"The acceptance by the United States of America of the said con-
vention is subject to the following reservations:
"1. The United States accepts article VIII of the convention, sub-
ject to the reservation that, while it will urge port authorities, oil
terminals, or private contractors to provide adequate disposal facili-
ties, the United States shall not be obliged to construct, operate, or
maintain shore facilities at places on U.S. coasts or waters where such
facilities may be deemed inadequate, or to assume any financial
obligation to assist in such activities;
"2. The United States accepts the convention subject to the res-
ervation that amendments communicated to contracting governments
under the provisions of paragraph (2) of article XVI will become
binding upon the United States of America only after notification
of acceptance thereof has been given by the United States.
"The United States of America, in accepting the convention sub-
ject to the aforesaid understanding and reservations, recommends
that the parties give consideration to the formulation of amendments
to the convention at the earliest practicable date to bring about—
" (1) International uniformity in fines and penalties;
" (2) International uniformity of enforcement;
" (3) A more realistic definition of what shall constitute oil
pollution;
" (4) The right of access of each contracting government to the
official reports of other contracting governments filed with the
bureau which relate to its own vessels; and
" (5) A more flexible arrangement for fixing the time within
which contracting governments shall notify the bureau whether
or not they accept an amendment."
The Committee on Foreign Relations in its favorable report to the
Senate on the convention (Executive Kept. No. 4) noted that imple-
menting legislation would be required and that the administration
had stated the instrument of acceptance would not be deposited until
such legislation had been enacted.
The provisions incorporated in the implementing bill, submitted
herewith, may be summarized as follows:
Section 1 states that this "Act * * * may be cited as the 'Oil
Pollution Act, 1961' ".
[p. 6]
Section 2 contains definitions of the terms used in the act.
Section 3, which follows article III of the convention and imple-
-------
2106 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
merits it where necessary, makes it unlawful for any person to dis-
charge oil from a ship in certain areas on the seas.
Sections 4 and 5 follow articles IV and V of the convention, and
specify a number of circumstances or exceptions under which section
3 shall not apply.
Section 6 follows the provisions of article VI of the convention
regarding imposition of penalties. Article VI requires that such
penalties shall not be less than those applicable to discharge of oil
within territorial waters.
Section 7 provides that the Coast Guard may, subject to 46 U.S.C.
239, suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other licensed
officer of any vessel found violating this act or the regulations issued
thereunder.
Section 8 provides administrative machinery for enforcement of
the act.
Section 9 follows article IX of the convention and provides that an
oil record book in the form specified in the schedule to the act shall
be carried in every ship of American registry. In addition, this section
provides for a fine if any person fails to comply with the requirements
imposed by or under this section.
Section 10 authorizes the promulgation of regulations for the ad-
ministration of sections 3, 4, 5, 8 (a), and 9.
Section 11 follows article X of the convention and provides for in-
spection of oil record books on foreign vessels within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 12 authorizes appropriations to carry out the act.
Section 13 provides that if a provision of the act is held invalid,
this shall not affect the applicability and effectiveness of other pro-
visions.
Section 14 provides that existing legislation for the control of pol-
lution in territorial waters and the general authority of the Coast
Guard to enforce U.S. laws are to continue in effect without modi-
fication.
Section 15 provides that the act shall become effective on the date
of enactment or on the date of acceptance of the convention, which-
ever is the later.
A similar communication is being sent to the President of the
Senate.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the
administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of
the legislation for the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
DEAN RUSK.
[p. 7]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2107
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C., July 19,1961.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request of
July 17, 1961, for the views of this Department with respect to H.R.
8152, a bill to implement the provisions of the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
As stated in the title, the purpose of the bill is to implement the
provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of the
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which was signed at London on May
12, 1954, by the parties to the convention but not by the United States.
The obligations imposed by the provisions of the convention cannot
be fulfilled by the United States until such time as implementing
legislation is enacted with respect to the provisions of the convention.
H.R. 8152 would fulfill this purpose.
The damage and harmful effects to marine life and human life re-
sulting from the pollution of the oceans by the discharge of oily wastes
from vessels are well known. The need for effective international
control of the problem is clearly recognized by all responsible mari-
time nations. The Department therefore recommends that favorable
consideration be given to the legislation.
Sincerely,
C. D. MARTIN, Jr.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., July 19,1961.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. BONNER: Your committee has requested a report on
H.R. 8152, a bill to implement the provisions of the International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954.
We recommend the enactment of this bill.
This proposal would establish procedures for enforcement of the
1954 International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of
the Sea by Oil. This Department, because of its responsibilities in
the field of conservation, is particularly interested in this matter.
We have cooperated with other Federal agencies in a study of this
-------
2108 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
problem. We expect to continue such cooperation and to follow
closely the enforcement activities that we anticipate will be author-
ized by this bill. Oil pollution of the sea has been the cause of much
damage to waterfowl, fisheries, and recreation facilities. Such
pollution must be controlled in the national interest.
We have been 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 yours,
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
[p. 8]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., July 21,1961.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House oj 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. 8152, a bill to implement
the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention
of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
This bill is intended to implement the provisions of an agreement
to prevent the pollution of the seas by oil and oily wastes by regu-
lating the discharge thereof by vessels of the contracting governments.
This legislation is required in order for the United States to implement
and fulfill its obligations under the agreement.
The subject of this legislation is not a matter for which the Depart-
ment has primary responsibility, and accordingly we make no recom-
mendations as to its enactment.
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,
BYRON R. WHITE,
Deputy Attorney General.
[p. 9]
1.3a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 107 (1961)
1.3a(3)(a) Aug. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 15663-15665
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2109
1.3a(3)(b) Aug. 21: Passed House, pp. 16520-16521
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.3b 1966 AMENDMENTS TO THE OIL POLLUTION ACT
OF 1961
September 1,1966, P.L. 89-551, 80 Stat 372
AN ACT to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, (33 U.S.C. 1001-
1015), to implement the provisions of the International Convention for the Pre-
vention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the "Oil
Pollution Act, 1961" approved August 30, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-
1015), is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1 is amended by inserting after the title "International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954" the phrase "as amended," and by changing the designation of
the Act from "Oil Pollution Act, 1961" to "Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as
amended,".
(2) Section 2 (33 U.S.C. 1001) is amended—
(A) in subsection (a) by changing the semicolon to a comma
at the end thereof and by adding "as amended;";
(B) in subsection (c) by changing the reference at the end
thereof from "D. 158/53;" to "D. 86/59;";
(C) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
"(e) The term 'oil' means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and
lubricating oil, and 'oily' shall be construed accordingly. An 'oily
mixture' means a mixture with an oil content of one hundred parts or
more in one million parts of mixture."
(D) by amending subsection (i) to read as follows:
"(i) The term 'ship', subject to the exceptions provided in para-
graph (1) of this subsection, means any seagoing vessel of any type
whatsoever of American registry or nationality, including floating
craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another vessel making a sea
voyage; and 'tanker', as a type included within the term 'ship', means
a ship in which the greater part of the cargo space in constructed or
[p. 372]
adapted for the carriage of liquid cargoes in bulk and which is not, for
the time being, carrying a cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo
space.
"(1) The following categories of vessels are excepted from all pro-
visions of the Act:
" (i) tankers of under one hundred and fifty tons gross tonnage
-------
2110 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and other ships of under five hundred tons gross tonnage.
" (ii) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry
when actually employed on whaling operations.
"(Hi) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes of
North America and their connecting and tributary waters as far
east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert lock at Montreal in the
Province of Quebec, Canada.
"(iv) naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval
auxiliaries."
(E) by adding a new subsection (j) reading as follows:
"(j) The term 'from the nearest land' means from the baseline from
which the territorial sea of the territory in question is established in
accordance with the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone, 1958."
(3) Section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1002) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 3. Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, it shall be
unlawful for any person to discharge oil or oily mixture from:
" (a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
" (b) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the prohibited
zones, except when the ship is proceeding to a port not provided
with facilities adequate for the reception, without causing undue
delay, it may discharge such residues and oily mixture as would
remain for disposal if the bulk of the water had been separated
from the mixture: Provided, such discharge is made as far as
practicable from land.
"(c) a ship of twenty thousand tons gross tonnage or more,
including a tanker, for which the building contract is placed on
or after the effective date of this Act. However, if in the opinion
of the master, special circumstances make it neither reasonable
nor practicable to retain the oil or oily mixture on board, it may
be discharged outside the prohibited zones. The reasons for such
discharge shall be reported in accordance with the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary."
(4) Section 4 (33 U.S.C. 1003) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 4. Section 3 shall not apply to—
"(a) the discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship, preventing damage to
a ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
" (b) the escape of oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from dam-
age to a ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable precautions
have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or discovery
of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the
escape;
[p. 373]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2111
"(c) the discharge of residue arising from the purification or
clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil: Provided, That such
discharge is made as far from land as practicable."
(5) Section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1004) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges
of a ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than lubricating oil
which has drained or leaked from machinery spaces."
(6) Section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1008) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 9. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate oil record
books, containing instructions and spaces for inserting information in
the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall be published in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
"(b) If subject to this Act, every ship using oil fuel and every
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply. The ownership of the booklet
shall remain in the United States Government. This book shall be
available for inspection as provided in this Act and for surrender
to the United States Government pursuant to regulations of the
Secretary.
"(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion,
whenever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
"(1) ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks
of tankers;
" (2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
" (3) settling in slop tanks and discharge' of water from
tankers;
"(4) disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks or
other sources;
"(5) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
tanks of ships other than tankers;
"(6) disposal from ships other than tankers of oily residues
from bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
"(7) accidental or other exceptional discharges or escapes of
oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
"In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture, as
is referred to in subsection 3(c) and section 4 of this Act, a statement
shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances of, and rea-
son for, the discharge or escape.
"(d) Each operation described in subsection 9(c) of the Act shall
be fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so that all the
entries in the book appropriate to that operation are completed. Each
page of the book shall be signed by the officer or officers in charge of
-------
2112 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the operations concerned and, when the ship is manned, by the master
of the ship.
"(e) Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in the regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
"(f) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act or regulations pre-
scribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to his knowledge false
or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on con-
viction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 or imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding six months, or both."
[p. 374]
(7) Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 1009) is amended by changing the phrase
at the end thereof from "and 9" to "9, and 12."
(8) Section 12 (33 U.S.C. 1011) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 12. (a) All sea areas within fifty miles from the nearest land
shall be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or reduction effec-
tuated in accordance with the terms of the Convention, which shall
be published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
"(b) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones de-
scribed under the terms of the Convention, the Secretary shall give
notice thereof by publication of such information in Notices to Mari-
ners issued by the United States Coast Guard and United States
Navy."
(9) Section 13 (33 U.S.C. 1012) is repealed.
(10) Section 17 (33 U.S.C. 1015) is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 17. (a) This Act shall become effective upon the date of its
enactment or upon the date the amended Convention becomes effec-
tive as to the United States, whichever is the later date.
"(b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of this
Act shall not be affected by the enactment of this Act. Any proce-
dures or rules or regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act
shall remain in effect until modified or superseded under the author-
ity of this Act. Any reference in any other law or rule or regulation
prescribed pursuant to law to the 'International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954,' shall be deemed
to be a reference to that Convention as revised by the 'Amendments
of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of
the Sea by Oil, 1954,' which were adopted by a Conference of Con-
tracting Governments convened at London on April 11, 1962. Any
reference in any other law or rule or regulation prescribed pursuant
to law to the 'Oil Pollution Act, 1961,' approved August 30, 1961 (33
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2113
U.S.C. 1001-1015), shall be deemed to be a reference to that Act as
amended by this Act."
Approved September 1,1966.
[p. 375]
1.3b(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE
AND FISHERIES
H.R. REP. No. 1620, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CON-
VENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF THE POLLUTION OF
THE SEA BY OIL, 1954
JUNE 8, 1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. GARMATZ, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8760]
The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 8760) to amend the provisions of the Oil Pol-
lution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions
of the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 8760 is to amend the provisions of the Oil Pol-
lution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015) to implement the provisions of
the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of
the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes. Essentially,
the effect of this bill would be to incorporate certain changes to bring
the Oil Pollution Act into conformity with the amendments of the
International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, which amendments were adopted by a conference
of contracting governments convened at London on April 11, 1962.
-------
2114 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION
Implementation of the international convention is important to the
United States, inasmuch as, among other things, it would increase the
zone in which discharge of oily waste is prohibited from 50 miles
[p. 1]
offshore to 100 miles offshore along the New England coast which has
been particularly plagued by these discharges.
In addition to other provisions, the categories of existing ships that
must observe antipollution measures has been increased to bring
more vessels within the provisions of the convention. As a matter of
practice, the amendments to enforcement and recordkeeping provi-
sions are likely to produce more effective results in the light of ex-
perience under existing rules.
Among other things, a definition of oily waste is included which
simplifies enforcement of the rules. The enlarged categories of ves-
sels covered by the act include tankers of over 150 gross tons and
other vessels of 500 tons, and excepts whaling industry vessels when
actually employed in that field, ships navigating the Great Lakes and
tributary waters, and Navy vessels. It is the understanding of this
committee that this latter class of vessels are covered by appropriate
Defense Department regulations which meet the international
standards.
It should be pointed out in connection with the legislation that
neither the amended convention nor this bill affect in any way a res-
ervation contained in the ratification of the original convention by the
United States to the effect that we do not consider the international
rules to interfere in any way with our freedom of legislative action in
our territorial waters. Within that area any offense against our exist-
ing statutes will be punishable under those statutes, regardless of the
ship's registry.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Enactment of this legislation will place the United States in a
position to discharge fully its obligations under the convention, as
amended, and will contribute materially to the reduction of oil pollu-
tion at sea, which in turn will reduce pollution along our shores. It
is not believed that it will place any appreciable burden on our ship-
ping, and it goes far to implement our desire for international coop-
eration in the field of ocean shipping.
The committee is of the view that the bill is a desirable one, and
accordingly recommends its exactment.
COST OF LEGISLATION
This legislation would entail no additional expenditure by the U.S.
Government.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2115
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
H.R. 8760 was the subject of an executive communication from the
Department of State, the text of which follows, together with the
texts of departmental reports received on the bill.
[Ex. Com. 1107]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Washington,, May 15,1965.
Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I submit herewith for consideration by the
House of Representatives a draft bill to incorporate in the Oil Pollution
[p. 2]
Act, 1961, changes which will be necessary when the amendments of
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, become effective. The Senate by its resolution of
February 25, 1964, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the
amendments to the convention. The proposed amendments to the Oil
Pollution Act would redefine the types and sizes of ships regulated,
redefine the extent to which ships must record the discharge of oil,
extend the zones in which discharge of oil is prohibited, and make
other necessary changes. An outline of the provisions of the amend-
ments is contained in Senate Executive C, 88th Congress, 1st session.
A similar proposed bill has been transmitted to the President of the
Senate.
The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget
that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is
no objection to the submission of this proposed legislation to the
Congress. :
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE W. BALL,
Acting Secretary.
S/S: A true copy.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
The 1954 convention entered into force on July 26, 1958, 12 months
after 10 governments, including 5 each having not less than a half
million gross tons of tanker tonnage, had accepted it. The United
States, however, did not become a party until 1961, having considered
that the convention did not provide means for effectively enforcing
antipollution measures. Approval by the United States of the 1954
convention was given subject to recommendations that amendments
would be sought. It was subject also to two reservations, one con-
cerning the provision of the 1954 convention which would have obli-
-------
2116 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
gated the Federal Government to insure that adequate oil reception
facilities were at all main U.S. ports although this is not a Federal
function in the United States, and the other with respect to a pro-
cedure for amendment which gives only 4 months during which a
government can declare its nonacceptance of amendments or become
automatically bound in 6 months. By the amendments of 1962 the
provision as to oil reception facilities is altered to require only that
governments promote the provision of adequate facilities, and the
amendment procedure is revised to provide reasonable opportunity
for governments to accept or reject amendments. The amendments
do not revise article XI regarding powers of a contracting govern-
ment to take measures within its jurisdiction regarding pollution
matters. Therefore, an "understanding," included in the U.S. accept-
ance of the 1954 convention, to the effect that we do not consider it
to interfere with our freedom of legislative action in our territorial
waters, remains in effect. Other provisions of the amendments
strengthen and expand the convention of 1954.
In line with the provisions of the amendments of the 1954 conven-
tion, the enclosed draft bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, will
bring existing statutory provisions into agreement with the 1954 con-
vention, as amended. The specific proposals will accomplish the
following:
(1) Revise the language where necessary so that references will be
to the "International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution
[P. 3]
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended," and that reference to the
act as amended will be "Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as amended."
(2) Revise the definitions in section 2 (33 U.S.C. 1001) to agree
with the amendments of the 1954 convention. The major changes
concern the definition of the terms "oil," "oily," "oily mixture," and
"ship," as well as adding a new definition of the term "from the near-
est land." The only one of the amended definitions which appears
to require comment is the definition of "oily mixture" which indirectly
defines what shall constitute oil pollution by designation of a specific
concentration. In some countries this may necessitate that samples
be produced in court in order to establish proof of a violation. After
study and consideration, it was not found possible to develop an
acceptable definition which did not refer to a formula, and it was
recommended that the formula be retained specifying 100 parts or
more of oil in 1 million parts of the mixture. The previous test that
the oil in an oily mixture "fouls the surface of the sea" has been
removed. It is believed this amended definition is more realistic
than the existing one in the 1954 convention.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2117
(3) Revise the scope of application of the act by amending sub-
section 2(i) and section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1001 (i), 1002), so that the law
applies to all seagoing vessels of any type whatsoever of American
registry or nationality except—(a) tankers of under 150 gross tons
and other ships of under 500 gross tons; (fa) ships in the whaling in-
dustry when actually employed on whaling operations; (c) ships navi-
gating the Great Lakes and tributary waters as specified; and (d)
naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval auxiliaries.
The reason for the difference in application of requirements to tank-
ers starting at 150 gross tons and other ships at 500 gross tons is that
the majority of governments maintained that, in other parts of the
world and especially in European waters, tankers between 150 and
500 gross tons, contribute materially to the pollution.
(4) Revise the prohibitions against the discharge of oil or oily mix-
tures in section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1002) to clarify application to ships other
than tankers and to add a new subsection (c) to cover all ships of
20,000 gross tons or more, including tankers, which are contracted for
on or after the effective date of this act, and prohibit any discharge
of oil or oily mixture from such ships except under specified condi-
tions when such discharge must be reported in accordance with regu-
lations of the Secretary of the Army. It is understood that this new
prohibition, especially for large tankers, amounts to no more than the
current procedures followed by the American oil companies as part
of their antipollution program.
(5) Revise the excepted discharges of oil or oily mixtures from the
general prohibitions in sections 3 and 4 (33 U.S.C. 1002 and 1003) to
include such discharges when made for securing safety when another
ship is involved and those discharges from the bilges of a ship of an
oily mixture containing no oil other than lubricating oil which has
drained or leaked from machinery spaces. In addition, this change
removes the excepted discharge of sediment which cannot be pumped
from the cargo tanks of tankers and cancels the requirements for
special explanations in the oil record books in the event of discharges
or escapes referred to in these sections.
(6) Revise the provisions regarding the "oil record book," by stat-
ing in general terms the requirements in the law and authorizing the
[p- 4]
Secretary of the Army to describe these in detail in published regula-
tions and booklets to be furnished by him to the masters of seagoing
ships subject to this act, by revising section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1008), and
by canceling section 13 (33 U.S.C. 1012). The amended 1954 conven-
tion requires this oil record book, and a revised form is specified in
annex B to the amendments. The changes proposed will authorize
the Secretary of the Army to make such regulations as necessary to
-------
2118 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
require records to be kept, which will be effective in maintaining
adequate enforcement.
(7) Revise the provisions regarding the prohibited zone descrip-
tions in'section 12 (33 U.S.C. 1011) so that all sea areas within 50
miles from the nearest land shall be prohibited zones subject to
extensions or reduction effectuated in accordance with the terms of
the convention, as amended, which the Secretary of the Army shall
have published as regulations, including publication in the notices to
mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy. The pro-
hibited zones are specified in annex A to the amended 1954 conven-
tion, which in a number of areas extends the prohibited zone beyond
50 miles from the nearest land. For the North-West Atlantic Zone
the prohibited area extends to sea 100 miles from the coast of the
United States and joins a similar 100-mile zone along the east coast
of Canada. Since the convention and present statute provide for
changes to be made in these prohibited zone areas, it is recommended
that the designation of extensions or reductions in the areas continue
to be made by regulations of the Secretary.
(8) Provide that the amended provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1961, be made effective by amendment to section 17 (33 U.S.C. 1015)
upon the date of the enactment pf this bill or upon the date the
amendments to the 1954 convention become effective as to the United
States, whichever is the later date. The proposed amendments to
the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, should become effective when the amend-
ments to the 1954 convention become applicable to U.S. ships. Until
that time, the United States has no obligation for enforcement.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., May 9, 1966.
Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. GARMATZ: Your committee has requested this Depart-
ment's views and recommendations on H.R. 8760, a bill to amend the
provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and
for other purposes.
We recommend enactment of H.R. 8760, if amended as suggested
herein.
H.R. 8760 amends the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-
1015). The bill is designed to conform the 1961 act with the amend-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2119
ments of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, adopted in London in April 1962.
[p. 5]
The act now makes it unlawful for a seagoing ship of American
registry to discharge any oil in prohibited zones. Certain categories
of ships are now excepted from the act's requirements. They are—
(1) Ships being used as naval auxiliaries;
(2) Ships under 500 tons gross tonnage (including commercial
fishing vessels);
(3) Ships engaged in the whaling industry, and
(4) Ships navigating the Great Lakes and certain connecting
and tributary waters.
The bill redefines the terms "ship", "oil", and "oily mixture". These
new definitions will strengthen the act.
The bill also adds to the category of excepted ships (1) tankers of
under 150 tons gross tonnage, and (2) naval ships. It also makes it
clear that ships engaged in the whaling industry must be actually
employed in that industry.
At the present time, tankers under 500 tons are in the excepted
category. The bill limits this exception to tankers under 150 tons.
We believe that this change is a move in the right direction.
The act now defines "ships" to mean "a seagoing ship of American
registry." Naval ships are not of American registry. Thus, naval
ships are not now covered by the act. The bill, however, defines
"ship" to mean "any seagoing vessel of any type whatsoever of
American registry or nationality, including floating craft, whether
self-propelled or towed by another vessel making a sea voyage." In
order to continue the exemption now given naval vessels, H.R. 8760
adds naval ships to the category of excepted ships. We believe that
this addition is desirable for the present at least.
We recommend that on page 3 of the bill, lines 1 and 2 be amended
to read as follows:
" '(1) The following categories of vessels may be excepted from all
provisions of the Act by the President:' ".
This country's goal, as expressed in the Water Quality Act of 1965
(79 Stat. 903) and by the President in his recent message on the
"Preservation of Our Natural Heritage," is to clean up the Nation's
waters, including coastal waters. Consistent with this goal, we be-
lieve that consideration should be given now to narrowing the cate-
gories of ships that should be excepted from the act's requirements.
The pollution of our coastal waters or the waters of the Great Lakes
by oil or by oily mixtures from ships of American registry or nation-
ality could cause substantial harm to the national resources in those
waters. Such a possibility should be avoided.
-------
2120 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
President Johnson, in his message on the "Preservation of Our
Natural Heritage" said:
"The Federal Government is rightly expected to provide an exam-
ple to the Nation in pollution control. We cannot make new demands
on State and local governments or on private industry without put-
ting the Federal house in order. We will take necessary steps this
year to insure that Federal activities do not contribute to the dete-
rioration of our water and air.
"Last November I signed an Executive order [11258] requiring that
all new Federal installations include adequate water pollution control
systems. Agencies are required to submit long-range plans to bring
existing installations up to the high-level pollution control required
of new facilities."
[p. 6]
Section 8 of that Executive order directs that a comprehensive
study of water pollution from vessel operations within the United
States be undertaken. While the term "vessel" is not defined, we
construe the term to include, among others, naval vessels and tankers
under 150 tons. The results of the study and recommendations are
to be given to the President by January 1, 1967.
While it is desirable to amend the present act to make it consistent
with the amended convention, there is nothing to prevent this Gov-
ernment from taking a more restrictive position in relation to ships of
American registry and nationality.
The above amendment to H.R. 8760 authorizes the President to
exempt the four categories of ships listed in the bill at his discretion.
He could not enlarge these categories, but, based on the Executive
order study or on other factors, he could be more restrictive. We
believe that this change in the bill carries out the intention of the act
which is to reduce oil pollution at sea, including our coastal waters,
and on the Great Lakes.
Time has not permitted securing advice from the Bureau of the
Budget as to the relationship of this report to the program of the
President.
Sincerely yours,
STEWART L. UDALL,
Secretary of the Interior.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2121
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., May 5, 1966.
Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to the committee's
request of June 7, 1965, for a report on H.R. 8760, a bill to amend the
provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and
for other purposes.
The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, in order to bring
its provisions into agreement with the 1962 amendments to the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954. The Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification
of the amendments on February 25, 1964. Among other provisions,
H.R. 8760 would redefine the types and sizes of ships regulated, re-
define the extent to which ships must record the discharge of oil, and
extend the zones in which discharge of oil is prohibited. The formula
specifying that a mixture with an oil content of 100 parts or more per
million constitutes an oily mixture is retained, but the provision that
the oil in a less concentrated mixture shall not be deemed to foul the
surface of the sea has been removed.
In exercising responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is
concerned with the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution
from all sources whatsoever, including the discharge of oil from ships
and tankers. The waters beyond the territorial limits of the United
[P-7]
States, to which the international convention and the law to imple-
ment the convention apply, are not within the purview of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. We have a direct interest, however,
in the effect on water quality in near-shore waters of measures to
restrain oil pollution in the prohibited zones.
H.R. 13200, the administration bill to establish a Department of
Transportation, in section 6(f), would transfer from the Secretary of
the Army to the Secretary of Transportation primary statutory re-
sponsibility for the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, and, in section 6(b),
would transfer the Coast Guard, which now exercises certain responsi-
bilities under the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, from the Department of the
Treasury to the new Department of Transportation. We defer to the
agencies most directly concerned as to the merits of H.R. 8760 in
implementing more effective antipollution measures, in facilitating
-------
2122 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the administration of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, and in facilitating
the observance of its requirements by ship and tanker operators. If,
in the judgment of those agencies, the bill would accomplish those
purposes, we would have no objection to the enactment of the
legislation.
We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objec-
tion to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the
administration's program.
Sincerely,
WILBUR J. COHEN,
Under Secretary.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1965.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of June 7,
1965, for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect
to H.R. 8760, a bill to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by
Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.
Inasmuch as the bill does not affect the responsibilities or jurisdic-
tion of the Commissiori, we express no views as to its enactment.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no
objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the
administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN HARLLEE,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1966.
Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
Acting Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views
of this Department with respect to H.R. 8760, a bill to amend the
[p. 8]
provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the Pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2123
vention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for
other purposes.
The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, to incorporate
certain changes which will be necessary to bring it into conformity
with the amendments of the International Convention for the Pre-
vention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which were adopted by
a Conference of Contracting Governments convened at London on
April 11,1962.
We recommend favorable consideration of the bill.
The 1954 convention went into effect on July 26, 1958, 12 months
after 10 governments, including 5 each having not less than a half
million gross tons of tanker tonnage had accepted it. The United
States did not become a party until 1961, having considered that the
convention did not provide means for effectively enforcing anti-
pollution measures and in the belief that better results could be
secured through cooperation between governments and their na-
tional shipping industries. Moreover, the U.S. acceptance of the
1954 convention was made subject to an "understanding" and two
reservations.
On April 11, 1962, in accordance with article XVI, subparagraph
(3) (a) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, a Conference of Contracting Governments
convening in London adopted amendments to the 1954 convention.
These amendments expand and strengthen the present convention
to a very considerable extent and also obviate the need for the exist-
ing U.S. reservations. They also meet in large measure the specific
recommendations made by the United States at the time of accepting
the 1954 convention.
On March 25, 1963, President Kennedy transmitted these "amend-
ments of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954" to the U.S. Senate (Senate Executive C, 88th
Cong., 1st sess.) with a view to receiving its advice and consent. On
February 25, 1964, the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 0, passed a resolu-
tion of ratification giving its advice and consent to acceptance of
these amendments.
Inasmuch as the bill would bring existing statutory provisions into
agreement with the 1954 convention as amended, the Department
supports the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget advises there is no objection to the
submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
program.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. GILES,
General Counsel.
-------
2124 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., July 8, 1965.
Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the
views of this Department on H.R. 8760, to amend the provisions of
[p. 9]
the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the
provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of the
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.
The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, generally to
bring it into conformance with amendments to the International Con-
vention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
Among the major changes which would be accomplished by the pro-
posed bill are changes in the definition of the term "oily mixture,"
in the definition of the terms "ship" and "tanker," in the require-
ments regarding the keeping of an oil-record book, and in the designa-
tion of prohibited zones. It is observed that the definition of the term
"ship" in the proposed bill is not the same as the definition which is
found in the amended convention. The phrase "as a type included
within the term 'ship' " has been added. There is no objection to this
minor change since the term "ship" would ordinarily include a tanker.
The Treasury Department supports enactment of the proposed bill.
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,
Acting General Counsel.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., December 15, 1965.
Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,
Acting Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House oj Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R.
8760, a bill to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33
U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954,
as amended; and for other purposes, has been assigned to this Depart-
ment by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2125
thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense.
The bill would make certain amendments to the Oil Pollution Act,
1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015) to implement amendments to the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by
Oil, 1954, which were adopted by a Conference of Contracting Gov-
ernments convened at London on April 11, 1962, and ratified by the
United States Senate on February 25, 1964.
Although H.R. 8760 would not directly affect the operation of naval
vessels, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of
Defense, recommends its enactment to implement the International
Convention amendments adopted by the London Conference of April
1962, and ratified as a treaty by the Senate on February 25, 1964.
The following technical change to the draft bill is recommended:
Page 2, line 3, the word "as" should read "is."
This report has been coordinated within the Department of De-
fense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense.
[p. 10]
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the
administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of
this report on H.R. 8760 for the consideration of the committee.
For the Secretary of the Navy.
Sincerely yours,
M. K. DISNEY,
Captain, U.S. Navy,
Director, Legislative Division.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, as amended, 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 italics,
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015)
Public Law 87-167
AN ACT To implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives oj the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended,
-------
2126 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may be cited as the ["Oil Pollution Act, 1961".] "Oil Pollution Act,
1961, as amended".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—As used in this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires—
(a) The term "convention" means the International Convention
for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954[;], as
amended;
(b) The term "discharge" in relation to oil or to an oily mixture
means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
(c) The term "heavy diesel oil" means marine diesel oil, other
than those distillates of which more than 50 per centum, by volume
distills at a temperature not exceeding three hundred and forty
degrees centigrade when tested by American Society for the Testing
of Materials standard method [D. 158/53;] D. 86/59;
(d) The term "mile" means a nautical mile of six thousand and
eighty feet or one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two meters;
[(e) The term "oil" means persistent oils, such as crude oil, fuel
oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oil. For the purposes of this
legislation, the oil in an oily mixture of less than one hundred parts
of oil in one million parts of the mixture, shall not be deemed to foul
the surface of the sea;]
(e) The term "oil" means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and
lubricating oil, and "oily" shall be construed accordingly. An "oily
mixture" means a mixture with an oil content of one hundred parts or
more in one million parts of mixture.
(i) The term person" means an individual, partnership, corpo-
ration, or association; and any owner, operator, agent, master, officer,
or employee of a ship;
[p. 11]
(g) The term "prohibited zones" means the zones described in
section 12 of this Act as modified by notices, if any, of extension or
reduction issued by the Secretary;
(h) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;
[(i) The term "ship" means a seagoing ship of American registry
except—
[(1) ships for the time being used as naval auxiliaries;
[(2) ships of under five hundred tons gross tonnage;
[(3) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry;
[(4) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes of
North America and their connecting and tributary waters as
far east as the lower exit of the Lachine Canal at Montreal in the
Province of Quebec, Canada.]
(i) The term "ship", subject to the exceptions provided in para-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2127
graph (1) of this subsection, means any seagoing vessel of any type
whatsoever of American registry or nationality, including floating
craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another vessel making a sea
voyage; and "tanker", as a type included within the term "ship",
means a ship in which the greater part of the cargo space is con-
structed or adapted for the carriage of liquid cargoes in bulk and
which is not, for the time being, carrying a cargo other than oil in
that part of its cargo space.
(1) The following categories of vessels are excepted from all
provisions of the Act:
(i) tankers of under one hundred and fifty tons gross
tonnage and other ships of under five hundred tons gross
tonnage.
(ii) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling in-
dustry when actually employed on whaling operations.
(in) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes
of North America and their connecting and tributary waters
as far east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert lock at Mont-
real in the Province of Quebec, Canada.
(iv) naval ships and ships for the time being used as
naval auxiliaries.
(j) The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline
from which the territorial sea of the territory in question is estab-
lished in accordance with the Geneva Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958.
[SEC. 3. (a) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, the dis-
charge by any person from any ship, which is a tanker, within any
of the prohibited zones of oil or any oily mixture the oil in which
fouls the surface of the sea, shall be unlawful.
[(b) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, any discharge by
any person into the sea from a ship, other than a tanker, of oily
ballast water or tank washings shall be made as far as practicable
from land. As from July 26, 1961, paragraph (a) of this section shall
apply to ships other than tankers as it applies to tankers, except that
the prohibited zones in relation to ships other than tankers shall be
those referred to in the schedule.]
Sec. 3. Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, it shall be un-
lawful for any person to discharge oil or oily mixture from:
(a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
(b) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the prohibited
zones, except when the ship is proceeding to a port not provided
with facilities adequate for the reception, without causing undue
delay, it
[p. 12]
-------
2128 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may discharge such residues and oily mixture as would remain
for disposal if the bulk of the water had been separated from
the mixture: Provided, such discharge is made as far as prac-
ticable from land.
(c) o ship of twenty thousand tons gross tonnage or more,
including a tanker, for which the building contract is placed on
or after the effective date of this Act. However, if in the opinion
of the master, special circumstances make it neither reasonable
nor practicable to retain the oil or oily mixture on board, it may
be discharged outside the prohibited zones. The reasons for
such discharge shall be reported in accordance with the regula-
tions prescribed by the Secretary.
[SEC. 4. Section 3 shall not apply to—
[(a) the discharge of oil or of an oily mixture from a ship for
the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, preventing damage
to the ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
[(b) the escape of oil, or of an oily mixture, resulting from
damage to the ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable pre-
cautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or
discovery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or min-
imizing the escape;
[(c) the discharge of sediment—
[(i) which cannot be pumped from the cargo tanks of
tankers by reason of its solidity; or
[(ii) which is residue arising from the purification or clari-
fication of oil fuel or lubricating oil.
Provided, That such discharge is made as far from land as is
practicable.]
(a) the discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship, preventing damage to a
ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
(b) the escape of oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from dam-
age to a ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable precau-
tions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or
discovery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or mini-
mizing the escape;
(c) the discharge of residue arising from the purification or
clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil: Provided, That such
discharge is made as far from land as practicable.
[SEC. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges
of a ship—
[(a) of any oily mixture, during the period of twelve months
after the United States accepts the convention;
[(b) after the expiration of such period, of an oily mixture
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2129
containing no oil other than lubricating oil.]
Sec. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges
of a ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than lubricating
oil which has drained or leaked from machinery spaces.
SEC. 6. Any person who violates any provision of this Act, except
sections 8(b) and 9, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance there-
of, 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, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for
each offense. And any ship (other than a ship owned and operated
by the United States) from which oil is discharged in violation of
this Act, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance thereof, shall be
liable for the pecuniary penalty specified in this section, and clear-
[p. 13]
ance of such ship from a port of the United States may be withheld
until the penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien on
such ship which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in
the district court of the United States for any district within which
the ship may be.
SEC. 7. 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
ship found violating the provisions of this Act or the regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
SEC. 8. (a) In the administration of sections 1-12 of this Act,
the Secretary may make use of the organization, equipment, and
agencies, including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, em-
ployed under his direction in the improvement of rivers and harbors
and in the enforcement of laws for the improvement of rivers and
harbors and in the enforcement of laws for the preservation and pro-
tection of navigable waters. For the better enforcement of the pro-
visions of said sections, the officers and agents of the United States in
charge of river and harbor improvements and persons employed un-
der them by authority of the Secretary, and officers and employees of
the Bureau of Customs and the Coast Guard, 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 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 said sections the
person so arrested shall be brought forthwith before a commissioner,
judge, or court of the United States for examination of the offenses
-------
2130 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
alleged against him; and such commissioner, judge, or court shall pro-
ceed in respect thereto as authorized by law in cases of crimes against
the United States. Representatives of the Secretary and of the
Bureau of Customs and Coast Guard of the United States may go on
board and inspect any ship in a prohibited zone or in a port of the
United States as may be necessary for enforcement of this Act.
(b) To implement article VII of the convention, ship fittings and
equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating. Any person found violating
these regulations shall, in addition to any other penalty prescribed
by law, be subject to a civil penalty not in excess of $100.
[SEC. 9. (a) There shall be carried in every ship an oil record book
in the form specified in section 13 of this Act. In the event of dis-
charge or escape of oil from a ship in a prohibited zone, a signed
statement shall be made in the oil record book, by the officer or of-
ficers in charge of the operations concerned and by the master of the
ship, of the circumstances of and the reason for the discharge or
escape.
[(b) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act which is to his knowl-
edge false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.]
[p. 14]
Sec. 9 (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate oil record
books containing instructions and spaces for inserting information in
the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall be published in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) If subject to this Act, every ship using oil fuel and every
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply. The ownership of the booklet
shall remain in the United States Government. This book shall be
available for inspection as provided in this Act and for surrender to
the United States Government pursuant to regulations of the Sec-
retary.
(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion,
whenever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
(1) ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks of
tankers:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2131
(2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
(3) settling in slop tanks and discharge of water from tankers;
(4) disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks or
other sources;
(5) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
tanks of ships other than tankers;
(6) disposal from ships other than tankers of oily residues
from bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
(7) accidental or other exceptional discharges or escapes of
oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily misture, as
is referred to in subsection 3 (c) and section 4 of this Act, a statement
shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances of, and
reason for, the discharge or escape.
(d) Each operation described in section 9 (c) of the Act shall be
fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so that all the
entries in the book appropriate to that operation are completed.
Each page of the book shall be signed by the officer or officers in
charge of the operations concerned and, when the ship is manned,
by the master of the ship.
(e) Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in the regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
(f) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act or regulations pre-
scribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to his knowledge false
or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on convic-
tion to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 or imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
SEC. 10. The Secretary may make regulations for the administra-
tion of sections 3, 4, 5, 8 (a), [and 9.] 9, and 12.
SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary may make regulations empowering
such persons as may be designated to go on board any ship to which
the convention applies, while the ship is within the territorial juris-
diction of the United States, and to require production of any records
required to be kept in accordance with the convention.
(b) Should evidence be obtained that a ship registered in another
country party to the convention has discharged oil in any prohibited
zone, such evidence should be forwarded to the State Department
for action in accordance with article X of the convention.
[p. 15]
[Sec. 12. (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the pro-
-------
2132 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hibited zones in relation to tankers shall be all sea areas within fifty
miles from land, with the following exceptions:
[(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
shall each extend for a distance of fifty miles from land, excepting
only the island of Vis.
[(2) THE NORTH SEA ZONE.—The North Sea Zone shall extend
for a distance of one hundred miles from the coasts of the
following countries—
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the fifty-
mile zone off the coast of Norway.
[(3) THE ATLANTIC ZONE.—The Atlantic Zone shall be within
a line drawn from a point on the Greenwich meridian one hun-
dred miles in a north-northeasterly direction from the Shetland
Islands; thence northward along the Greenwich meridian to lati-
tude 64 degrees north; thence westward along the 64th parallel
to longitude 10 degrees west; thence to latitude 60 degrees north,
longitude 14 degrees west; thence to latitude 54 degrees 30
minutes north, longitude 30 degrees west; thence to latitude 44
degrees 20 minutes north, longitude 30 degrees west; thence to
latitude 48 degrees north, longitude 14 degrees west; thence east-
ward along the forty-eighth parallel to a point of intersection
with the fifty-mile zone off the coast of France: Provided, That
in relation to voyages which do not extend seaward beyond the
Atlantic Zone as defined above, and which are to points not pro-
vided with adequate facilities for the reception of oily residue,
the Atlantic Zone shall be deemed to terminate at a distance of
one hundred miles from land.
[(4) THE AUSTRALIAN ZONE.—The Australian Zone shall ex-
tend for a distance of one hundred and fifty miles from the coasts
of Australia, except off the north and west coasts of the Australian
mainland between the point opposite Thursday Island and the
point on the west coast at 20 degrees south latitude.
[(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section the prohibited zones
in relation to ships other than tankers shall be all sea areas within
fifty miles from land with the following exceptions:
[(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2133
shall each extend for a distance of twenty miles from land, ex-
cepting only the Island of Vis. After the expiration of a period
of three years following the application of prohibited zones to
ships other than tankers in accordance with section 3(b) of this
Act the said zones shall each be extended by a further thirty
miles in width unless the two Governments agree to postpone
such extension. In the event of such an agreement, the Conven-
tion provides for notification to be given accordingly to the Inter-
to- 16]
governmental Maritime Consultative Organization by said gov-
ernments not less than three months before the expiration of
such period of three years and for notification to be given to all
contracting governments by the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization.
[(2) THE NORTH SEA AND ATLANTIC ZONES.—The North Sea
and Atlantic Zones shall extend for a distance of one hundred
miles from the coasts of the following countries:
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
Ireland,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland,
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one-hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the
fifty-mile zone off the coast of Norway.
[(c) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones de-
scribed above effectuated under the terms of the Convention, the
Secretary of the Army shall give notice thereof by publication of such
information in Notices to Mariners issued by the United States Coast
Guard and United States Navy.]
Sec. 12. (a) All sea areas within fifty miles from the nearest land
shall be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or reduction effectu-
ated in accordance with the terms of the Convention, which shall be
published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones
described under the terms of the Convention, the Secretary shall
give notice thereof by publication of such information in Notices to
Mariners issued by the United States Coast Guard and United States
Navy.
[SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate booklets
which set forth instructions and spaces for inserting information as
follows:
-------
2134 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
[(1) FOR TANKERS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo
tanks.
[(i) Identity numbers of tank(s).
[ (ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s).
[(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
[(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast water.
[(v) Place or position of ship.
[(vi) Approximate amount of oil contaminated water
transferred to slop tank(s).
[(vii) Identity numbers of slop tank(s).
[(C) Cleaning of cargo tanks.
[(i) Identity numbers of tank(s) cleaned.
[(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank(s).
[(iii) Identity numbers of slop tank(s) to which
washings transferred.
[(iv) Dates and times of cleaning.
[p. 17]
[(D) Settling in slop tank(s) and discharge of water.
[(i) Identity numbers of slop tank(s).
[(ii) Period of settling (in hours).
[(iii) Date and time of discharge of water.
[(iv) Place or position of ship.
[(v) Approximate quantities of residue.
[(E) Disposal from ship of oily residues from slop tanks
and other sources.
[(i) Date and method of disposal.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
[(F) Signature of Officer or Officers in Charge of the oper-
ations concerned and Signature of the Master.
[(2) FOR SHIPS OTHER THAN TANKERS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker
fuel tanks.
[(i) Identity number of tank.
[(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank.
[(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
[(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast or washing
water.
[(v) Place or position of ship.
[(vi) Whether separator used: if so, give period of use.
[(vii) Disposal of oily residue retained on board.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2135
[(C) Disposal from ship of oily residues from bunker fuel
tanks and other sources.
[(i) Date and method of disposal.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
[(D) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
[(3) FOR ALL SHIPS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Accidental and other exceptional discharges or
escapes of oil.
[ (i) Date and time of occurrence.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Approximate quantity and type of oil.
[(iv) Circumstances of discharge or escape and gen-
eral remarks.
[ (C) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
[(b) The booklet shall be furnished free to all seagoing ships of
American registry subject to this Act. The provisions of section 140
of title 5, United States Code shall not apply. The ownership of the
booklet shall remain in the United States Government. This booklet
shall be available for inspection as provided in this Act and for sur-
render to the United States Government pursuant to regulations of
the Secretary.]
SEC. 14. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
[p. 18]
SEC. 15. If a provision of this Act or the application of such pro-
vision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the re-
mainder of the Act and the application of such provision to persons
or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall not
be affected thereby.
SEC. 16. Nothing in this Act or in regulations issued hereunder shall
be construed to modify or amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution
Act, 1924 (33 U.S.C. 431-437), or of section 89 of title 14, United
States Code.
[SEC. 17. This Act shall become effective upon the date of its enact-
ment or upon the date the United States becomes a party to the con-
vention, whichever- is the later date.]
Sec. 17. (a) This Act shall become effective upon the date of its
enactment or upon the date the amended Convention becomes effec-
tive as to the United States, whichever is the later date.
-------
2136 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of this
Act shall not be affected by the enactment of this Act. Any proce-
dures or rules or regulations in effect on the effective date of this Act
shall remain in effect until modified or superseded under the author-
ity of this Act. Any reference in any other law or rule or regulation
prescribed pursuant to law to the "International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954," shall be deemed
to be a reference to that Convention as revised by the "Amendments
of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954," which were adopted by a Conference of Contracting
Governments convened at London on April 11, 1962. Any reference
in any other law or rule or regulation prescribed pursuant to law to
the "Oil Pollution Act, 1961," approved August 30, 1961 (33 V.S.C.
1001-1015), shall be deemed to be a reference to that Act as amended
by this Act.
[p. 19]
1.3b(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 1479, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF THE POLLU-
TION OF THE SEA BY OIL, 1954
AUGUST 17 (legislative day, AUGUST 15, 1966) .—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8760]
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H.R.
8760) to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C.
1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the International Con-
vention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954,
as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2137
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 8760 is to amend the provisions of the Oil
Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015) to implement the provisions
of the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes. Es-
sentially, the effect of this bill would be to incorporate certain changes
to bring the Oil Pollution Act into conformity with the amendments
of the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which amendments were adopted by a con-
ference of contracting governments convened at London on April
11, 1962.
BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION
Implementation of the international convention is important to the
United States, inasmuch as, among other things, it would increase the
zone in which discharge of oil waste is prohibited from 50 miles off-
shore to 100 miles offshore along the New England coast which has
been particularly plagued by these discharges.
[p. 1]
In addition to other provisions, the categories of existing ships that
must observe antipollution measures has been increased to bring
more vessels within the provisions of the convention. As a matter of
practice, the amendments to enforcement and recordkeeping provi-
sions are likely to produce more effective results in the light of expe-
rience under existing rules.
Major amendments include a definition of oily mixture and an
enlargement of the categories of vessels covered by the act. The
previous test that the oil in an oily mixture "fouls the surface of the
sea" has been removed and the definition limited to a formula spe-
cifying 100 parts or more of oil in 1 million parts of the mixture.
This is a much more realistic definition. In addition, the law will now
apply to all seagoing vessels of any type except (a) tankers of under
150 gross tons and other ships of under 500 gross tons; (b) ships in
the whaling industry when actually employed on whaling operations;
(c) ships navigating the Great Lakes and tributary waters as speci-
fied; and (d) naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval
auxiliaries.
Even though naval vessels are excepted from the convention, it is
the expectation of the committee that the Department of Defense
will insure compliance with this act by all U.S. naval vessels through
the use of appropriate departmental regulations.
It should be pointed out in connection with the legislation that
neither the amended convention nor this bill affect in any way a
-------
2138 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
reservation contained in the ratification of the original convention
by the United States to the effect that we do not consider the inter-
national rules to interfere in any way with our freedom of legislative
action in our territorial waters. Within that area any offense against
our existing statutes will be punishable under those statutes, regard-
less of the ship's registry.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Enactment of this legislation will place the United States in a
position to discharge fully its obligations under the convention, as
amended, and will contribute materially to the reduction of oil pol-
lution at sea, which in turn will reduce pollution along our shores.
It is not believed that it will place any appreciable burden on our
shipping, and it goes far to implement our desire for international
cooperation in the field of ocean shipping.
The committee is of the view that the bill is a desirable one, and
accordingly recommends its enactment.
COST OF LEGISLATION
This legislation would entail no additional expenditure by the
U.S. Government.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
H.R. 8760 was the subject of an executive communication from
the Department of State, the text of which follows, together with
the texts of departmental reports received on the bill or its companion
measure, S. 2017.
[p. 2]
MAY 15, 1965.
Hon. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,
President of the Senate.
DEAR MR. VICE PRESIDENT: I submit herewith for consideration
by the Senate a draft bill to incorporate in the Oil Pollution Act,
1961, changes which will be necessary when the amendments of
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, become effective. The Senate by its resolution of
February 25, 1964, gave its advice and consent to ratification of the
amendments to the convention. The proposed amendments to the
Oil Pollution Act would redefine the types and sizes of ships reg-
ulated, redefine the extent to which ships must record the discharge
of oil, extend the zones in which discharge of oil is prohibited, and
make other necessary changes. An outline of the provisions of the
amendments is contained in Senate Executive C, 88th Congress, 1st
session.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2139
A similar proposed bill has been transmitted to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget
that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no
objection to the submission of this proposed legislation to the Con-
gress.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE W. BALL,
Acting Secretary.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
The 1954 convention entered into force on July 26, 1958, 12 months
after 10 governments, including 5 each having not less than a half
million gross tons of tanker tonnage, had accepted it. The United
States, however, did not become a party until 1961, having considered
that the convention did not provide means for effectively enforcing
antipollution measures. Approval by the United States of the 1954
convention was given subject to recommendations that amendments
would be sought. It was subject also to two reservations, one con-
cerning the provision of the 1954 convention which would have
obligated the Federal Government to insure that adequate oil recep-
tion facilities were at all main U.S. ports although this is not a
Federal function in the United States, and the other with respect to a
procedure for amendment which gives only 4 months during which a
government can declare its nonacceptance of amendments or become
automatically bound in 6 months. By the amendments of 1962 the
provision as to oil reception facilities is altered to require only that
governments promote the provision of adequate facilities, and the
amendment procedure is revised to provide reasonable opportunity
for governments to accept or reject amendments. The amendments
do not revise article XI regarding powers of a contracting government
to take measures within its jurisdiction regarding pollution matters.
Therefore, an "understanding," included in the U.S. acceptance of
the 1954 convention, to the effect that we do not consider it to inter-
fere with our freedom of legislative action in our territorial waters,
remains in effect. Other provisions of the amendments strengthen
and expand the convention of 1954.
In line with the provisions of the amendments of the 1954 conven-
tion, the enclosed draft bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961,
will bring existing statutory provisions into agreement with the 1954
[p. 3]
convention, as amended. The specific proposals will accomplish the
following:
(1) Revise the language where necessary so that references will be
-------
2140 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to the "International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended," and that reference to the act
as amended will be "Oil Pollution Act, 1961, as amended,"
(2) Revise the definitions in section 2 (33 U.S.C. 1001) to agree
with the amendments of the 1954 convention. The major changes
concern the definition of the terms "oil," "oily," "oily mixture," and
"ship," as well as adding a new definition of the term "from the near-
est land." The only one of the amended definitions which appears
to require comment is the definition of "oily mixture" which in-
directly defines what shall constitute oil pollution by designation of
a specific concentration. In some countries this may necessitate
that samples be produced in court in order to establish proof of a
violation. After study and consideration, it was not found possible
to develop an acceptable definition which did not refer to a formula,
and it was recommended that the formula be retained specifying
100 parts or more of oil in 1 million parts of the mixture. The
previous test that the oil in an oily mixture "fouls the surface of
the sea" has been removed. It is believed this amended definition
is more realistic than the existing one in the 1954 convention.
(3) Revise the scope of application of the act by amending sub-
section 2(i) and section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1001 (i), 1002), so that the law
applies to all seagoing vessels of any type whatsoever of American
registry or nationality except—(a) tankers of under 150 gross tons
and other ships of under 500 gross tons; (b) ships in the whaling in-
dustry when actually employed on whaling operations; (c) ships nav-
igating the Great Lakes and tributary waters as specified; and (d)
naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval auxiliaries.
The reason for the difference in application of requirements to tank-
ers starting at 150 gross tons and other ships at 500 gross tons is that
the majority of governments maintained that, in other parts of the
world and especially in European waters, tankers between 150 and
500 gross tons, contribute materially to the pollution.
(4) Revise the prohibitions against the discharge of oil or oily mix-
tures in section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1002) to clarify application to ships other
than tankers and to add a new subsection (c) to cover all ships of
20,000 gross tons or more, including tankers, which are contracted for
on or after the effective date of this act, and prohibit any discharge
of oil or oily mixture from such ships except under specified condi-
tions when such discharge must be reported in accordance with
regulations of the Secretary of the Army. It is understood that this
new prohibition, especially for large tankers, amounts to no more
than the current procedures followed by the American oil companies
as part of their antipollution program.
(5) Revise the excepted discharges of oil or oily mixtures from the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2141
general prohibitions in sections 3 and 4 (33 U.S.C. 1002 and 1003) to
include such discharges when made for securing safety when another
ship is involved and those discharges from the bilges of a ship of an
oily mixture containing no oil other than lubricating oil which has
drained or leaked from machinery spaces. In addition, this change
removes the excepted discharge of sediment which cannot be pumped
from the cargo tanks of tankers and cancels the requirements for
[p. 4]
special explanations in the oil record books in the event of discharges
or escapes referred to in these sections.
(6) Revise the provisions regarding the "oil record book," by stat-
ing in general terms the requirements in the law and authorizing the
Secretary of the Army to describe these in detail in published regula-
tions and booklets to be furnished by him to the masters of seagoing
ships subject to this act, by revising section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1008), and
by canceling section 13 (33 U.S.C. 1012). The amended 1954 con-
vention requires this oil record book, and a revised form is specified
in annex B to the amendments. The changes proposed will authorize
the Secretary of the Army to make such regulations as necessary to
require records to be kept, which will be effective in maintaining
adequate enforcement.
(7) Revise the provisions regarding the prohibited zone descrip-
tions in section 12 (33 U.S.C. 1011) so that all sea areas within 50
miles from the nearest land shall be prohibited zones subject to ex-
tensions or reduction effectuated in accordance with the terms of the
convention, as amended, which the Secretary of the Army shall have
published as regulations, including publication in the notices to
mariners issued by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy. The pro-
hibited zones are specified in annex A to the amended 1954 conven-
tion, which in a number of areas extends the prohibited zone beyond
50 miles from the nearest land. For the North-West Atlantic Zone
the prohibited area extends to sea 100 miles from the coast of the
United States and joins a similar 100-mile zone along the east coast of
Canada. Since the convention and present statute provide for
changes to be made in these prohibited zone areas, it is recommended
that the designation of extensions or reductions in the areas continue
to be made by regulations of the Secretary.
(8) Provide that the amended provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1961, be made effective by amendment to section 17 (33 U.S.C. 1015)
upon the date of the enactment of this bill or upon the date the
amendments to the 1954 convention become effective as to the United
States, whichever is the later date. The proposed amendments to the
Oil Pollution Act, 1961, should become effective when the amend-
-------
2142 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ments to the 1954 convention become applicable to U.S. ships. Until
that time, the United States has no obligation for enforcement.
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C., July 22,1966.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views
of this Department with respect to H.R. 8760, an act passed by the
House of Representatives June 20, 1966, to amend the provisions
of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement
the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention
of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other
purposes.
The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, to incorporate
certain changes which will be necessary to bring it into conformity
with the amendments of the International Convention for the Pre-
[P-5]
vention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which were adopted by a
Conference of Contracting Governments convened at London on
April 11, 1962.
We recommend favorable consideration of the bill.
The 1954 convention went into effect on July 26, 1958, 12 months
after 10 governments, including 5 each having not less than a half
million gross tons of tanker tonnage had accepted it. The United
States did not become a party until 1961, having considered that the
convention did not provide means for effectively enforcing anti-
pollution measures and in the belief that better results could be se-
cured through cooperation between governments and their national
shipping industries. Moreover, the U.S. acceptance of the 1954 con-
vention was made subject to an "understanding" and two reservations.
On April 11, 1962, in accordance with article XVI, subparagraph
(3) (a) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion of the Sea by Oil, 1954, a conference of contracting governments
convening in London adopted amendments to the 1954 convention.
These amendments expand and strengthen the present convention to
a very considerable extent and also obviate the need for the existing
U.S. reservations. They also meet in large measure the specific
recommendations made by the United States at the time of accepting
the 1954 convention.
On March 25, 1963, President Kennedy transmitted these "Amend-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2143
ments of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954" to the U.S. Senate (Senate Executive C,
88th Cong., 1st sess.) with a view to receiving its advice and consent.
On February 25, 1964, the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 0, passed a
resolution of ratification giving its advice and consent to acceptance
of these amendments.
Inasmuch as the bill would bring existing statutory provisions into
agreement with the 1954 convention as amended, the Department
supports the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget advises there is no objection to the
submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
program.
Sincerely,
MAURICE R. DUNIE,
Acting General Counsel.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., December 15,1965.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on S. 2017,
a bill to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33
U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954, as amended; and for other purposes, has been assigned to this
Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a
report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense.
The bill would make certain amendments to the Oil Pollution Act,
1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015) to implement amendments to the Inter-
[p. 6]
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, which were adopted by a Conference of Contracting
Governments convened at London on April 11, 1962, and ratified
by the U.S. Senate on February 25, 1964.
Although S. 2017 would not directly affect the operation of naval
vessels, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of
Defense, recommends its enactment to implement the International
Convention amendments adopted by the London Conference of April
1962 and ratified as a treaty by the Senate on February 25, 1964.
The following technical change to the draft bill is recommended:
Page 2, line 3, the word "as" should read "is".
-------
2144 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
This report has been coordinated within the Department of De-
fense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the
administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of
this report on S. 2017 for the consideration of the committee.
Sincerely yours,
M. K. DISNEY,
Captain, U.S. Navy, Director, Legislative Division
(For the Secretary of the Navy).
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., July 13,1965.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the
views of this Department on S. 2017, "To amend the provisions of
the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the
provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of the
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended; and for other purposes."
The bill would amend the Oil Pollution Act, 1961, generally to bring
it into conformance with amendments to the International Convention
for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954. Among
the major changes -which would be accomplished by the proposed bill
are changes in the definition of the term "oily mixture," in the defini-
tion of the terms "ship" and "tanker," in the requirements regarding
the keeping of an oil-record book, and in the designation of pro-
hibited zones. It is observed that the definition of the term "ship"
in the proposed bill is not the same as the definition which is found
in the amended convention. The phrase "as a type included within
the term 'ship' " has been added. There is no objection to this minor
change since the term "ship" would ordinarily include a tanker.
The Treasury Department supports enactment of the proposed bill.
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,
Acting General Counsel.
[p. 7]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2145
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., June 2,1965.
B-146333.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter dated May 25, 1965, you requested
our comments on S. 2017. The stated purpose of this measure is "To
amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-
1015), to implement the provisions of the International Convention
for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as
amended; and for other purposes."
We have no special information that would assist the committee
in its consideration of S. 2017 and therefore offer no comments with
regard to the action to be taken thereon.
Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH CAMPBELL,
Comptroller General of the United States.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C., June 10,1965.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your request of May 25,
1965, giving this Department an opportunity to report on S. 2017, a
bill to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961 (33 U.S.C.
1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as
amended. However, since the bill does not affect the responsibilities
of the Department, we have no recommendations to make regarding
the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's
program.
Sincerely yours,
ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.
-------
2146 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION,
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN,
June 27, 1966.
Hon. WARREN C. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of June 23,
1966, for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect
to H.R. 8760, a bill to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the
International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.
Inasmuch as the bill does not affect the responsibilities or jurisdic-
tion of the Commission, we express no views as to its enactment.]
[p. 8]
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no
objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the
administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN HARLLEE,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, Retired, Chairman.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., June 30,1966
HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: By letter dated June 23, 1966, you requested
our comments on H.R. 8760, 89th Congress. The stated purpose of
this measure is to amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1961
(33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), to implement the provisions of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.
We have no special information that would assist the committee in
its consideration of H.R. 8760, and therefore offer no comments with
regard to the action to be taken thereon.
Sincerely yours,
FRANK H. WEITZEL,
Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with'subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2147
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
OIL POLLUTION ACT,. 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015)
Public Law 87-167
AN ACT To implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, to
implement the provisions of the International Convention for the
Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, may
be cited as the ["Oil Pollution Act, 1961".] "Oil Pollution Act, 1961,
as amended".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—As used in this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires—•
(a) The term "convention" means the International Convention for
the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 [;], as
amended;
(b) The term "discharge" in relation to oil or to an oily mixture
means any discharge or escape howsoever caused;
[p. 9]
(c) The term "heavy diesel oil" means marine diesel oil, other than
those distillates of which more than 50 per centum, by volume, dis-
tills at a temperature not exceeding three hundred and forty degrees
centigrade when tested by American Society for the Testing of Ma-
terials standard method [D. 158/53;] D. 86/59;
(d) The term "mile" means a nautical mile of six thousand and
eighty feet or one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two meters;
[(e) The term "oil" means persistent oils, such as crude oil, fuel
oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oil. For the purposes of this
legislation, the oil in an oily mixture of less than one hundred parts
of oil in one million parts of the mixture, shall not be deemed to foul
the surface of the sea:]
(e) The term "oil" means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and
lubricating oil, and "oily" shall be construed accordingly. An "oily
mixture" means a mixture with an oil content of one hundred parts or
more in one million parts of mixture.
(f) The term "person" means an individual, partnership, corpora-
tion, or association; and any owner, operator, agent, master, officer,
or employee of a ship;
(g) The term "prohibited zones" means the zones described in
section 12 of this Act as modified by notices, if any, of extension or
reduction issued by the Secretary;
-------
2148 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(h) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army;
[(i) The term "ship" means a seagoing ship of American registry
except—
[(1) ships for the time being used as naval auxiliaries;
[(2) ships of under five hundred tons gross tonnage;
[(3) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry;
[(4) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes of
North America and their connecting and tributary waters as far
east as the lower exit of the Lachine Canal at Montreal in the
Province of Quebec, Canada.]
(i) The term "ship", subject to the exceptions provided in para-
graph (1) of this subsection, means any seagoing vessel of any type
whatsoever of American registry or nationality, including floating
craft, whether self-propelled or towed by another vessel making a sea
voyage; and "tanker", as a type included within the term "ship",
means a ship in which the greater part of the cargo space is con-
structed or adapted for the carriage of liquid cargoes in bulk and
which is not, for the time being, carrying a cargo other than oil in
that part of its cargo space.
(1) The following categories of vessels are excepted from all
provisions of the Act:
(i) tankers of under one hundred and fifty tons gross
tonnage and other ships of under five hundred tons gross
tonnage.
(ii) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling in-
dustry when actually employed on whaling operations.
(Hi) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes
of North America and their connecting and tributary waters
as far east as the lower exit of Saint Lambert lock at Montreal
in the Province of Quebec, Canada.
(iv) naval ships and ships for the time being used as
naval auxiliaries.
(j) The term "from the nearest land" means from the baseline from
which the territorial sea of the territory in question is established in
[p. 10]
accordance with the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone, 1958.
[SEC. 3. (a) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, the dis-
charge by any person from any ship, which is a tanker, within any
of the prohibited zones of oil or any oily mixture the oil in which
fouls the surface of the sea, shall be unlawful.
[(b) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, any discharge by
any person into the sea from a ship, other than a tanker, of oily
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2149
ballast water or tank washings shall be made as far as practicable
from land. As from July 26, 1961, paragraph (a) of this section shall
apply to ships other than tankers as it applies to tankers, except that
the prohibited zones in relation to ships other than tankers shall be
those referred to in the schedule.]
Sec. 3. Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, it shall be un-
lawful for any person to discharge oil or oily mixture from:
(a) a tanker within any of the prohibited zones.
(b) a ship, other than a tanker, within any of the prohibited
zones; except when the ship is proceeding to a port not provided
with facilities adequate for the reception, without causing undue
delay, it may discharge such residues and oily mixture as would
remain for disposal if the bulk of the water had been separated
from the mixture: Provided, such discharge is made as far as
practicable from land.
(c) a ship of twenty thousand tons gross tonnage or more, in-
cluding a tanker, for which the building contract is placed on or
after the effective date of this Act. However, if in the opinion of
the master, special circumstances make it neither reasonable nor
practicable to retain the oil or oily mixture on board, it may be
discharged outside the prohibited zones. The reasons for such
discharge shall be reported in accordance with the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. Section 3 shall not apply to—•
[ (a) the discharge of oil or of an oily mixture from a ship for
the purpose of securing the safety of the ship, preventing damage
to the ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
[ (b) the escape of oil, or of an oily mixture, resulting from
damage to the ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable pre-
cautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or
discovery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or min-
imizing the escape;
[(c) the discharge of sediment—
[(i) which cannot be pumped from the cargo tanks of
tankers by reason of its solidity; or
[(ii) which is residue arising from the purification or
clarification of oil fuel or lubricating oil,
Provided, That such discharge is made as far from land as is
practicable.]
[p. 11]
(a) the discharge of oil or oily mixture from a ship for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship, preventing damage to a
ship or cargo, or saving life at sea; or
-------
2150 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) the escape of oil, or of oily mixture, resulting from damage
to a ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable precautions
have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or discovery
of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the
escape;
(c) the discharge of residue arising from the purification or
clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil: Provided, That such dis-
charge is made as far from land as practicable.
[SEC. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges
of a ship—
[(a) of any oily mixture, during the period of twelve months
after the United States accepts the convention;
[(b) after the expiration of such period, of an oily mixture
containing no oil other than lubricating oil.]
Sec. 5. Section 3 shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges of a
ship of an oily mixture containing no oil other than lubricating oil
which has drained or leaked from machinery spaces.
SEC. 6. Any person who violates any provision of this Act, except
sections 8 (b) and 9, or any regulation prescribed in pursuance there-
of, 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, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for
each offense. And any ship (other than a ship owned and operated
by the United States) from which oil is discharged in violation 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 ship from a port of the United States may be withheld
until the penalty is paid, and said penalty shall constitute a lien on
such ship which may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in
the district court of the United States for any district within which
the ship may be.
SEC. 7. The Coast Guard may, subject to the provisions of section
4450 of the Revised Statues, as amended (46 U.S.C. 239), suspend or
revoke a license issued to the master or other licensed officer of any
ship found violating the provisions of this Act or the regulations is-
sued pursuant thereto.
SEC. 8. (a) In the administration of sections 1-12 of this Act,
the Secretary may make use of the organization, equipment, and
agencies, including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, em-
ployed under his direction in the improvement of rivers and harbors
and in the enforcement of laws for the improvement of rivers and har-
bors and in the enforcement of laws for the preservation and protec-
tion of navigable waters. For the better enforcement of the provisions
of said sections, the officers and agents of the United States in charge
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2151
of river and harbor improvements and persons employed under them
by authority of the Secretary, and officers and employees of the
Bureau of Customs and the Coast Guard, shall have power and au-
thority and it shall be their duty to swear out process and to arrest
and take into custody, with or without process, any person who i-iay
violate any of said provisions: Provided, That no person shall be
arrested without process, for a violation not committed in the pres-
ence of some one of the aforesaid officials: And provided further,
That whenever any arrest is made under the provisions of said sec-
tions the person so arrested shall be brought forthwith before a com-
missioner, 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. Representatives of the Secretary
and of the Bureau of Customs and Coast Guard of the United States
may go on board and inspect any ship in a prohibited zone or in a
port of the United States as may be necessary for enforcement of this
Act.
(b) To implement article VII of the convention, ship fittings and
equipment, and operating requirements thereof, shall be in accord-
[P. 12]
ance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating. Any person found violating
these regulations shall, in addition to any other penalty prescribed by
law, be subject to a civil penalty not in excess of $100.
[Sec. 9. (a) There shall be carried in every ship an oil record book
in the form specified in section 13 of this Act. In the event of dis-
charge or escape of oil from a ship in a prohibited zone, a signed state-
ment shall be made in the oil record book, by the officer or officers in
charge of the operations concerned and by the master of the ship, of
the circumstances of and the reason for the discharge or escape.
[(b) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act which is to his knowl-
edge false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.]
Sec. 9. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate oil record
books, containing instructions and spaces for inserting information
in the form prescribed by the Convention, which shall be published
in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) If subject to this Act, every ship using oil fuel and every
-------
2152 ' LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tanker shall be provided, without charge, an oil record book which
shall be carried on board. The provisions of section 140 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply. The ownership of the booklet
shall remain in the United States Government. This book shall be
available for inspection as provided in this Act and for surrender to
the United States Government pursuant to regulations of the
Secretary.
(c) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion, when-
ever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
(1) ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks of
tankers;
(2) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
(3) settling in slop tanks and discharge of water from tankers;
(.4) disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks or
other sources;
(5) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel tanks
of ships other than tankers;
(6) disposal from ships other than tankers of oily residues
from bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
(7) accidental or other exceptional discharges or escapes of
oil from tankers or ships other than tankers.
In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture, as is
referred to in subsection 3 (c) and section 4 of this Act, a statement
shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances of, and rea-
son for, the discharge or escape.
(d) Each operation described in section 9 (c) of the Act shall be
fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so that all the
entries in the book appropriate to that operation are completed. Each
page of the book shall be signed by the officer or officers in charge of
the operations concerned and when the ship is manned, by the master
of the ship.
(e) Oil record books shall be kept in such manner and for such
length of time as set forth in the regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.
(f) If any person fails to comply with the requirements imposed
by or under this section, he shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
[p. 13]
exceeding $1,000 nor less than $500 and if any person makes an entry
in any records kept in accordance with this Act or regulations pre-
scribed thereunder by the Secretary which is to his knowledge false
or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on con-
viction to a fine not exceeding $1000 nor less than $500 or imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2153
SEC. 10. The Secretary may make regulations for the administra-
tion of sections 3, 4, 5, 8 (a), [and 9.] 9, and 12.
SEC. 11. (a) The Secretary may make regulations empowering
such persons as may be designated to go on board any ship to which
the convention applies, while the ship is within the territorial juris-
diction of the United States, and to require production of any records
required to be kept in accordance with the convention.
(b) Should evidence be obtained that a ship registered in another
country party to the convention has discharged oil in any prohibited
zone, such evidence should be forwarded to the State Department for
action in accordance with article X of the convention.
[SEC. 12. (a) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the pro-
hibited zones in relation to tankers shall be all sea areas within fifty
miles from land, with the following exceptions:
[(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
shall each extend for a distance of fifty miles from land, except-
ing only the island of Vis.
[(2) THE NORTH SEA ZONE.—The North Sea Zone shall extend
for a distance of one hundred miles from the coasts of the follow-
ing countries—
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland;
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the fifty-
mile zone off the coast of Norway.
[(3) THE ATLANTIC ZONE.—The Atlantic Zone shall be within a
line drawn from a point on the Greenwich meridian one hundred
miles in a north-northeasterly direction from the Shetland Islands;
thence northward along the Greenwich meridian to latitude 64 de-
grees north; thence westward along the 64th parallel to longitude 10
degrees west; thence to latitude 60 degrees north, longitude 14 degrees
west; thence to latitude 54 degrees 30 minutes north, longitude 30
degrees west; thence to latitude 44 degrees 20 minutes north,
longitude 30 degrees west; thence to latitude 48 degrees north,
longitude 14 degrees west; thence eastward along the forty-eighth
parallel to a point of intersection with the fifty-mile zone off the coast
of France: Provided, That in relation to voyages which do not extend
seaward beyond the Atlantic Zone as defined above, and which are
to points not provided with adequate facilities for the reception of
-------
2154 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
oily residue, the Atlantic Zone shall be deemed to terminate at a
distance of one hundred miles from land.
[(4) THE AUSTRALIAN ZONE.—The Australian Zone shall extend
for a distance of one hundred and fifty miles from the coasts of Aus-
tralia, except off the north and west coasts of the Australian main-
[p. 14]
land between the point opposite Thursday Island and the point on the
west coast at 20 degrees south latitude.
[(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this section the prohibited zones
in relation to ships other than tankers shall be all sea areas within
fifty miles from land with the following exceptions:
[(1) THE ADRIATIC ZONES.—Within the Adriatic Sea the pro-
hibited zones off the coasts of Italy and Yugoslavia respectively
shall each extend for a distance of twenty miles from, land, ex-
cepting only the Island of Vis. After the expiration of a period
of three years following the application of prohibited zones to
ships other than tankers in accordance with section 3(b) of this
Act the said zones shall each be extended by a further thirty
miles in width unless the two Governments agree to postpone
such extension. In the event of such an agreement, the Conven-
tion provides for notification to be given accordingly to the Inter-
governmental Maritime Consultative Organization by said gov-
ernments not less than three months before the expiration of
such period of three years and for notification to be given to all
contracting governments by the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization.
[(2) THE NORTH SEA AND ATLANTIC ZONES.—The North Sea
and Atlantic Zones shall extend for a distance of one hundred
miles from the coasts of the following countries:
Belgium,
Denmark,
the Federal Republic of Germany,
Ireland,
the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland,
but not beyond the point where the limit of a one-hundred-mile
zone off the west coast of Jutland intersects the limit of the fifty-
mile zone off the coast of Norway.
[ (c) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones de-
scribed above effectuated under the terms of the Convention, the
Secretary of the Army shall give notice thereof by publication of such
information in Notices to Mariners issued by the United States Coast
Guard and United States Navy.]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2155
Sec. 12. (a) All sea areas within fifty miles from the nearest land
shall be prohibited zones, subject to extensions or reduction ef-
fectuated in accordance with the terms of the Convention, which shall
be published in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) With respect to the reduction or extension of the zones de-
scribed under the terms of the Convention, the Secretary shall give
notice thereof by publication of such information in Notices to Mar-
iners issued by the United States Coast Guard and United States
Navy.
[SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary shall have printed separate booklets
which set forth instructions and spaces for inserting information as
follows:
[(1) FOR TANKERS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo
tanks.
[(i) Identify numbers of tank(s).
[(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank(s).
[p. 15]
[(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
[(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast water.
[(v) Place or position of ship.
[(vi) Approximate amount of oil contaminated water
transferred to slop tank(s).
[(vii) Identity numbers of slop tank(s).
[(C) Cleaning of cargo tanks.
[(i) Identity numbers of tank (s) cleaned.
[ (ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank (s) .
[(iii) Identity numbers of slop tank(s) to which
washings transferred.
[(iv) Dates and times of cleaning.
[ (D) Settling in slop tank (s) and discharge of water.
[ (i) Identity numbers of slop tank (s).
[(ii) Period of settling (in hours).
[(iii) Date and time of discharge of water.
[(iv) Place or position of ship.
[(v) Approximate quantities of residue.
[(E) Disposal from ship of oily residues from slop tanks
and other sources.
[(i) Date and method of disposal.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
[(F) Signature of Officer or Officers in Charge of the op-
-------
2156 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
erations concerned and Signature of the Master.
[(2) FOR SHIPS OTHER THAN TANKERS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel
tanks.
[(i) Identity number of tank.
[(ii) Type of oil previously contained in tank.
[(iii) Date and place of ballasting.
[(iv) Date and time of discharge of ballast or wash-
ing water.
[(v) Place or position of ship.
[(vi) Whether separator used: if so, give period of
use.
[(vii) Disposal of oily residue retained on board.
[(C) Disposal from ship of oily residues from bunker fuel
tanks and other sources.
[(i) Date and method of disposal.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Sources and approximate quantities.
[(D) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
[(3) FOR ALL SHIPS.—
[(A) Date of entry.
[(B) Accidental and other exceptional discharges or
escapes of oil.
[(i) Date and time of occurrence.
[(ii) Place or position of ship.
[(iii) Approximate quantity and type of oil.
[(iv) Circumstances of discharge or escape and gen-
eral remarks.
[p. 16]
[(C) Signature of officer or officers in charge of the opera-
tions concerned and signature of the master.
[(b) The booklet shall be furnished free to all seagoing ships of
American registry subject to this Act. The provisions of section 140
of title 5, United States Code shall not apply. The ownership of the
booklet shall remain in the United States Government. This booklet
shall be available for inspection as provided in this Act and for sur-
render to the United States Government pursuant to regulations of
the Secretary.]
SEC. 14. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 15. If a provision of this Act or the application of such pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2157
vision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the re-
mainder of the Act and the application of such provision to persons
or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid shall not
be affected thereby.
SEC. 16. Nothing in this Act or in regulations issued hereunder shall
be construed to modify or amend the provisions of the Oil Pollution
Act, 1924, (33 U.S.C. 431-437), or of section 89 of title 14, United
States Code.
[SEC. 17. This Act shall become effective upon the date of its en-
actment or upon the date the United States becomes a party to the
convention, whichever is the later date.]
Sec. 17. (a) This Act shall become effective upon the date of its
enactment or upon the date the amended Convention becomes ef-
fective as to the United States, whichever is the later date.
(b) Any rights or liabilities existing on the effective date of this
Act shall not be affected by the enactment of this Act. Any pro-
cedures or rules or regulations in effect on the effective date of this
Act shall remain in effect until modified or superseded under the
authority of this Act. Any reference in any other law or rule or
regulation prescribed pursuant to law to the "International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954," shall
be deemed to be a reference to that Convention as revised by the
"Amendments of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954," which were adopted by a Con-
ference of Contracting Governments convened at London on April 11,
1962. Any reference in any other law or rule or regulation pre-
scribed pursuant to law to the "Oil Pollution Act, 1961," approved
August 30, 1961 (33 U.S.C. 1001-1015), shall be deemed to be a ref-
erence to that Act as amended by this Act.
[p. 17]
-------
2158 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.3b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 112 (1966)
1.3b(3)(a) June 20: Considered and passed House, pp. 13639-13640
[No Revelant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.3b(3)(b) Aug. 19: Considered and passed Senate, p. 19991
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.4 ADVANCES OF PUBLIC MONEYS, PROHIBITION AGAINST,
AS REVISED
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155(g)(3)(A)]
No advance of public money shall be made in any case unless
authorized by the appropriation concerned or other law. And in all
cases of contracts for the performance of any service, or the de-
livery of articles of any description, for the use of the United States,
payment shall not exceed the value of the service rendered, or of the
articles delivered previously to such payment. It shall, however, be
lawful, under the special direction of the President, to make such
advances to the disbursing officers of the Government as may be
necessary to the faithful and prompt discharge of their respective
duties, and to the fulfillment of the public engagements. The Pres-
ident may also direct such advances as he may deem necessary and
proper, to persons in the military and naval service employed on
distant stations, where the discharge of the pay and emoluments to
which they may be entitled cannot be regularly effected. R.S. §3648;
Aug. 2,1946, c. 744, §11, 60 Stat. 809.
1.4a ACT OF JANUARY 31, 1823
January 31, 1823, Chapter 9, §1, 3 Stat. 723
CHAP. IX.—An Act concerning the disbursement of public money.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, That, from and
after the passing of this act, no advance of public money shall be
made in any case whatever; but in all cases of contracts for the per-
formance of any service, or the delivery of articles of any description,
for the use of the United States, payment shall not exced [exceed] the
value of the service rendered, or of the articles delivered previously
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2159
to such payment: Provided, That it shall be lawful, under the especial
direction of the President of the United States, to make such advances
to the disbursing officers of the government as may be necessary to
the faithful and prompt discharge of their respective duties, and to
the fulfillment of the public engagements: And provided also, That the
President of the United States may direct such advances as he may
deem necessary and proper, to such persons in the military and naval
service as may be employed on distant stations, where the discharge
of the pay and emoluments to which they may be entitled, cannot be
regularly effected.
[p. 723]
1.4a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURES
H.R. KEP. No. 100, 17th Cong., 1st Sess. (1822)
Document in Dept. of Interior Library, but in non-reproducible
condition.
1.4a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 17th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1823)
[Report unpublished.]
1.4a(3) ANNALS OF CONGRESS (1822-23)
1.4a(3)(a) Dec. 9, 17: Debated, amended, passed House,
pp.336-338, 391-394
DISBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC
MONEYS
On motion of Mr. BASSETT, the House
then resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole, on the bill, reported at the
last session, "concerning the disburse-
ment of public moneys."
The bill having been read-—
Mr. BASSETT, as a. member of the com-
mittee which prepared this bill, stated
the general views on which it was
founded. This bill, he said, had been
drawn with a great degree of caution, so
as, by embracing all cases in which ad-
[p. 336]
vances could be necessary, to take away
any possible objection which could be
made against it; and it had afterwards
been submitted to the Treasury Depart-
ment to undergo any alterations which
it might appear to require. The jeop-
ardizing of the public money was of that
character, Mr. B. said, and the conse-
quent waste of it so enormous, that it
was time for this House to look into it.
At the last session of Congress, a cata-
-------
2160
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
logue of defalcations had been presented,
which astonished everybody, embracing
a range, the extent of which could hardly
have been conceived. Mr. B. recalled
the attention of the House also to one or
two facts stated in the President's Mes-
sage. The fact was there disclosed, that,
at one time, accounts for one hundred
millions of dollars advanced for differ-
ent objects remained unsettled. Such
an amount, dependent on the personal
responsibility of individuals, at once tells
us how careful Congress ought to be in
trusting so great an interest in the hands
of public agents. If it had been found
that this great trust had been confided
to them without injury to the public in-
terest, legislation on the subject might
be less necessary; but such was not the
fact. At the last session, the House was
presented with a large amount of bal-
ances due by individuals, and supposed
to be lost; and the Message of the Presi-
dent spoke of several millions of sus-
pended accounts. Mr. B. said he had
been told that, since the last session of
Congress, public officers had gone off the
stage of life considerably indebted to the
Government—officers, too, in whom the
greatest confidence had been placed.
This showed, he said, that it was time to
change the present system. It was most
obvious, if we took the reason of the
thing, the history of other countries, or
the experience of this, that it was neces-
sary to exercise a more rigorous control
over the disbursements of public mon-
eys. It was more than probable, Mr. B.
continued, that on the first establishment
of this Government, the different State
institutions having little connexion or
sympathy with one another, it was not
very easy to transact the fiscal business
of the nation, or to carry money from one
part of it to the other, &c.; but the Gov-
ernment had been now established for
forty years, and every difficulty of that
sort had ceased. Could it be right, on the
plea of enabling the poor man to be em-
ployed in public service, that the public
money should be put in jeopardy? It
was not necessary, he said, that it should
be so, for the moment the Government
makes a contract, the contractor has
credit to the amount of his contract, and
can borrow or buy upon that credit. It
was not true, in fact, that advances were
necessary, and it could not therefore be
right to make them. These, Mr. B. said,
were some of the general views which
led the committee to prepare the bill now
under consideration, and present it to
the House. If the bill were to go through
the committee, without amendment, he
should then, to afford to gentlemen all
proper time to consider the subject,
move to lay it on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, suggested
that few of the members had preserved
the printed copies of the bill from the
last session; and, as the subject
[p. 337]
was of some magnitude, he thought the
members ought to have an opportunity
to examine it. He therefore, with this
view, moved that the Committee should
rise.
The Committee rose accordingly, and
the bill was ordered to be printed.
[p. 338]
The engrossed bill "concerning the dis-
bursement of public moneys," (forbid-
ding advances on contracts) was read a
third time; and the question being "Shall
the bill pass?"
Mr. NEWTON, of Virginia, said, he was
opposed to the bill, for reasons which he
would briefly state. The present system
had been in operation for two and thirty
years, and had been amended, from time
to time, until it had been made such as
to compel those who had the disburse-
ment of public money to account for it
promptly. He believed, he said, not-
withstanding a considerable noise had
been made about the loss of public
money in its collection and disburse-
ment, it would be found, when the sub-
ject was fairly considered, and all the
facts fully known, that the total amount
of losses, from the commencement of the
Government, would not amount to more
than about two millions and a half dol-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2161
lars. In the port of New York, in which
most of the duties on imports were col-
lected, he did not know that the total loss
would amount to $600,000. Mr. N. was
satisfied, he said, that the Government is
going on extremely well; that the ac-
counting officers are extremely vigilant
in the discharge of their duty; that all
those into whose hands the public money
goes, are called strictly to account for its
expenditure. Why, then, he asked, pass
new laws upon the subject? Things are
going on very well; let us be satisfied
with them as they are. Mr. N. said he
believed that the greatest curse which
could befall a republican people was the
multiplication of unnecessary laws. Be-
sides this general objection, however, he
had other serious objections to this bill.
The bill provides that no money shall be
advanced to contractors but for articles
furnished, the value of which shall be
ascertained, and for services actually
rendered. Then comes a proviso, au-
thorizing the officers of Government to
make advances when they think them
necessary to the public service. Thus,
Mr. N. said, the proviso neutralizes the
enactment of the bill, and leaves things
exactly as they now are. But suppose it
does not leave things as they are. By ex-
cluding advances you put an end at once
to competition, by which the public in-
terest is so much consulted. Your most
valuable citizens are at once excluded
from engaging in the business of supply
for the public service. The wealth of the
mechanics of the United States, Mr. N.
said, consists in their honesty and their
enterprise; they have no other capital.
They cannot make contracts, if you for-
bid advances to them. By doing so, you
throw business contracts into the hands
of a few men who have capital, and who
will make the Government pay as high
as possible for that they furnish. So far
from producing the delightful system of
economy which the supporters of the bill
imagine, it will produce the opposite
effect, of prodigality, and, in addition,
will be a proscription of a large class of
our fellow-citizens. This, however, was
not his only objection to the bill. This
House, he said, was the Grand Inquest
of the nation, whose business it was to
arrest and punish usurpations of power.
But the House was about itself to usurp
power, in dismissing persons from public
offices by law, (on their failure periodi-
cally to settle their accounts, &c.) This,
Mr. N. said, was an Executive power; it
was one of the prerogatives of the Presi-
dent. If he do not do his duty in remov-
ing from office those who may neglect
their duty, he is amenable to this House
for his misconduct. For these, and other
reasons, which he would not fatigue the
House by stating, Mr. N. believed that
the bill was unnecessary and ought not
to pass, and should give it his decided
negative.
Mr. BASSETT said that to the whole of
the objections adduced by his colleague
to this bill, it would be a sufficient an-
[p. 392]
swer, perhaps, that the present practice
in the Government approached as nearly
as possible to the system proposed in
this bill. If his arguments, therefore,
were well founded, they formed no ob-
jection to the bill; inasmuch as, that what
was now practice in the Government
could not be worse if it were made law.
Mr. B. referred to the letter from the
Secretary of War, yesterday read to the
House, from which it appeared that that
Department had found it necessary to
bring the public business as nearly as
possible to the system proposed by this
bill. Mr. B. had further understood, in
conversation with the Secretary of War,
that it was desirable that the system now
established in practice should be fixed
and made permanent by a legislative act;
because every new officer coming into
the Government, unapprized and unac-
quainted with the difficulties of this sort
which he would have to encounter under
the former system of advances, &c. was
thrown, before he knew it, into the very
vortex of them. Was not this, Mr. B.
asked, a demonstrable argument in favor
of this bill and against his colleague?
-------
2162
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. B. quoted the late Message of the
President, to show the quantities of pub-
lic money which were at one time in the
hands of public agents. Are the moneys
of the country, said he, to be thus thrown
abroad, subject only to the accountability
of individuals? Was this necessary?
Could not Government be supported but
on principles fraught with destruction
to the public interest? And if there be
an individual who is benefited by proflig-
acy in the public expenditure, is that a
reason why this bill should not pass?
Mr. B. said he knew his colleague too
well to suppose that he would support
the principle that any individual in the
Government, let his situation be what
it will, is to be sustained at the public
expense. Mr. B. defended the bill from
the charge of partiality. The causes of
discrimination between persons seeking
contracts are, said Mr. B., beyond our
control. Did the gentleman suppose the
Government was to make contracts with
persons who are paupers, and put large
sums into their hands, relying upon their
accountability? The gentleman would
be himself one of the first to blame the
Government for doing so. This bill, be-
sides, Mr. B. said, would save the public
money from being lost, and, from what
appeared from the President's Message,
it was high time some steps were taken
to prevent further dilapidation of the
public money. Mr. B. took further views
of the subject, of the same import with
the preceding. He particularly denied
that the bill bore on the less wealthy
more severely than on others, inasmuch
as their contracts, he urged, would give
them credit for as much money as was
necessary to enable them to comply with
them. And with regard to usurpation,
which had been charged upon the bill,
Mr. B. said he had supposed the very es-
sence of legislation to be to lay down
general rules under which those who
perform the Executive functions are to
act. If the Legislature were cut off from
this authority, the Executive was su-
preme as to every thing relating to public
offices, and no act of Congress could af-
[p. 393]
feet him, which was a doctrine which he
presumed the House would not sustain,
&c.
Mr. WRIGHT delivered his opinions
against the bill, for a variety of reasons,
some of which, from his distance, escaped
the reporter. He said, however, that on
inquiry it would be found that, in a va-
riety of cases of contract for timber, the
Navy Department had been obliged to
advance money, in defiance of a desire
to do otherwise, before the contracts
could be complied with. In some in-
stances, by accident, persons willing to
contract might be found in a different
station, but it was so rare as only by an
exception to prove the rule, &c. Mr. W.
concluded his remarks by moving that
the bill lie on the table.
This motion was negatived.
The question was then taken on the
passage of the bill, and it was passed, by
a large majority, and sent to the Senate
for concurrence.
[p. 394]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2163
1.4a(3)(b) Jan. 21, 23: Amended and Passed Senate, pp. 147-150
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.4a(3)(c) Jan. 27: House concurs in Senate amendments, pp. 699-700
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
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
SEC. 11. The first sentence of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. 529) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"No advance of public money shall be made in any case unless
authorized by the appropriation concerned or other law."
1.4b(l) COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS
H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946)
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS
MAY 29, 1946.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and Ordered to be printed
MR. MANASCO, from the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive
Departments, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6533]
The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 6533) to authorize certain ad-
ministrative expenses in the Government service and for other pur-
poses, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
GENERAL STATEMENT
This bill can truthfully be referred to as a bill to eliminate Govern-
ment red tape.
-------
2164 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The principal purpose of the bill, which deals with departmental
procedures and expenditures incident to certain employees' travel,
and to contracts and purchases, and related matters, is the permanent
enactment of numerous provisions which, although of a continuing
and general character, have been included hitherto in the annual
appropriation acts. That purpose is designed to supplement the
program announced last year by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee 1 to avoid so far as possible the recurring enactment of
legislative items in appropriation acts. Related to that purpose are
a number of sections designed to authorize the Appropriations Com-
mittee, in its annual review of each agency's operations, to provide
exceptions from certain general prohibitory administrative-expense
legislation, where the special needs of the current programs of a
particular agency may justify them.2 Finally, a number of sections
[p. 1]
are intended to revise and modernize a group of permanent statutes,
comprising an important segment of the body of legislative guides
and rules for the conduct of the Government's business, which require
codification and adaptation to the current needs, size, and scope of
the functions of the Government.
[p. 2]
EXPLANATION BY SECTIONS
Section 11. Advances of public funds.—The advance of public
money generally is prohibited by section 3648, Revised Statutes (31
U.S.C. 529). Occasionally, to meet special needs and particular situa-
tions (especially in the case of transactions abroad) it has been found
necessary to create legislative exceptions to the general rule. These
situations are comparatively minor but are apt to require quick leg-
islative action. Section 11 would amend the original section cited
merely by adding the words "unless authorized by the appropriation
concerned or other law". Its purpose is merely to sanction the in-
corporation of exceptions in appropriation acts as may be required
from time to time without raising the question of a point of order.
[p. 7]
1 See 91 Congressional Record 2671, March 23, 1945.
* Many such exceptions now appear in the appropriation acts, but would be subject to point
of order for lack of legislative authorization, such as that now proposed.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2165
1.4b(2) COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS
S. REP. No. 1636, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946)
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS
JULY 2, 1946.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive
Departments, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6533]
The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 6533) to authorize certain ad-
ministrative expenses in the Government service, and for other pur-
poses, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
amendments, and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
GENERAL STATEMENT
This bill might be referred to as a bill to cut down on Government
red tape.
The principal purpose of the bill, which deals with departmental
procedures and expenditures incident to certain employees' travel,
and to contracts and purchases, and related matters, is the permanent
enactment of numerous provisions which, although of a continuing
and general character, have been included hitherto in the annual
appropriation acts. That purpose is designed to supplement the
program announced last year by the chairman of the House Appro-
priations Committee1 to avoid so far as possible the recurring
enactment of legislative items in appropriation acts. Related to that
purpose are a number of sections designed to authorize the Appropria-
tions Committee, in its annual review of each agency's operations, to
provide exceptions from certain general prohibitory administrative-
expense legislation, where the special needs of the current programs
of a particular agency may justify them.2 Finally, a number of sec-
tions are intended to revise and modernize a group of permanent
1 See 91 Congressional Record 2671, March 23, 1945.
2 Many such exceptions now appear in the appropriation acts, but would be subject to point
of order for lack of legislative authorization, such as that now proposed.
-------
2166 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
statutes, comprising an important segment of the body of legislative
[p. 1]
guides and rules for the conduct of the Government's business, which
require codification and adaptation to the current needs, size, and
scope of the functions of the Government.
[p. 2]
EXPLANATION BY SECTIONS
Section 11. Advances of public funds.—The advance of public
money generally is prohibited by section 3648, Revised Statutes (31
U.S.C. 529). Occasionally, to meet special needs and particular situa-
tions (especially in the case of transactions abroad) it has been found
necessary to create legislative exceptions to the general rule. These
situations are comparatively minor but are apt to require quick leg-
islative action. Section 11 would amend the original section cited
merely by adding the words "unless authorized by the appropriation
concerned or other law". Its purpose is merely to sanction the in-
corporation of exceptions in appropriation acts as may be required
from time to time without raising the question of a point of order.
[p. 7]
1.4b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 92 (1946)
1.4b(3)(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, p. 6166
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section.]
1.4b(3)(b) June 17: Amended and passed Senate, p. 9190
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section.]
1.4b(3)(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amendments, p. 10186
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section.]
1.5 PUBLIC CONTRACTS, ADVERTISEMENTS FOR
PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS FOR
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS; APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT SALES
AND CONTRACTS TO SELL AND TO GOVERNMENT
CORPORATIONS, AS AMENDED, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155(g)(3)(A)]
(See, "General 1.14a-1.14c(2) (b)" for legislative history)
Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation concerned or other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2167
law, purchases and contracts for supplies or services for the govern-
ment may be made or entered into only after advertising a sufficient
time previously for proposals, except (1) when the amount involved
in any one case does not exceed $2,500, (2) when the public exigen-
cies require the immediate delivery of the articles or performance of
the service, (3) when only one source of supply is available and the
Government purchasing or contracting officer shall so certify, or (4)
when the services are required to be performed by the contractor in
person and are (A) of a technical and professional nature or (B)
under Government supervision and paid for on a time basis. Except
(1) as authorized by section 1638 of Appendix to Title 50, (2) when
otherwise authorized by law, or (3) when the reasonable value in-
volved in any one case does not exceed $500, sales and contracts of
sale by the Government shall be governed by the requirements of
this section for advertising.
In the case of wholly owned Government corporations, this section
shall apply to their administrative transactions only. R.S. §3709; Aug.
2, 1946, c. 744, §9 (a), (c), 60 Stat. 809; June 30, 1949, c. 288 Title VI,
§602 (f), formerly Title V, §502 (e), 63 Stat. 400, renumbered Sept. 5,
1950, c. 849, §§6(a), (b), 8(c), 64 Stat. 583; Aug. 28, 1958, Pub.L.
85-800, §7, 72 Stat. 967.
1.6 COURTS OF APPEALS, CERTIORARI; APPEAL; CERTIFIED
QUESTIONS, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1157(g) (2)]
Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme
Court by the following methods:
(1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to
any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or
decree;
(2) By appeal by a party relying on a State statute held by a court
of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or
laws of the United States, but such appeal shall preclude review by
writ of certiorari at the instance of such appellant, and the review on
appeal shall be restricted to the Federal questions presented;
(3) By certification at any time by a court of appeals of any ques-
tion of law in any civil or criminal case as to which instructions are
desired, and upon such certification the Supreme Court may give
binding instructions or require the entire record to be sent up for
decision of the entire matter in controversy. June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62
Stat. 928.
-------
2168 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.6a AN ACT TO CODIFY, REVISE AND AMEND THE LAWS
RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY
March 3,1911, P.L. 61-475, §§239, 240, 36 Stat. 1157
SEC. 239. In any case within its appellate jurisdiction, as denned
in section one hundred and twenty-eight, the circuit court of appeals
at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the United States
any questions or propositions of law concerning which it desires the
instruction of that court for its proper decision; and thereupon the
Supreme Court may either give its instruction on the questions and
propositions certified to it, which shall be binding upon the circuit
court of appeals in such case, or it may require that the whole record
and cause be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall
decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it
had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal.
SEC. 240. In any case, civil or criminal, in which the judgment or
decree of the circuit court of appeals is made final by the provisions of
this Title, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court to require, by
certiorari or otherwise, upon the petition of any party thereto, any
such case to be certified to the Supreme Court for its review and
determination, with the same power and authority in the case as if
it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court.
[p. 1157]
1.6b ACT TO AMEND THE JUDICIAL CODE AND TO FURTHER
DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF AP-
PEAL AND OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
February 13,1925, P.L. 68-415, §1, 43 Stat. 936-939
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That sections 128,
129, 237, 238, 239, and 240 of the Judicial Code as now existing be,
and they are severally, amended and reenacted to read as follows:
SEC. 128. (a) The circuit courts of appeal shall have appellate
jurisdiction to review by appeal or writ of error final decisions—
"First. In the district courts, in all cases save where a direct re-
view of the decision may be had in the Supreme Court under section
238.
("Second. In the United States district courts for Hawaii and for
Porto Rico in all cases.
"Third. In the district courts for Alaska or any division thereof,
and for the Virgin Islands, in all cases, civil and criminal, wherein
the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States or any
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2169
authority exercised thereunder is involved; in all other civil cases
wherein the value in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs,
exceeds $1,000; in all other criminal cases where the offense charged
is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or
by death, and in all habeas corpus proceedings; and in the district
court for the Canal Zone in the cases and mode prescribed in the
Act approved September 21, 1922, amending prior laws relating to
the Canal Zone.
"Fourth. In the Supreme Courts of the Territory of Hawaii and
of Porto Rico, in all civil cases, civil or criminal, wherein the Con-
stitution or a statute or treaty of the United States or any authority
exercised thereunder is involved; in all other civil cases wherein the
value in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $5,000,
and in all habeas corpus proceedings.
"Fifth. In the United States Court for China, in all cases.)
"(b) The circuit court of appeals shall also have appellate juris-
diction—
"First. To review the interlocutory orders or decrees of the
district courts which are specified in section 129.
"Second. To review decisions of the district courts sustaining or
overruling exceptions to awards in arbitrations, as provided in section
8 of an Act entitled 'An Act providing for mediation, conciliation, and
arbitration in controversies between certain employers and their
employees,' approved July 15, 1913.
(" (c) The circuit courts of appeal shall also have an appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction under sections 24 and 25 of the Bankruptcy
Act of July 1, 1898, over all proceedings, controversies, and cases
had or brought in the district courts under that Act or any of its
amendments, and shall exercise the same in the manner prescribed in
those sections; and the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit in this regard shall cover the courts of bank-
ruptcy in Alaska and Hawaii, and that of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit shall cover the court of bankruptcy
in Porto Rico.
"(d) The review under this section shall be in the following circuit
courts of appeal: The decisions of a district court of the United
States within a State in the circuit court of appeals for the circuit
embracing such State; those of the District Court of Alaska or any
division thereof, the United States district court, and the Supreme
Court of Hawaii, and the United States Court for China, in the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; those of the United
States district court and the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; those of the District
[p. 936]
-------
2170 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Court of the Virgin Islands in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit; and those of the District Court of the Canal Zone
in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
"(e) The circuit courts of appeal are further empowered to en-
force, set aside, or modify orders of the Federal Trade Commission,
as provided in section 5 of 'An Act to create a Federal Trade Com-
mission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,'
approved September 26, 1914; and orders of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Trade
Commission, as provided in section 11 of 'An Act to supplement
existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for
other purposes,' approved October 15, 1914.)
"SEC. 129. Where, upon a hearing in a district court, or by a
judge thereof in vacation, an injunction is granted, continued, modi-
fied, refused, or dissolved by an interlocutory order or decree, or an
application to dissolve or modify an injunction is refused, or an
interlocutory order or decree is made appointing a receiver, or re-
fusing an order to wind up a pending receivership or to take the
appropriate steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as direct-
ing a sale or other disposal of property held thereunder, an appeal
may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree to the circuit
court of appeals; and sections 239 and 240 shall apply to such cases
in the circuit courts of appeals as to other cases therein: Provided,
That the appeal to the circuit court of appeals must be applied for
within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and shall
take precedence in the appellate court; and the proceedings in other
respects in the district court shall not be stayed during the pendency
of such appeal unless otherwise ordered by the court, or the appellate
court, or a judge thereof: Provided, however, That the district
court may, in its discretion, require an additional bond as a condition
of the appeal."
"SEC. 237. (a) A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest
court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is
drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of the United
States, and the decision is against its validity; or where is drawn,
in question the validity of a statute of any State, on the ground of
its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United
States, and the decision is in favor of its validity, may be reviewed
by the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. The writ shall have the
same effect as if the judgment or decree had been rendered or passed
in a court of the United States. The Supreme Court may reverse,
modify, or affirm the judgment or decree of such State court, and
may, in its discretion, award execution or remand the cause to the
court from which it was removed by the writ.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2171
"(b) It shall be competent for the Supreme Court, by certiorari,
to require that there be certified to it for review and determination,
with the same power and authority and with like effect as if brought
up by writ of error, any cause wherein a final judgment or decree
has been rendered or passed by the highest court of a State in which
a decision could be had where is drawn in question the validity of
a treaty or statute of the United States; or where is drawn in ques-
tion the validity of a statute of any State on the ground of its being
repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States;
or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up
or claimed by either party under the Constitution, or any treaty or
statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the
United States; and the power to review under this paragraph may
be exercised as well where the Federal claim is sustained as where
it is denied. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit or
detract from the right to a review on a writ of error in a case where
[p. 937]
such a right is conferred by the preceding paragraph; nor shall the
fact that a review on a writ of error might be obtained under the
preceding paragraph be an obstacle to granting a review on certiorari
under this paragraph.
" (c) If a writ of error be improvidently sought and allowed under
this section in a case where the proper mode of invoking a review
is by a petition for certiorari, this alone shall not be a ground for dis-
missal; but the papers whereon the writ of error was allowed shall
be regarded and acted on as a petition for certiorari and as if duly
presented to the Supreme Court at the time they were presented to
the court or judge by whom the writ of error was allowed: Provided,
That where in such a case there appears to be no reasonable ground
for granting a petition for certiorari it shall be competent for the
Supreme Court to adjudge to the respondent reasonable damages for
his delay, and single or double costs, as provided in section 1010 of
the Revised Statutes."
"SEC. 238. A direct review by the Supreme Court of an inter-
locutory or final judgment or decree of a district court may be had
where it is so provided in the following Acts or parts of Acts, and
not otherwise:
"(1) Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, 'to expedite the
hearing and determination' of certain suits brought by the United
States under the antitrust or interstate commerce laws, and so forth.
"(2) The Act of March 2, 1907, 'providing for writs of error in
certain instances in criminal cases' where the decision of the district
court is adverse to the United States.
-------
2172 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"(3) An Act restricting the issuance of interlocutory injunctions
to suspend the enforcement of the statute of a State or of an order
made by an administrative board or commission created by and acting
under the statute of a State, approved March 4, 1913, which Act is
hereby amended by adding at the end thereof, 'The requirement
respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final
hearing in such suit in the district court; and a direct appeal to the
Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying
a permanent injunction in such suit.'
"(4) So much of 'An Act making appropriations to supply urgent
deficiencies in appropriations for the fiscal year 1913, and for other
purposes,' approved October 22, 1913, as relates to the review of
interlocutory and final judgments and decrees in suits to enforce,
suspend, or set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission
other than for the payment of money.
"(5) Section 316 of 'An Act to regulate interstate and foreign com-
merce in livestock, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poul-
try products, and eggs, and for other purposes' approved August 15,
1921."
"SEC. 239. In any case, civil or criminal, in a circuit court of ap-
peals, or in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, the
court at any time may certify to the Supreme Court of the United
States any questions or propositions of law concerning which instruc-
tions are desired for the proper decision of the cause; and thereupon
the Supreme Court may either give binding instructions on the ques-
tions and propositions certified or may require that the entire record
in the cause be sent up for its consideration, and thereupon shall
decide the whole matter in controversy in the same manner as if it
had been brought there by writ of error or appeal."
"SEC. 240. (a) In any case, civil or criminal, in a circuit court of
appeals, or in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, it
shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States, upon
the petition of any party thereto, whether Government or other
litigant, to require by certiorari, either before or after a judgment
[p. 938]
or decree by such lower court, that the cause be certified to the Su-
preme Court for determination by it with the same power and au-
thority, and with like effect, as if the cause had been brought there
by unrestricted writ of error or appeal.
"(b) Any case in a circuit court of appeals where is drawn in
question the validity of a statute of any State, on the ground of its
being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United
States, and the decision is against its validity, may, at the election
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2173
of the party relying on such State statute, be taken to the Supreme
Court for review on writ of error or appeal; but in that event a
review on certiorari shall not be allowed at the instance of such
party, and the review on such writ of error or appeal shall be re-
stricted to an examination and decision of the Federal questions
presented in the case.
"(c) No judgment or decree of a circuit court of appeals or of the
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia shall be subject to re-
view by the Supreme Court otherwise than as provided in this
section."
SEC. 2. That cases in a circuit court of appeals under section 8 of
"An Act providing for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration in
controversies between certain employers and their employees," ap-
proved July 15, 1913; under section 5 of "An Act to create a Federal
Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other
purposes," approved September 26, 1914; and under section 11 of
"An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints
and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914,
are included among the cases to which sections 239 and 240 of the
Judicial Code shall apply.
SEC. 3. (a) That in any case in the Court of Claims, including
those begun under section 180 of the Judicial Code, that court at any
time may certify to the Supreme Court any definite and distinct
questions of law concerning which instructions are desired for the
proper disposition of the cause; and thereupon the Supreme Court
may give appropriate instructions on the questions certified and trans-
mit the same to the Court of Claims for its guidance in the further
progress of the cause.
(b) In any case in the Court of Claims, including those begun
under section 180 of the Judicial Code, it shall be competent for the
Supreme Court, upon the petition of either party, whether Govern-
ment or claimant, to require, by certiorari, that the cause, including
the findings of fact and the judgment or decree, but omitting the
evidence, be certified to it for review and determination with the
same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause had
been brought there by appeal.
(c) All judgments and decrees of the Court of Claims shall be
subject to review by the Supreme Court as provided in this section,
and not otherwise.
SEC. 4. That in cases in the district courts wherein they exercise
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims or adjudicate claims
against the United States the judgments shall be subject to review in
the circuit courts of appeals like other judgments of the district
courts; and sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code shall apply to
-------
2174 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such cases in the circuit courts of appeals as to other cases therein.
SEC. 5. That the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia shall
have the same appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over proceed-
ings, controversies, and cases in bankruptcy in the District of Co-
lumbia that a circuit court of appeals has over such proceedings,
controversies, and cases within its circuit, and shall exercise that
jurisdiction in the same manner as a circuit court of appeals is re-
quired to exercise it.
[p. 939]
1.6b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 362, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL COURTS
APRIL 7 (calendar day, APRIL 8), 1924.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. CUMMINS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2060]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 2060) to amend the Judicial Code, further to define the jurisdic-
tion of the circuit courts of appeal and of the Supreme Court, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with the recommendation that the bill do pass with an amendment.
Add to section 12, on page 15, the following proviso:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to any suit, action, or proceeding
brought by or against a corporation incorporated by or under an act of Congress
wherein the Government of the United States is the owner of more than one-half
its capital stock.
REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE COMPOSED OF SENATORS CUMMINS, CHAIRMAN, AND
SPENCER AND OVERMAN ON S. 2060
To the Judiciary Committee of the Senate:
The subcommittee appointed to consider Senate bill 2060 begs leave to report as
follows:
This bill has for its chief purposes the revision of the law relating to the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States and the circuit courts of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2175
appeal. There are some minor amendments to other jurisdictional statutes to
which reference will be made during the course of the report.
The bill was prepared by a committee of the members of the Supreme Court
after a long and careful study of the subject, at the suggestion of the American Bar
Association, and has the approval of every member of that court. This committee
also prepared a detailed analysis of the existing law creating the appellate juris-
diction of the Supreme Court and the circuit courts of appeal, referring with par-
ticularity to the statutes and pointing out the proposed amendments. This analysis
is printed in the hearings upon the bill, pages 6 to 20. That committee also prepared
a general review and comment upon the subject which is also printed in the hear-
ing, pages 20 to 24.
In view of the foregoing, your subcommittee invited Justices Van Devanter,
McReynolds, and Sutherland to appear before your subcommittee for the pur-
pose of explaining orally the bill, so that an opportunity might be afforded for
any questions that it might seem desirable to propound. The invitation was
[p. 1]
accepted, and the statements of these justices were reduced to writing and will
be found on pages 25 to 48 of the hearings.
Your subcommittee also invited Mr. Thomas W. Shelton, an eminent lawyer
of Norfolk, Va., to give us an expression of his views upon the bill. Mr. Shelton
is now and has been for many years chairman of the committee on uniformity
of judicial procedure of the American Bar Association, and his statements with
respect to this bill will be found on page 63 of the hearings.
It may be said at this point that the same subcommittee considered at the same
time Senate bill 2061, which covers a related subject, namely, the proposal to confer
upon the Supreme Court the authority to make rules for pleading, practice, and
procedure in common-law actions in the district courts of the United States.
Justice Sutherland and Mr. Shelton devoted themselves mainly to the latter bill,
upon which the subcommittee will make a separate report.
Justice Van Devanter and Justice McReynolds gave so clear an exposition of
the bill 2060 and the advantages which litigants in the Federal courts could enjoy
through its passage that we sincerely hope that every member of the Judiciary
Committee and, indeed every Member of the Senate, will read and study these
statements. The subcommittee could not improve upon these discussions of a
most important subject, and we would content ourselves with the reference to
the hearings already made were it not that we feel that a brief comment may
induce some members of the full committee to read the hearings who might
otherwise fail to do so.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is con-
ferred and governed by legislation which began in 1789 and ended with a very
recent session of Congress. It is not easy for the ordinary lawyer to ascertain just
what the legislation is, and it is exceedingly difficult to understand just what the
various statutes mean after they are laboriously discovered. This jurisdiction is
not a logical development, for the legislation which creates it has been unduced
from time to time by circumstances oftentimes temporary in their character and
which quickly disappeared. Plainly, the time has come when the whole subject
should be reviewed in the light of present conditions and the existing system of
Federal courts. Putting aside for the moment the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court over the judgments and decrees of the highest courts of the several
States, it will be helpful to have clearly in mind what our Federal system is.
We have one Supreme Court with nine justices. We have 9 circuit courts of
appeal with 33 circuit judges. We have 81 district courts in the United States with,
-------
2176 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
at the present time, 122 active district judges. We have one district in Alaska
which is divided into four judicial divisions with one Federal judge in each
division. We have one district court in Hawaii with two district judges. We have
a supreme court for the Territory of Hawaii with three judges. We have one
circuit court in Hawaii with five circuits and eight circuit judges. We have a
Court of Claims consisting of five judges. We have a Customs Court of Appeals
consisting of five judges. We have a Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
with six judges. We have a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia with
three judges. We have one district judge for the Virgin Islands, one for the Canal
Zone, and a United States District Court for China with one judge. In Porto
Rico we have the Supreme Court for Porto Rico with five judges and one district
judge. In the Philippines we have the Supreme Court of the Philippines with
nine judges. We have no district judge there, and appeals are taken directly to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
By many and devious routes some cases from all these tribunals can finally
reach the Supreme Court of the United States. It is beyond the power of the
human intellect to determine with certainty just what routes these cases must
travel to reach with safety the Supreme Court. To this chaos must be added the
appeals, writs of error, and writs of certiorari from 48 State tribunals, and it
puzzles the brain of the most skillful lawyer to determine whether his case must
go from the State tribunals to the Supreme Court by writ of error, appeal, or
certiorari. There is no civilized country in the world where the path to justice
is so hard to find, so long from its beginning to its end, and so expensive to travel
as in the United States.
With these preliminary observations and with the obvious remark that this
bill is not intended to reform the entire judicial procedure of the country, we
proceed to indicate just what this bill does so far as the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court is concerned. It removes all obligatory jurisdiction over the
judgments and decrees to the circuit courts of appeals. Cases from these courts
can only reach the Supreme Court by petition for the writ of certiorari or by
[P- 2]
certificate, as now provided, the field for both being somewhat enlarged. The
central thought is this, that litigants have, first, a trial in the district .court and
then, by appeal or writ of error, a trial in the circuit court of appeals—a court
that ranks as high or higher than the supreme tribunals of the States. It is our
belief that here ordinary litigation should end and that the cases should not go
to the Supreme Court of the United States unless the questions involved are of
grave public concern or unless serious uncertainty attends the decision of the
circuit court of appeals by reason of conflict in the rulings of these courts or
the courts of the States. It is believed that the right of the circuit courts to certify
questions to the Supreme Court and the right to file a petition for certiorari will
furnish ample opportunity for all cases to go from the circuit court of appeals to
the Supreme Court which ought to be heard by the latter tribunal.
With respect to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over decisions of the
courts of last resort in the States, it may be said that the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court is obligatory in all cases where is drawn in question the validity of a statute
or treaty of the United States and where the decision is against the validity and
in all cases where is drawn in question the validity of a State statute on the ground
of its being in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and in which the
decision is in favor of its validity. All the cases which involve other Federal
questions must, of course, be brought to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
As is well known, there are certain cases which, under the present law, may be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2177
taken directly from the district court to the Supreme Court. Without entering
into a description of these four classes of cases, it is sufficient to say that under the
existing law these are cases which must be heard by three judges, one of whom
is a circuit judge. The bill does not change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in such cases.
With respect to the Court of Claims, it is given the right to certify questions of
law precisely as a circuit court of appeals may certify such questions. In all other
cases, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must be invoked by
certiorari.
With respect to reviews of decisions of the Court of Customs Appeals the bill
makes no change in the present law.
With respect to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, it is enough
to say that the bill provides that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
is invoked in precisely the same way as it is invoked in the review of the judgments
and decisions of the circuit courts of appeal.
No substantial change is made with regard to the review of the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.
With respect to the decisions of the district courts in Porto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska,
the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and China it is sufficient to say that their
decisions are sent for review to certain circuit courts of appeal, most convenient to
litigants, and they reach the Supreme Court, if at all, in the same way as the
decisions of other district courts of the United States.
This is substantially the effect of the bill upon the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. The reasons for this substantial change in the present law must
now be briefly considered.
It may be assumed, we think, that no one will urge these modifications of the
law on the ground that they will promote the convenience of the courts. They
are brought forward solely in the interest of the people whom the courts serve, as a
part of the Government. They are intended to make the administration of justice
more certain, more uniform, more speedy, and less expensive. Considered from
the standpoint of litigants alone, although it is far from true that litigants only are
interested in the prompt and efficient administration of justice, this reform ought
to be accomplished.
First, because the Supreme Court under the present system can not dispose of
the cases brought before it with sufficient promptitude. Disregarding the cases
which under the various statutes are advanced for argument the ordinary case
is not decided for 12 or 14 months after the necessary papers are filed. In very
many instances this delay is a denial of justice, and a reference to the statement
of Justice Van Devanter, together with the tables which he presented, will show
conclusively that a large number of cases which fall within the obligatory juris-
diction of the court are taken there simply for delay. That is to say, to prevent
during that long period the execution of the judgment or decree to reverse which
the appeal or writ of error is prosecuted.
Again, many worthy cases fail because of the uncertainty which attends the
proper mode of reaching the Supreme Court. The method of invoking judicial
relief should be made just as plain as the English language can make it. Every
[p. 3]
failure to pursue the right path which results in a refusal to consider the real
point or points in controversy tends to destroy the confidence of the people in
their judicial tribunals. There never was a time when directness of expression
was more important than at the present moment.
The revision of the existing law relating to the appellate jurisdiction of the
-------
2178 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
circuit courts of appeal will be found in the amendments proposed to sections
128 and 129 of the Judicial Code, pages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the bill. It is not
thought necessary to review these amendments, because it is not believed that
there will be any controversy about them.
Section 12 of the bill presents a distinct subject relating to the jurisdiction of
the district courts of the United States. It is an enlargement of that provision
of the existing law which declares that no district court shall have jurisdiction
over suits brought by or against a railway corporation solely because it was
incorporated by or under an act of Congress. It is believed that this section
should be somewhat restricted, and your subcommittee proposes the following
amendment:
Add to the section—
"Provided, That this section shall not apply to any suit, action, or proceeding
brought by or against a corporation incorporated by or under an act of Congress
wherein the Government of the United States is the owner of more than one-half
its capital stock."
[p. 4]
1.6b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 1075, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. (1925)
JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND
OF THE SUPREME COURT
JANUARY 6, 1925.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. GRAHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8206]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
H.R. 8206, after hearings and consideration, report favorably thereon
with amendments, and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The committee amendments are as follows:
On page 2, line 11, strike out "Constituton" and insert "Constitu-
tion."
On page 5, in line 5, strike out "taken" and insert "applied for."
On page 8, after line 5, insert the following paragraph:
(5) Section 316 of "An act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in live-
stock, livestock products, dairy products, poultry, poultry products, and eggs,
and for other purposes," approved August 15, 1921.
On page 10, in line 11, strike out "writ of error or."
On page 11, in line 9, add the following sentence:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2179
A circuit judge shall have the same power to grant writs of habeas corpus
within his circuit that a district judge has within his district; and the order of the
circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district
wherein the restraint complained of is had.
On page 13, in line 5, insert between "Supreme Court" and "before
the court" the words "from a circuit court of appeals or the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia."
On page 13, between lines 8 and 9, insert two paragraphs as
follows:
(c) No writ of error or appeal intended to bring any judgment or decree before
a circuit court of appeals for review shall be allowed unless application therefor
be duly made within three months after the entry of such judgment or decree.
(d) In any case in which the final judgment or decree of any court is subject to
review by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, the execution and enforcement
of such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to enable the
party aggrieved to apply for and to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme
Court. The stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the judgment
or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may be conditioned on the
giving of good and sufficient security, to be approved by such judge or justice, that
[p.l]
if the aggrieved party fails to make application for such writ within the period
allotted therefor, or fails to obtain an order granting his application, or fails to
make his plea good in the Supreme Court, he shall answer for all damages and
costs which the other party may sustain by reason of the stay.
On page 17, above line 1, insert the following:
An act entitled "An act to amend section 237 of the Judicial Code," approved
February 17, 1922.
An act entitled "An act to amend the Judicial Code, in reference to appeals and
writs of error," approved September 14,1922.
On page 15, line 20, strike out "1916" and insert in lieu thereof
"1917."
THE BILL
It is one prepared by justices of the Supreme Court, not as volun-
teers, but in answer to a proper request to do so. A committee of
justices carefully considered the subject for a long time and then
framed a tentative measure, which was submitted to all the justices
and approved by them.
THE OBJECT
The bill is designed to lessen the number of cases which under
existing law reach the Supreme Court. It will not lighten the burden
or relieve the Supreme Court of work, but will remove from their
consideration a class of cases which now burden the docket and have
no public interest or value, and give the Supreme Court time to
-------
2180 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hear and determine those cases which should alone engage their
attention. That court is more than a year behind on its list of pend-
ing cases, and this condition will surely be aggravated each year if
the court is left without relief. It is hoped by this bill to enable the
court to overtake its work, and keep up with it. Having to hear
numbers of cases of a trivial character, or cases brought really for
delay, or to wear out an adversary, the court is hindered from hear-
ing and determining more important cases and from efficiently
functioning in the performance of its highest duty of interpreting
the Constitution and preserving uniformity of decision by the inter-
mediate courts of appeals.
The Supreme Court will always have plenty to do whether this bill
passes or not. The problem is whether the time and attention and
energy of the court shall be devoted to matters of large public con-
cern, or whether they shall be consumed by matters of less concern,
without especial general interest, and only because the litigant wants
to have the court of last resort pass upon his right.
Although final decisions will be multiplied in the intermediate
courts of appeals by this bill, if it shall become a law, yet every case
now reviewable by the Supreme Court under existing law will still
be reviewable by that tribunal whenever a question is presented
which is of sufficient importance in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The obligatory appeal and writ of error is limited, and a very broad
and comprehensive discretionary power is given by certiorari.
Through this discretionary power there can and will be a weeding
out of all trivial and unimportant cases; cases brought for delay;
cases which cover matters already decided, etc., so that rapidity of
action will be achieved; and the public questions—the vital and im-
portant ones—will be reviewed, considered, and decided.
[p. 2]
The change of many cases from the obligatory class to the certiorari
class will enable the court by a denial of the writ to give immediate
notice to the parties of the disposition of their cases. It will greatly
reduce the number of those who have to wait until their cases are
reached on the docket and relieve them of the needless suspense and
delay to which they are now subjected. The opportunity of taking
cases to the Supreme Court merely for delay will be almost entirely
removed.
Lest it should be thought that the increase of discretionary juris-
diction might impair the administration of justice and lead to partial
hearings and not secure a decision by the whole court, it is proper
to call attention to the very thorough and complete system by which
discretionary jurisdiction is exercised. In granting or refusing a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2181
prayer for a certiorari the petitioner gets the judgment of the whole
court. The application is not disposed of by a single justice. The
luminous and informing statement of Mr. Justice Van Devanter tells
the whole story:
While the authority of the Supreme Court to take cases on petition for certiorari
is spoken of as a discretionary jurisdiction, this does not mean that the court is
authorized merely to exercise a will in the matter, but rather that the petition is
to be granted or denied according to a sound judicial discretion. What actually
is done may well be stated here with some particularity. The party aggrieved
by the decision of the circuit court of appeals and seeking a further review in the
Supreme Court is required to present to it a petition and accompanying brief,
setting forth the nature of the case, what questions are involved, how they were
decided in the circuit court of appeals, and why the case should not rest on the
decision of that court. The petition and brief are required to be served on the
other party, and time is given for the presentation of an opposing brief. When
this has been done copies of the printed record as it came from the circuit court
of appeals and of the petition and briefs are distributed among the members of
the Supreme Court, and each judge examines them and prepares a memorandum
or note indicating his view of what should be done.
In conference these cases are called, each in its turn, and each judge states his
views in extenso or briefly as he thinks proper; and when all have spoken any dif-
ference in opinion is discussed and then a vote is taken. I explain this at some
length because it seems to be thought outside that the cases are referred to particu-
lar judges, as, for instance, that those coming from a particular circuit are referred
to the justice assigned to that circuit, and that he reports on them, and the others
accept his report. That impression is wholly at variance with what actually occurs.
We do not grant or deny these petitions merely according to a majority vote.
We always grant the petition when as many as four think that it should be granted
and sometimes when as many as three think that way. We proceed upon the
theory that, if that number out of the nine are impressed with the thought that
the case is one that ought to be heard and decided by us, the petition should be
granted.
PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUPREME COURT'S METHOD OF REVIEW
The great object of this bill is to reduce the number of cases in
which there is an appeal or writ of error as of right, and increase
those in which only a certiorari or a certificate can bring the case
before the Supreme Court.
The courts over which the Supreme Court in this bill exercise a
direct review are:
First. The State supreme courts.
Second. The district courts of the United States.
Third. The circuit courts of appeal.
Fourth. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Fifth. Court of Claims.
[p. 3]
Sixth. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
-------
2182 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The only cases in the proposed bill in which the Supreme Court
exercises obligatory jurisdiction—that is, by writ of error or appeal—
are:
First. Over the final judgments or decrees of State courts of last
resort.
(a) In cases in which the validity of the statute of a State under
the Federal Constitution has been drawn in question and its validity
sustained.
(b) Where the validity of a Federal statute or treaty has been
drawn in question and its validity denied.
Second. In four special classes of cases from the district court,
which are:
(a) Appeals from decrees in equity in suits brought by the United
States to enforce the antitrust or interstate commerce acts.
(b) Writs of error in criminal cases brought by the United States
to judgments of the district courts in which the United States has
been defeated by a ruling of the district court, and where the de-
fendant has not been exposed to jeopardy or acquitted by a verdict
of the jury.
(c) Appeals from interlocutory injunctions against enforcement
of State statutes by any officer of the State, or against the exercise
of an authority of a board acting under a State statute.
(d) Appeals from interlocutory and final decrees of injunction
and suspension of orders of Interstate Commerce Commission in
district courts.
In all other cases, to wit, (a) final judgments in the State supreme
courts which involve Federal constitutional questions other than
those above mentioned; (b) all cases in the circuit courts of appeals;
(c) all cases in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia;
(d) all cases in the Court of Claims; and (e) certain classes of cases
from the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the only method of re-
view is either by certiorari from the Supreme Court, or (except from
the Philippines) by certificate by the inferior court of questions.
Writs of certiorari to State supreme courts, to the Court of Claims,
and to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, can only issue after
final judgments in those courts. Such writs may issue to circuit
courts of appeals and to the Court of Appeals of the District of Co-
lumbia, before or after judgment, but if before judgment, the applica-
tion must be made before the hearing and submission in those courts.
It is impossible to estimate how many cases these changes will
transfer from the obligatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as it
is under existing law, to the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, but it will be such a substantial number as greatly to help the
court to catch up with its docket and to keep up with it thereafter.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2183
JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
We come now to the present and the proposed jurisdiction of the
circuit courts of appeal, from which we can get some idea of the
change in the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of cases
from the circuit court of appeals. Under the present law, the circuit
court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction in respect to all cases from
[p. 4]
the district court, except the four instances of direct appeal to the
Supreme Court already mentioned, as still retained in the proposed
bill, and also except in cases in which appeal can now be taken from
the district court directly to the Supreme Court, on the sole question
of jurisdiction of the district court as a Federal court, on a question
involving the construction and application of the Constitution of the
United States, or the construction of a treaty and in prize cases, and
in suits therein against the United States for claims not exceeding
$10,000 under what is known as the Tucker Act, a jurisdiction of the
district courts concurrent with that of the Court of Claims. The new
bill abolishes this direct review of the Supreme Court in all these
except the four instances first mentioned and makes them subject to
review by writ of error or appeal in the circuit court of appeals, and
thence they are only reviewable by certiorari or certificate in the
Supreme Court.
EXISTING LAW AS TO REVIEW OF CASES IN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
Circuit courts of appeal now have final appellate jurisdiction in all
cases from the district courts wherein the amount involved does not
exceed $1,000, in diverse citizenship cases, in patent cases, in copy-
right cases, in revenue cases, in criminal cases, in admiralty cases,
in trade-mark cases, and in bankruptcy proceedings, controversies,
and cases, in cases under the employers' liability act, in cases under
the hour of service act and cases under the safety appliance act,
and also in habeas corpus cases. These can under existing law only
reach the Supreme Court by certiorari or certificate. In all other
cases coming up to the circuit court of appeals from the district
courts, there is, by existing law, an appeal or writ of error as of right
to the Supreme Court.
WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS FROM CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS TO THE
SUPREME COURT CUT OFF BY THE BILL
Just what cases may, by existing law, be taken to the Supreme
Court from the circuit court of appeals by writ of error or appeal it
is difficult to state in a brief way. Section 24 of the Judicial Code
contains a list of 25 classes of civil suits that are cognizable by district
-------
2184 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
courts of the United States and are reviewable by the circuit court of
appeals. They embrace suits so rarely brought as to be regarded
as nearly obsolete, e.g., "suits arising under any law relating to the
slave trade." On the other hand, they do include such classes as civil
suits.
(1) Brought by the United States, or by any officer thereof au-
thorized by law to sue.
(2) Between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants
from different States.
(3) Where more than $3,000 is involved and the suit arises under
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
(4) Seizures on land or waters not within admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction.
(5) Cases arising under the postal laws.
(6) Suits and proceedings under any law regulating commerce,
except such as may be covered by special statutes already mentioned.
(7) Civil suits and proceedings for enforcement of penalties and
forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States.
[p. 5]
(8) Suits for damages by officers and persons for injury done him
in protection or collection of United States revenue or to enforce
right of citizens to vote.
(9) Suits for damages by citizens injured in their Federal constitu-
tional rights.
(10) Suits against consuls and vice consuls.
(11) Suits under immigration and contract labor laws.
(12) Private suits under the antitrust act.
(13) Suits by Indians or part blood Indians for allotment under
any law or treaty.
(14) Suits by tenants in common or joint tenant for partition of
land in which the United States is also tenant in common or joint
tenant.
All these cases can now be heard in review by the circuit court of
appeals and then in the Supreme Court as of right, unless, as may
happen, they are also patent, revenue, criminal, or admiralty cases, or
in some other class now made final in the circuit court of appeals.
Under the proposed bill, the decisions in them in the circuit court of
appeals are to be final and they can only reach the Supreme Court
by certiorari or certificate.
REVIEW OF COURTS OF ALASKA AND DEPENDENCIES
Under existing law, appellate jurisdiction over the courts of our
dependencies (except those of the Philippines), and over the district
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2185
court of the Territory of Alaska, and over the United States court for
China, is distributed between first, third, fifth, and ninth circuit
courts of appeals. Cases from the Supreme Courts of Hawaii and
Porto Rico, as distinguished from United States district courts, so
called therein, are now reviewable in the Supreme Court of the
United States when they present questions similar to those which are
reviewable in that court from State courts of last resort; and some
cases from the district court of Alaska also go to the Supreme Court
direct. All these cases from the dependencies, from Alaska, and
from the United States Court for China, under the new bill, which
are reviewable at all, no matter what they involve, are to be carried
by appeal or writ or error to the designated circuit court of appeals.
This final jurisdiction of circuit courts of appeals under the new bill
includes Porto Rico, Hawaii, both supreme and district courts, the
District Court of the Virgin Islands, the Court of the Canal Zone, the
United States Court for China, and the United States District Court
for Alaska. The review of these is final in the designated circuit
court of appeals, except that there is the same opportunity for review
by certiorari and certificate in the Supreme Court as in other cases
in such circuit courts of appeals. A few changes have been made in
the limit of the pecuniary amount involved in cases which may be
appealed from these dependency and territorial courts, for the pur-
pose of uniformity, but this is not important.
EFFECT OF BILL ON REVIEW OF CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
All cases from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia are,
by the proposed law, appealable to the Court of Appeals of the Dis-
trict, including all forms of cases, controversies, and proceedings in
[p. 6]
bankruptcy and cases in habeas corpus, and the judgments of the
Court of Appeals of the District are final therein, to be reviewed by
the Supreme Court only by certiorari and certificate.
EFFECT OF BILL ON REVIEW OF CASES FROM COURT OF CLAIMS
The decisions of the Court of Claims are final, only to be reviewed
in the Supreme Court by certiorari or certificate.
REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
In addition to these changes in jurisdiction, there are in the pro-
posed bill some remedial amendments of a general character.
First. The time for application for writ of error or appeal or
certiorari to the Supreme Court has been enlarged from the present
limit of three months, and six months for the Philippines, by a pro-
-------
2186 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
vision for a further allowance of 60 days upon order of a justice of the
Supreme Court upon a proper showing.
Second. There is a reenactment of the present remedial provision
as to parol proof of amount in controversy, where it is necessary for
the jurisdiction and is not adequately shown either in the trial court
or in the appellate court.
Third. There is the remedial provision that if a man takes out a
writ or error when he should have taken out an appeal, or vice versa,
it shall be considered by the court to be a right writ. This is at
present the law; but in addition to this it is provided that where one
takes out a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States
to a State supreme court, and it turns out that it should have been
a certiorari, the writ of error may be considered by the court as an
application for certiorari and acted upon as such.
Fourth. There is a very necessary remedial provision for the sub-
stitution in suits in the Supreme Court for public officers who have
ceased to be such, of their successors, as parties in suits brought by
them or against them. This is now the case with respect to officers
of the United States; but it is not the case with respect to officers of
the States, of the counties, or of the municipalities who are plaintiffs
or defendants in the Supreme Court. This is a great injustice, be-
cause one may begin a suit in a district court of the United States
against officers of a State, county, or city, or such officers may bring
a suit therein, and not reach the Supreme Court for review before
their successors have been elected. Now, no substitution can be
made, the case abates, and the action goes for nothing. Under this
provision, the new State, county, and city officers may be substituted
after notice to them and if such substitution is shown not to work
them injustice.
Fifth. There is another provision that takes away all rights of
corporations organized by Congress to seek the Federal court on that
ground. This enlarges a present provision of a similar tenor which
applies only to railway corporations.
THE WAY OF APPEAL WILL CEASE TO BE A "TRAP"
Besides the relief of the Supreme Court docket, and turning aside
a large number of cases from that court and making the decisions of
the circuit courts of appeals final in many cases and only reviewable
[p. 7]
by certiorari—this bill should become a law because it clarifies and
makes understandable the law governing appeal whether by writ of
error, appeal, or certiorari.
It was well said by the Chief Justice at the hearing that the present
laws are a "trap" in procedure.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2187
This bill will simplify the law of appellate jurisdiction, relieve
lawyers and litigants of uncertainties and perils which can not always
be avoided even by the well-equipped and trained practitioner.
The statutes fixing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the
circuit courts of appeals are to-day fragmentary. They are scattered.
Some are in the Revised Statutes of 1878; some in the Judicial Code
of 1911; and others consist of amendments appearing here and there
in many volumes of the Statutes at Large. They are difficult to find
and when found are neither harmonious nor plain. Mr. Justice Van
Devanter very forcefully pictured this state of the law when he said
in the hearing:
The circuit courts of appeals act passed in 1891, besides denning the jurisdiction
of those courts, contained many provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. Most of these provisions and many amendatory enactments
were brought together advantageously in the Judicial Code of 1911. But that was
not a complete revision. It left some statutes, old ones, untouched and did not
bring them forward; so no one could examine the Judicial Code and act safely
merely upon what appeared there. It would be necessary to go back and search
the Revised Statutes and the intermediate Statutes at Large to determine what
course to pursue in invoking a review by either a circuit court of appeals or the
Supreme Court. Not only so, but the statutes when found left it uncertain in
some classes of cases in the district courts whether the case could be carried
directly to the Supreme Court or must go to the circuit court of appeals.
Since the Judicial Code of 1911 many statutes have been enacted which bear
upon the jurisdiction of these courts—a statute would be adopted at one time with
respect to one class of cases, and another statute would be adopted at another
time with respect to another class. These statutes have been multiplied until
now they are not harmonious. Neither do they follow a consistent plan or theory.
The situation now is that in the Supreme Court a good many cases have to be
dismissed, their merits left untouched, because they have been brought there
from a district court when they should have gone to a circuit court of appeals,
or because they have been brought from a circuit court of appeals on writ of
error or appeal when they could come up only on certiorari, or because they have
been brought from a State court on writ of error where certiorari was the only
admissible mode of bringing them up.
These mistakes are generally attributable to the fact that the practitioner has
found a part of the statutes and not the rest. Sometimes the mistake is mere
carelessness; but it not infrequently happens that lawyers who stand high in
their profession at home mistake their remedy or the mode of invoking it either
because they do not find the controlling statute or because they have difficulty
in reconciling it with others.
Your committee expresses its deep obligation to the Chief Justice
and justices of the Supreme Court for their help not only in preparing
this bill but explaining it thoroughly.
The proposed legislation was recommended by the President in his
message of December 3, 1924, to the Congress.
[p-8]
-------
2188
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.6b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 66 (1925)
1.6b(3)(a) Feb. 2: Amended and passed House, p. 2880
Mr. DENISON. On page 2 legislation
is provided for appeals from the District
Court of the Canal Zone. I want to ask
the chairman of the committee if this
bill changes the present law with refer-
ence to appeals from the District Court
of the Canal Zone?
Mr. GRAHAM. No. It is the same as
it is now, except that no review of a
judgment in the Canal Zone can be had
except by petition of certiorari.
Mr. DENISON. What I want to know
is to what extent and in what way it
changes the existing law with reference
to the Canal Zone?
Mr. GRAHAM. It does not change
the existing law.
Mr. DENISON. If it does not, that
answers the question.
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, was read the third
time, and passed.
[p. 2880]
1.6b(3) (b) Feb. 3: Amended and passed Senate, p. 2928
JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
AND SUPREME COURT
The Senate, as in Committee of the
Whole, resumed the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 8206) to amend the Judicial
Code, and to further define the juris-
diction of the circuit courts of appeals
and of the Supreme Court, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is still before the Senate as in Commit-
tee of the Whole and open to amend-
ment. If there be no further amendment
proposed, the bill will be reported to the
Senate.
The bill was reported to the Senate as
amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on concurring in the amend-
ment made as in Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am op-
posed to certain features of this bill.
I have listened to the discussion here in
which the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUM-
MINS], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
REED], and the Senator from Montana
[Mr. WALSH] have taken part. I do not
think it is right to withdraw from the
citizen the right to appeal to the highest
courts in the land if he wants to appeal.
For a Supreme Court judge to say to any
citizen, I care not how humble he may
be, simply that he can not appeal a case
involving his rights, that he can not and
will not be heard, it seems to me is
wrong.
I understand that out of some 115
cases that came here the Supreme Court
decided that a mistake was made in ap-
pealing eighty-odd cases. I submit that
if one man's rights were preserved and
safeguarded the court in that action
served a just purpose and it could well
afford to consider 100 to 200 cases if
necessary, in order to do justice by even
one American citizen.
I do not want our Supreme Court
judges to be overworked, but I, for one,
think more of the rights of the citizen
under the organic law of the land than
I do of any effort to lessen their work and
provide for the comfort and convenience
of the Supreme Court judges.
The Bible tells us that it were better
that 90 guilty persons go free than that
1 innocent man should suffer. Of the
number of cases mentioned here in de-
bate that have gone up to the Supreme
Court, some 15 or 20 were held to be
cases of merit and property appealed. If
I felt in the lower court that I had not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2189
had a fair deal I would want the higher
court to pass on the questions involved
and tell me whether I was right or
wrong in my contention.
I am not ready to surrender the aver-
age citizen's right to appeal and accept in
its stead discretionary power given to
judges of the Supreme Court.
This bill has some good provisions in
it. I am in favor of simplifying methods
of procedure and improving the practice
in every safe way that I can, but I can
not conscientiously vote for a measure
that I think has in it a provision that will
deny to the citizen the absolute and un-
qualified right to appeal to the highest
court in the country. This bill, in my
judgment, has such a provision in it.
Mr. President, I want to enter my pro-
test against legislation that will vitally
affect the citizen's right to appeal. If
we are not careful and watchful the day
will come when the highest court in this
land will be open to nobody but the
immensely rich and the great corporate
concerns of the country. The humble
citizen in the common walks of life will
not be able to reach the high court if we
are going to permit judges who may be
looking for the least work possible and
for longer periods of leisure to lay down
rules and regulations by which a citizen
is to lose his right to carry certain cases
from the lower courts to the highest
court.
Because of this objectionable and dan-
gerous provision I shall vote against the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on concurring in the amend-
ment made as in Committee of the
Whole.
The amendment was concurred in.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a third
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is, Shall the bill pass?
So the bill was passed.
[p. 2928]
1.6b(3) (c) Feb. 4: House concurs in Senate amendments, p. 3005
JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS AND OF THE SUPREME COURT
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the bill (H.R. 8206) to amend the
Judicial Code and to further define the
jurisdiction of the circuit courts of ap-
peals and of the Supreme Court, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amend-
ment thereto, and move to concur in
the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield
two minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BLANTON] .
Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, the last
bill that was agreed to a moment ago
had all after the enacting clause stricken
out by the Senate, and then a reenacting
of our 19 pages of language with one
little change. We still have a 19 page
bill, but it has become a Senate instead
of a House bill. The Senate has stricken
out every word of our bill after the
enacting clause and has then put back
all of the language of our bill, embrac-
ing nearly 20 pages, except two little
changes. Why was that necessary?
Some of the best lawyers in the Nation
are on this Judiciary Committee of the
House. Are they not able to write a bill
that can be passed into law without its
being stricken out? Why is it that every
bill we pass in the House and send to
another body, regardless of its size and
the number of its pages, has to have all
of it stricken out after the enacting
clause and practically the same language
put back into it page after page, with
just a few changes? Why do they not
insert their amendments in our House
bills? I am protesting against their
practice. It ought not to be continued.
If a bill which we send to the other body
is meritorious but needs a little change,
-------
2190
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the change ought to be made by their
amendments; they ought not to rewrite
word for word our entire bill, and they
ought not to require us to read 19 pages
of matter which they insert and which
they send back to us to find out the
changes they have made. It puts double
work on the committee and it puts dou-
ble work on the membership of the
House and I hope that they will stop it.
[Applause.]
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. JONES. What changes did the
Senate make in the bill?
Mr. GRAHAM. They made one
change to meet the objection of the gen-
tleman from Illinois [Mr. DENISON],
made at the time we passed the bill. I
had given a promise that I would help
him introduce any change that might be
necessary to properly safeguard what
he was seeking. He went to the com-
mittee of judges and the matter was
agreed on, and two amendments were
inserted, and then there was one formal
amendment inserted by the Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr. WALSH. Other-
wise the bill is exactly the same as it
passed the House.
Mr. JONES. What was the other
amendment?
Mr. GRAHAM. The Judiciary Com-
mittee considered it and have authorized
concurrence in the amendments of the
Senate, unanimously.
Mr. JONES. I understand the amend-
ment that the gentleman from Illinois
referred to, in respect to the jurisdiction
of the Panama Canal, but what does
the other amendment refer to?
Mr. GRAHAM. I can not point it out
as I have not the bill before me, but it is
a simple change. It does not involve
any organic change or even an important
change. It was inserted to satisfy the
objection of Senator WALSH.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the Senate amendment.
The Senate amendment was agreed to.
[p. 3005]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2191
1.6c AN ACT IN REFERENCE TO WRITS OF ERROR
January 31, 1928, P.L. 70-10, §1, 45 Stat. 54
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the writ of
error in cases, civil and criminal, is abolished. All relief which
heretofore could be obtained by writ of error shall hereafter be
obtainable by appeal.
[p. 54]
1.6c(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 370, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (1928)
IN REFERENCE TO WRITS OF ERROR
JANUARY 24, 1928.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. DYER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1801]
The Committee on the Judiciary to whom was referred the bill
S. 1801, after hearing (67th Cong., serial 25, p. 18) and consideration,
reports the same favorably and recommends that the bill do pass.
This bill is merely to simplify procedure by abolishing writs of
error and providing that the relief which heretofore could be ob-
tained by writ of error shall hereafter be obtainable by appeal. It has
been repeatedly indorsed by the American Bar Association.
[p. 1]
-------
2192
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.6c(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 69 (1928)
1.6c(2)(a) Jan. 14: Passed Senate, p. 1486
WRITS OF ERROR
The bill (S. 1801) in reference to writs
of error was considered as in Committee
of the Whole, and was read, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the writ of error
in cases, civil and criminal, is abolished. All
relief which heretofore could be obtained by
writ of error shall hereafter be obtainable by
appeal.
Mr. WALSH of Montana. I may say
that this is a bill recommended by the
American Bar Association for the pur-
pose of simplifying the practice of getting
appeals into the Supreme Court of the
United States.
The bill was reported to the Senate
without amendment, ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed.
[p. 1486]
1.6c(2) (b) Jan. 25: Passed House, p. 2040
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.6d 1934 AMENDMENTS TO 1893 ACT
June 7, 1934, P.L. 73-298, 48 Stat. 926
AN ACT To amend an Act of Congress approved February 9,1893, entitled "An Act
to establish a court of appeals for the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the court
established by the Act of February 9, 1893 (27 Stat. 434), entitled
"An Act to establish a court of appeals for the District of Columbia,
and for other purposes", shall hereafter be known as the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Approved, June 7, 1934.
[p. 926]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2193
1.6d(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 917, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APRIL 26 (calendar day, MAY 7), 1934.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. KING, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3524]
The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration
the bill (S. 3524) to amend an act of Congress approved February 9,
1893, entitled "An act to establish a court of appeals for the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes", report the same favorably to
the Senate and recommend that the bill do pass.
The sole purpose of this bill is to correct a misnomer in the title of
the court. The present title—"Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia"—implies that the court is merely an appellate court for
matters arising in the District of Columbia. It has such local appel-
late jurisdiction, but in addition its national jurisdiction is broader
than that of any other national court except the Supreme Court of the
United States. Among the national questions being constantly con-
sidered by this court are those involving the Transportation Act and
the Interstate Commerce Act; mandamus proceedings in relation to
Indian treaties; equity proceedings in relation to public lands; pro-
ceedings for the enforcement of the postal laws; suits against the
Federal Power Commission; suits against the Civil Service Com-
mission; suits against the Alien Property Custodian; suits against the
Federal Trade Commission; title to patented public lands; appeals
from the Board of Tax Appeals without relation to the residence of
the taxpayer; proceedings under War Veterans' Act; proceedings in
relation to irrigation projects; proceedings in relation to cancelation
of mineral and oil leases; proceedings in relation to the admission of
aliens; the enrollment of Indians; suits under the antitrust laws; and
appeals from the Radio Commission.
[p. 1]
-------
2194 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.6d(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.K. REP. No. 1748, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY 23, 1934.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9437]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 9437) to amend an act approved February 9, 1893, "An act to
establish a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes," after consideration, report the same favorably to
the House with recommendation that the bill do pass.
This bill changes the name of the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia to "The United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia". It is felt that this change in name will help to correct
an erroneous impression which is frequently found to exist among the
laity, and the bar as well, that this court is simply a local court of the
District of Columbia, whereas, in fact, it is a United States court with
extensive national jurisdiction in addition to its jurisdiction as an
appellate court of the District of Columbia.
As pointed out by Mr. Justice Groner, one of the five members of
the court, the court deals with many questions which have no relation
to the District of Columbia. These involve the Transportation Act
and the Interstate Commerce Act; mandamus proceedings in relation
to Indian treaties; equity proceedings in relation to public lands;
proceedings for the enforcement of the postal laws; suits against the
Federal Power Commission; suits against the Civil Service Commis-
sion; suits against the Alien Property Custodian; suits against the
Federal Trade Commission; title to patented public lands; appeals
from the Board of Tax Appeals without relation to the residence of
the taxpayer; proceedings under War Veterans' Act; proceedings in
relation to irrigation projects; proceedings in relation to cancelation
of mineral and oil leases; proceedings in relation to the admission of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2195
aliens; the enrollment of Indians; suits under the antitrust laws; and
appeals from the Radio Commission.
[P-1]
Mr. Justice Groner's communication addressed to the Chairman of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which your committee is
advised expresses the views of the court, follows:
APRIL 25, 1934.
Hon. WILLIAM H. KING,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR KING: I enclose the bill making the change of name in the
Court of Appeals which Judge Van Orsdel and I spoke to you about this morning,
and I wish again to thank you for your assurance that you would introduce it
tomorrow morning and have it acted on by the Judiciary Committee to which
you will have it referred next Monday. As the session will soon be over, the
element of time is of great importance.
The sole purpose of the bill is to correct a misnomer in the title of the court.
It creates no new office, adds no jurisdiction, and has no other purpose than that
mentioned above, but this is an important purpose, and its lack of notice hereto-
fore has been the cause of great misunderstanding on the part of the bar of the
importance of the court and its part in the Federal judicial system. It is an appel-
late court for matters arising in the District of Columbia, just as the Supreme
Court of Utah is for matters arising in Utah, but this is only a part of its juris-
diction and is the least part. Its national jurisdiction is broader than that of any
other national court, except the Supreme Court of the United States. For instance,
questions with no relation to the District of Columbia but entirely national in
their scope are constantly arising. These involve the Transportation Act and the
Interstate Commerce Act; mandamus proceedings in relation to Indian treaties;
equity proceedings in relation to public lands; proceedings for the enforcement
of the postal laws; suits against the Federal Power Commission; suits against the
Civil Service Commission; suits against the Alien Property Custodian; suits against
the Federal Trade Commission; title to patented public lands; appeals from the
Board of Tax Appeals without relation to the residence of the taxpayer; proceed-
ings under War Veterans' Act; proceedings in relation to irrigation projects;
proceedings in relation to cancelation of mineral and oil leases; proceedings in
relation to the admission of aliens; the enrollment of Indians; suits under the anti
trust laws; and appeals from the Radio Commission.
The Supreme Court in a number of cases has declared the court is a court of
the United States. (See Benson v. Henkle, 198 U.S. 1; James v. United States,
202 U.S. 407, 408.) In the recent case of O'Donoghue v. United States (289 U.S.
516, 551), the Supreme Court said of the Court of Appeals: "It is a constitutional
court of the United States." And in another part of the same opinion (p. 545)
said of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia: "We
take the true rule to be that they are courts of the United States, vested generally
with the same jurisdiction as that possessed by the interior Federal courts located
elsewhere in respect of the cases enumerated in section 2 of article III." And in
Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner (274 U.S. 145, 154), the Supreme Court said:
"The courts of the District of Columbia are Federal courts of the United States."
And in the same case (p. 156): "The parallelism between the Supreme Court of
the District and the Court of Appeals of the District, on the one hand, and the
district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other,
-------
2196
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
* * * is complete." Many acts of Congress also refer to the courts as "courts
of the United States."
If you will pardon a personal reference, Attorney General Mitchell told me,
as an inducement to leave the United States District Court for Virginia to come
to the Court of Appeals, that as a result of his 4 years as Solicitor General and
his experiences as Attorney General he was of opinion that the Court of Appeals
was, after the Supreme Court of the United States, the most important Federal
court in the country. He was speaking, of course, from the viewpoint of its general
Federal jurisdiction, and this of course grows out of its location at the seat of
government.
The dignity of the court and its appeal to the highest grade lawyers in the
country when vacancies occur make the correction of this misnomer important,
and I very earnestly urge that you will take the matter under your consideration
to the end that it may be accomplished before the session ends.
Finally, may I add this statement? This court disposes of more cases each year
than any other Circuit Court of Appeals except the second (New York), and the
court is now up to date with its docket and the time required for a hearing after
the filing of the appeal is from 3 to 4 months, dependent upon the time required
for printing records and filing briefs.
Yours very cordially,
D. LAWRENCE GROWER.
[p. 2]
The Attorney General states that he has no objection to the pro-
posed change of name. A communication received by the chairman
of the committee from the Attorney General in this connection
follows:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C. May 7,1934.
Hon. HATTON W. SUMNERS,
Chairman Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.
My DEAK MR. CHAIRMAN: I have your letter of May 3 in which you request my
comment on H.R. 9437, a bill to change the name of the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
In reply I wish to say that I know of no objection to the proposed change.
Sincerely yours,
HOMER CUMMINGS, Attorney General.
[P. 3]
1.6d(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 78 (1934)
1.6d(3) (a) May 10: Passed Senate, p. 8479
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 3524) to amend an act of Con-
gress approved February 9, 1893, en-
titled "An act to establish a court of
appeals for the District of Columbia, and
for other purposes."
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The
report states that the object in changing
the name of this court?
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I was re-
quested to introduce this bill by the
judges of the court. It changes the name
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2197
from the "Court of Appeals of the Dis-
trict of Columbia" to the "United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia."
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The
report states that the present title "Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia"
implies that the court is merely an apel-
late court for matters arising in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, whereas it exercises
other jurisdiction.
Mr. KING. Exactly.
Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I have
no objection.
Mr. KING. Much of the business of
the court comes now from outside the
District, and therefore its duties are of a
broader nature than implied by the
name, "Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia."
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the court estab-
lished by the act of February 9, 1893 (27 Stat.
434), entitled "An act to establish a court of
appeals for the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes", shall hereafter be known as
the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.
[p. 8479]
1.6d(3)(b) June 5: Passed House, p. 10537
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for
the present consideration of the bill (S.
3524) to amend an act of Congress ap-
proved February 9, 1893, entitled "An
act to establish a court of appeals for
the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Senate bill is as follows:
Be it enacted, etc , That the court estab-
lished by the act of February 9, 1893 (27 Stat.
434), entitled "An act to establish a court of
appeals for the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes", shall hereafter be known as
the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.
The bill was ordered to be read the
third time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider and
a similar House bill (H.R. 9437) were
laid on the table.
[p. 10537]
-------
2198 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.7 DAVIS-BACON ACT, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. §§276a
276a-5 (1964)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1158(g)]
(See, "General 1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history)
§ 276a. Rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
(a) The advertised specifications for every contract in excess of
$2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a
party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including paint-
ing and decorating, of public buildings or public works of the
United States or the District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union, or the District of Columbia, and
which requires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or
laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to
be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be
based upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of
Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers
and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the
contract work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision
of the State, in which the work is to be performed, or in the Dis-
trict of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and every
contract based upon these specifications shall contain a stipula-
tion that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all mechan-
ics and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work,
unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without
subsequent deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts
accrued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between
the contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics,
and that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the con-
tractor in a prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the
work; and the further stipulation that there may be withheld from
the contractor so much of accrued payments as may be con-
sidered necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and
mechanics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on
the work the difference between the rates of wages required by
the contract to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and the
rates of wages received by such laborers and mechanics and not
refunded to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
(b) As used in sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title the term
"wages", "scale of wages", "wage rates", "minimum wages", and
"prevailing wages" shall include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2199
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third per-
son pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontractor
which may be reasonably anticipated in providing bene-
fits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an enforcible
commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan
or program which was communicated in writing to the
laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and
sickness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and
holiday pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other
similar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but
only where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as sections 276a to 276a—
5 of this title and other Acts incorporating sections 276a to 276a—
5 of this title by reference are concerned may be discharged by
the making of payments in cash, by the making of contributions
of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by the assumption
of an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a plan or pro-
gram of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or any combina-
tion thereof, where the aggregate of any such payments, con-
tributions, and costs is not less than the rate of pay described in
paragraph (1) plus the amount referred to in paragraph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premium
rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed to be
the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where the
amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with respect
to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him under sec-
tions 276a to 276a—5 of this title, such regular or basic hourly
rate of pay (or such other alternative rate) shall be arrived at by
deducting from the amount of payments, contributions, or costs
actually incurred with respect to him, the amount of contributions
or costs of the types described in paragraph (2) actually incurred
-------
2200 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
with respect to him, or the amount determined under paragraph
(2) but not actually paid, whichever amount is the greater.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 1, 46 Stat. 1494; Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49
Stat. 1011; June 15, 1940, c. 373, § 1, 54 Stat. 399; July 12, 1960,
Pub.L. 86-624, § 26, 74 Stat. 418; July 2, 1964, Pub.L. 88-349, § 1,
78 Stat. 238.
§ 276a—1. Termination of work on failure to pay agreed wages;
completion of work by Government
Every contract within the scope of sections 276a to 276a—5 of
this title shall contain the further provision that in the event it is
found by the contracting officer that any laborer or mechanic
employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly on the
site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being paid
a rate'of wages less than the rate of wages required by the con-
tract to be paid as aforesaid, the Government may, by written
notice to the contractor, terminate his right to proceed with the
work or such part of the work as to which there has been a failure
to pay said required wages and to prosecute the work to comple-
tion by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and his sureties
shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs occasioned
the Government thereby.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 2, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—2. Payment of wages by Comptroller General from
withheld payments; listing contractors violating contracts
(a) The Comptroller General of the United States is authorized
and directed to pay directly to laborers and mechanics from any
accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics pursuant to sec-
tions 276a to 276a—5 of this title; and the Comptroller General
of the United States is further authorized and is directed to dis-
tribute a list to all departments of the Government giving the
names of persons or firms whom he has found to have disregarded
their obligations to employees and subcontractors. No contract
shall be awarded to the persons or firms appearing on this list or
to any firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such
persons or firms have an interest until three years have elapsed
from the date of publication of the list containing the names of
such persons or firms.
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the
contract, as aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics, with respect to whom there has been a failure to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2201
pay the wages required pursuant to sections 276a to 276a—5 of
this title, such laborers and mechanics shall have the right of
action and/or of intervention against the contractor and his
sureties conferred by law upon persons furnishing labor or ma-
terials, and in such proceedings it shall be no defense that such
laborers and mechanics accepted or agreed to accept less than the
required rate of wages or voluntarily made refunds.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 3, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—3. Effect on other Federal laws
Sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise granted by Federal
law to provide for the establishment of specific wage rates.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 4, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—4. Effective date of sections 276a to 276a—5
Sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall take effect thirty
days after August 30, 1935, but shall not affect any contract then
existing or any contract that may thereafter be entered into pur-
suant to invitations for bids that are outstanding on August 30,
1935.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 5, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—5. Suspension of sections 276a to 276a—5 during
emergency
In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of sections 276a to 276a—5 of this
title.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 6, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
-------
2202 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.8 PER DIEM, TRAVEL, AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES;
EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS; INDIVIDUALS SERVING
WITHOUT PAY, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. §5703 (1966)
[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)
PER DIEM, TRAVEL, AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES;
EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS; INDIVIDUALS SERV-
ING WITHOUT PAY
5 § 5703
(a) For the purpose of this section, "appropriation" includes
funds made available by statute under section 849 of title 31.
(b) An individual employed intermittently in the .Government
service as an expert or consultant and paid on a daily when-
actually-employed basis may be allowed travel expenses under this
subchapter while away from his home or regular place of busi-
ness, including a per diem allowance under this subchapter while
at his place of employment.
(c) An individual serving without pay or at $1 a year may be
allowed transportation expenses under this subchapter and a per
diem allowance under this section while en route and at his place
of service or employment away from his home or regular place
of business. Unless a higher rate is named in an appropriation or
other statute, the per diem allowance may not exceed—
(1) the rate of $25 for travel inside the continental United
States; and
(2) the rates established under section 5702 (a) of this title
for travel outside the continental United States.
(d) Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of this
title, the head of the agency concerned may prescribe conditions
under which an individual to whom this section applies may be
reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of the trip, not
to exceed an amount named in the travel authorization, when the
maximum per diem allowance would be much less than these ex-
penses due to the unusual circumstances of the travel assignment.
The amount named in the travel authorization may not exceed—
(1) $40 for each day in a travel status inside the conti-
nental United States; or
(2) the maximum per diem allowance plus $18 for each day
in a travel status outside the continental United States.
Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 499, amended Pub.L. 91-
114, § 2, Nov. 10,1969, 83 Stat. 190.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2203
1.9 1909 BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY BETWEEN CANADA
AND THE UNITED STATES AND THE WATER UTILIZA-
TION TREATY OF 1944 BEWEEN MEXICO AND THE UNITED
STATES, 36 STAT. 2448 (1909), 59 STAT. 1219 (1944)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1160(d) (2)]
1909 BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY
BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES
Treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to
boundary waters between the United States and Canada. Signed
at Washington, January 11, 1909; ratification advised by the
Senate, March 3, 1909; ratified by the President, April 1, 1910;
ratified by Great Britain, March 31, 1910; ratification ex-
changed at Washington, May 5, 1910; proclaimed, May 13,
1910.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A Proclamation.
Whereas a Treaty between the United States of America and
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor
of India, to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters
and to settle all questions which are now pending between the
United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights,
obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the
inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, and to
make provision for the adjustment and settlement of all such
questions as may hereafter arise, was concluded and signed by
their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington on the eleventh
day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nine, the original
of which Treaty is word for word as follows:
The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, being equally de-
sirous to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters
and to settle all questions which are now pending between the
United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights,
obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the
inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, and to
make provision for the adjustment and settlement of all such
questions as may hereafter arise, have resolved to conclude a
treaty in furtherance of these ends, and for that purpose have
appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root,
Secretary of State of the United States; and
-------
2204 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honorable James Bryce, 0. M.,
his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Washing-
ton;
Who, after having communicated to one another their full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the
following articles:
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE.
For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as
the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers
and connecting waterways, or the portions thereof, along which
the international boundary between the United States and the
Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms, and inlets
thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural
channels would flow into such lakes, rivers and waterways, or
the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.
ARTICLE I.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all
navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open
for the purposes of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships,
vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to
any laws and regulations of either country, within its own terri-
tory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and
applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants,
ships, vessels, and boats of both countries.
It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in
force, this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of
Lake Michigan and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and
now existing or which may hereafter be constructed on either
side of the line. Either of the High Contracting Parties may adopt
rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its
own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all
such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike
to the subjects or citizens of the High Contracting Parties and the
ships, vessels, and boats of both of the High Contracting Parties,
and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.
ARTICLE II.
Each of the High Contracting Parties reserves to itself or to the
several State Governments on the one side and the Dominion or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2205
Provincial Governments on the other as the case may be, subject
to any treaty provisions now existing with respect thereto, the
exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion,
whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of
the line which in their natural channels would flow across the
boundary or into boundary waters; but it is agreed that any inter-
ference with or diversion from their natural channel of such
waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any injury on
the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights
and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such
injury took place in the country where such diversion or inter-
ference occurs; but this provision shall not apply to cases already
existing or to cases expressly covered by special agreement be-
tween the parties hereto.
It is understood, however, that neither of the High Contracting
Parties intends by the foregoing provision to surrender any right,
which it may have, to object to any interference with or diver-
sions of waters on the other side of the boundary the effect of
which would be productive of material injury to the navigation
interests on its own side of the boundary.
ARTICLE III.
It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diver-
sions heretofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special
agreement between the Parties hereto, no further or other uses
or obstructions or diversions, whether temporary or permanent,
of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the natural
level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall
be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion
of Canada within their respective jurisdictions and with the ap-
proval, as hereinafter provided, of a joint commission, to be
known as the International Joint Commission.
The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere
with the existing rights of the Government of the United States
on the one side and the Government of the Dominion of Canada
on the other, to undertake and carry on governmental works in
boundary waters for the deepening of channels, the construction
of breakwaters, the improvement of harbors, and other govern-
mental works for the benefit of commerce and navigation, pro-
vided that such works are wholly on its own side of the line and
do not materially affect the level or flow of the boundary waters
-------
2206 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
on the other, nor are such provisions intended to interfere with the
ordinary use of such waters for domestic and sanitary purposes.
ARTICLE IV.
The High Contracting Parties agree that, except in cases pro-
vided for by special agreement between them, they will not permit
the construction or maintenance on their respective sides of the
boundary of any remedial or protective works or any dams or other
obstructions in waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters
at a lower level than the boundary in rivers owing across the
boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of
waters on the other side of the boundary unless the construction
or maintenance thereof is approved by the aforesaid International
Joint Commission.
It is further agreed that the waters herein denned as boundary
waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be
polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the
other.
ARTICLE V.
The High Contracting Parties agree that it is expedient to limit
the diversion of waters from the Niagara River so that the level
of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably
affected. It is the desire of both Parties to accomplish this object
with the least possible injury to investments which have already
been made in the construction of power plants on the United States
side of the river under grants of authority from the State of New
York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses author-
ized by the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario.
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the
waters of the Niagara River above the Falls from the natural
course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the pur-
poses and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion
within the State of New York of the waters of said river above the
Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggre-
gate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty thousand cubic feet
of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Prov-
ince of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within
the Province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the
Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2207
gate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thousand cubic feet
of water per second.
The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of
water for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of
canals for the purposes of navigation.
ARTICLE VI.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the St. Mary and Milk
Rivers and their tributaries (in the State of Montana and the
Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan) are to be treated as one
stream for the purposes of irrigation and power, and the waters
thereof shall be apportioned equally between the two countries,
but in making such equal apportionment more than half may be
taken from one river and less than half from the other by either
country so as to afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further
agreed that in the division of such waters during the irrigation
season, between the 1st of April and 31st of October, inclusive,
annually, the United States is entitled to a prior appropriation of
500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk River, or so
much of such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural
flow, and that Canada is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500
cubic feet per second of the flow of St. Mary River, or so much of
such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow.
The channel of the Milk River in Canada may be used at the
convenience of the United States for the conveyance, while pass-
ing through Canadian territory, of waters diverted from the St.
Mary River. The provisions of Article II of this treaty shall apply
to any injury resulting to property in Canada from the conveyance
of such waters through the Milk River.
The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used
by each country shall from time to time be made jointly by the
properly constituted reclamation officers of the United States and
the properly constituted irrigation officers of His Majesty under
the direction of the International Joint Commission.
ARTICLE VII.
The High Contracting Parties agree to establish and maintain
an International Joint Commission of the United States and
Canada composed of six commissioners, three on the part of the
United States appointed by the President thereof, and three on
the part of the United Kingdom appointed by His Majesty on
-------
2208 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the Dominion
of Canada.
ARTICLE VIII.
This International Joint Commission shall have jurisdiction over
and shall pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or
diversion of the waters with respect to which under Articles III
and IV of this treaty the approval of this Commission is re-
quired, and in passing upon such cases the Commission shall be
governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted by
the High Contracting Parties for this purpose:
The High Contracting Parties shall have, each on its own side
of the boundary, eoual and similar rights in the use of the waters
hereinbefore defined as boundary waters.
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the
various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no
use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or
restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this
order of precedence:
(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the
purposes of navigation;
(3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any exist-
ing uses of boundary waters on either side of the boundary.
The requirement for an equal division may in the discretion of
the Commission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions
along boundary waters at points where such equal division can
not be made advantageously on account of local conditions, and
where such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the amount
available for use on the other side.
The Commission in its discretion may make its approval in any
case conditional upon the construction of remedial or protective
works to compensate so far as possible for the particular use or
diversion proposed, and in such cases may require that suitable
and adequate provision, approved by the Commission, be made for
the protection and indemnity against injury of any interests on
either side of the boundary.
In cases involving the elevation of the natural level of waters on
either side of the line as a result of the construction or mainte-
nance on the other side of remedial or protective works or dams
or other obstructions in boundary waters or in waters flowing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2209
therefrom or in waters below the boundary in rivers flowing across
the boundary, the Commission shall require, as a condition of its
approval thereof, that suitable and adequate provision, approved
by it, be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on
the other side of the line which may be injured thereby.
The majority of the Commissioners shall have power to render
a decision. In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any
question or matter presented to it for decision, separate reports
shall be made by the Commissioners on each side to their own
Government. The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon en-
deavor to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter of
difference, and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall
be reduced to writing in the form of a protocol, and shall be com-
municated to the Commissioners who shall take such further
proceedings as may be necessary to carry out such agreement.
ARTICLE IX.
The High Contracting Parties further agree that any other
questions or matters of difference arising between them involving
the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the
other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier
between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, shall be
referred from time to time to the International Joint Commission
for examination and report, whenever either the Government of
the United States or the Government of the Dominion of Canada
shall request that such questions or matters of difference be so
referred. <•;
The International Joint Commission is authorized in each case
so referred to examine into and report upon the facts and circum-
stances of the particular questions and matters referred, to-
gether with such conclusions and recommendations as may be
appropriate, subject, however, to any restrictions or exceptions
which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the
reference.
Such reports of the Commission shall not be regarded as deci-
sions of the questions or matters so submitted either on the facts
or the law, and shall in no way have the character of an arbitral
award.
The Commission shall make a joint report to both Governments
in all cases in which all or a majority of the Commissioners agree,
and in case of disagreement the minority may make a joint report
-------
2210 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of both Governments, or separate reports to their respective
Governments.
In case the Commission is evenly divided upon any question or
matter referred to it for report, separate reports shall be made by
the Commissions on each side to their own Government.
ARTICLE X.
Any questions or matters of difference arising between the High
Contracting Parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests
of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada either in rela-
tion to each other or to their respective inhabitants, may be
referred for decision to the International Joint Commission by the
consent of the two Parties, it being understood that on the part
of the United States any such action will be by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's
Government with the consent of the Governor General in Council.
In each case so referred, the said Commission is authorized to ex-
amine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the
particular questions and matters referred, together with such
conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject,
however, to any restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed
with respect thereto by the terms of the reference.
A majority of the said Commission shall have power to render a
decision or finding upon any of the questions or matters so
referred.
If the said Commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to
render a decision or finding as to any questions or matters so
referred, it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to make a joint
report to both Governments, or separate reports to their respec-
tive Governments, showing the different conclusions arrived at
with regard to the matters or questions so referred, which ques-
tions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the
High Contracting Parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth para-
graphs of Article XLV of The Hague Convention for the pacific
settlement of international disputes, dated October 18, 1907. Such
umpire shall have power to render a final decision with respect to
those matters and questions so referred on which the Commission
failed to agree.
ARTICLE XI.
A duplicate original of all decisions rendered and joint reports
made by the Commission shall be transmitted to and filed with the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2211
Secretary of State of the United States and the Governor General
of the Dominion of Canada, and to them shall be addressed all
communications of the Commission.
ARTICLE XII.
The International Joint Commission shall meet and organize at
Washington promptly after the members thereof are appointed,
and when organized the Commission may fix such times and
places for its meetings as may be necessary, subject at all times to
special call or direction by the two Governments. Each Commis-
sioner, upon the first joint meeting of the Commission after his
appointment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the Com-
mission, make and subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that
he will faithfully and impartially perform the duties imposed upon
him under this treaty, and such declaration shall be entered on
the records of the proceedings of the Commission.
The United States and Canadian sections of the Commission
may each appoint a secretary, and these shall act as joint secre-
taries of the Commission at its joint sessions, and the Commission
may employ engineers and clerical assistants from time to time
as it may deem advisable. The salaries and personal expenses of
the Commission and of the secretaries shall be paid by their
respective Governments, and all reasonable and necessary joint
expenses of the Commission, incurred by it, shall be paid in equal
moieties by the High Contracting Parties.
The Commission shall have power to administer oaths to wit-
nesses, and to take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary
in any proceeding, or inquiry, or matter within its jurisdiction
under this treaty, and all parties interested therein shall be given
convenient opportunity to be heard, and the High Contracting
Parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate and
necessary to give the Commission the powers above mentioned on
each side of the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas
and for compelling the attendance of witnesses in proceedings
before the Commission. The Commission may adopt such rules
of procedure as shall be in accordance with justice and equity, and
may make such examination in person and through agents or
employees as may be deemed advisable.
ARTICLE XIII.
In all cases where special agreements between the High Con-
tracting Parties hereto are referred to in the foregoing articles,
-------
2212 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such agreements are understood and intended to include not only
direct agreements between the High Contracting Parties, but also
any mutual arrangements between the United States and the
Dominion of Canada expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legis-
lation on the part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion.
ARTICLE XIV.
The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty. The ratifica-
tions shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible and
the treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange of its
ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years, dating from the
day of exchange of ratifications, and thereafter until terminated
by twelve months' written notice given by either High Contract-
ing Party to the other.
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed
this treaty in duplicate and have hereunto afixed their seals.
Done at Washington the llth day of January, in the year of
our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nine.
ELIHU ROOT [SEAL]
JAMES BRYCE [SEAL]
And whereas the Senate of the United States by their resolu-
tion of March 3, 1909, (two-thirds of the Senators present con-
curring therein) did advise and consent to the ratification of the
said Treaty with the following understanding, to wit:
"Resolved further, as a part of this ratification, That the United
States approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing
in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing, any
existing territorial or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the
owners of lands under water, on either side of the international
boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's river at Sault Ste. Marie,
in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the
requirements of navigation in boundary waters and of navigation
canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the United
States and Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Mary's river,
within its own territory and further, that nothing in this treaty
shall be constructed to interfere with the drainage of wet swamp
and overflowed lands into streams flowing into boundary waters,
and that this interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification
of this treaty as coveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will,
in effect, form part of the treaty;"
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2213
And whereas the said understanding has been accepted by the
Government of Great Britain, and the ratifications of the two Gov-
ernments of the said treaty were exchanged in the City of Wash-
ington, on the 5th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and
ten;
Now, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, Presi-
dent of the United States of America, have caused the said treaty
and the said understanding, as forming a part thereof, to be made
public, to the end that the same and every article and clause
thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the
United States and the citizens thereof.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused
the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this thirteenth day of May in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
[SEAL] ten, and of the Independence of the United States of
America the one hundred and thirty-fourth.
WM H TAFT
By the President:
P C KNOX
Secretary of State.
Protocol of Exchange
On preceeding to the exchange of the ratification of the treaty
signed at Washington on January 11, 1909, between the United
States and Great Britain, relating to boundary waters and ques-
tions arising along the boundary between the United States and
the Dominion of Canada, the undersigned plenipotentiaries, duly
authorized thereto by their respective Governments, hereby de-
clare that nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting,
or changing, any existing territorial, or riparian rights in the
water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side
of the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Mary's
River at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over
such lands, subject to the requirements of navigation in boundary
waters and of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the
existing right of the United States and Canada, each to use the
waters of the St. Mary's River, within its own territory; and
further, that nothing in this treaty shall be construed to inter-
fere with the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed lands into
streams flowing into boundary waters, and also that this declara-
tion shall be deemed to have equal force and effect as the treaty
itself and to form an integral part thereto.
-------
2214 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The exchanges of ratifications then took place in the usual form.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, they have signed the present Pro-
tocol of Exchange and have affixed their seals thereto.
DONE at Washington this 5th day of May, one thousand nine
hundred ten.
PHILANDER C KNOX [SEAL]
JAMES BRYCE [SEAL]
WATER UTILIZATION TREATY OF 1944 BETWEEN
MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES
Treaty betioeen the United States of America and Mexico respect-
ing utilization of waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and
of the Rio Grande. Signed at Washington February 3, 1944-
And protocol signed at Washington November 14, 1944. Ratifi-
cation advised by the Senate of the United States of America
April 18, 1945, subject to certain understandings; ratified by
the President of the United States of America November 1,
1945, subject to said understandings; ratified by Mexico Octo-
ber 16, 1945; ratifications exchanged at Washington November
8, 1945; proclaimed by the President of the United States of
America November 27, 1945, subject to said understandings;
effective November 8, 1945.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A Proclamation
Whereas a treaty between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States relating to the utilization of the waters
of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers, and of the Rio Grande (Rio
Bravo) from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, was
signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries in Washington on
February 3, 1944, and a protocol supplementary to the said treaty
was signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries in Washington
on November 14, 1944, the originals of which treaty and protocol,
in the English and Spanish languages, are word for word as
follows:
The Government of the United States of America and the Gov-
ernment of the United Mexican States: animated by the sincere
spirit of cordiality and friendly cooperation which happily governs
the relations between them; taking into account the fact that
Articles VI and VII of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Limits
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2215
between the Urited States of America and the United Mexican
States signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1948, and Ar-
ticle IV of the boundary treaty between the two countries signed
at the City of Mexico December 30, 1853 regulate the use of the
waters of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River for
purposes of navigation only; considering that the utilization of
these waters for other purposes is desirable in the interest of both
countries, and desiring, moreover, to fix and delimit the rights
of the two countries with respect to the waters of the Colorado
and Tijuana Rivers, and of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from
Fort Quitman, Texas, United States of America, to the Gulf of
Mexico, in order to obtain the most complete and satisfactory
utilization thereof, have resolved to conclude a treaty and for
this purpose have named as their plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States of America:
Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States of
America, George S. Messersmith, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America in Mexico, and
Lawrence M. Lawson, United States Commissioner, International
Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico; and
The President of the United Mexican States:
Francisco Castillo Najera, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United Mexican States in Washington, and
Rafael Fernandez MacGregor, Mexican Commissioner, Interna-
tional Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico; who, hav-
ing communicated to each other their respective Full Powers
and having found them in good and due form, have agreed upon
the following:
I—PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1
For the purposes of this Treaty it shall be understood that:
(a) "The United States" means the United States of America.
(b) "Mexico" means the United Mexican States.
(c) "The Commission" means the International Boundary and
Water Commission, United States and Mexico, as described in
Article 2 of this Treaty.
(d) "To divert" means the deliberate act of taking water
from any channel in order to convey it elsewhere for storage, or
to utilize it for domestic, agricultural, stock-raising or industrial
purposes whether this be done by means of dams across the
-------
2216 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
channel, partition weirs, lateral intakes, pumps or any other
methods.
(e) "Point of diversion" means the place where the act of
diverting the water is effected.
(f) "Conservation capacity of storage reservoirs" means that
part of their total capacity devoted to holding and conserving the
water for disposal thereof as and when required, that is, capacity
additional to that provided for silt retention and flood control.
(g) "Flood discharges and spills" means the voluntary or in-
voluntary discharge of water for flood control as distinguished
from releases for other purposes.
(h) "Return flow" means that portion of diverted water that
eventually finds its way back to the source from which it was
diverted.
(i) "Release" means the deliberate discharge of stored water
for conveyance elsewhere or for direct utilization.
(j) "Consumptive use" means the use of water by evapora-
tion, plant transpiration or other manner whereby the water is
consumed and does not return to its source of supply. In gen-
eral it is measured by the amount of water diverted less the part
thereof which returns to the stream.
(k) "Lowest major international dam or reservoir" means the
major international dam or reservoir situated farthest down-
stream.
(1) "Highest major international dam or reservoir" means the
major international dam or reservoir situated farthest upstream.
ARTICLE 2
The International Boundary Commission established pursuant
to the provisions of the Convention between the United States
and Mexico signed in Washington March 1, 1889 to facilitate the
carrying out of the principles contained in the Treaty of Novem-
ber 12, 1884 and to avoid difficulties occasioned by reason of the
changes which take place in the beds of the Rio Grande (Rio
Bravo) and the Colorado River shall hereafter be known as the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, which shall continue to function for the entire period
during which the present Treaty shall continue in force. Accord-
ingly, the term of the Convention of March 1, 1889 shall be con-
sidered to be indefinitely extended, and the Convention of Novem-
ber 21, 1900 between the United States and Mexico regarding that
Convention shall be considered completely terminated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2217
The application of the present Treaty, the regulation and exer-
cise of the rights and obligations which the two Governments
assume thereunder, and the settlement of all disputes to which
its observance and execution may give rise are hereby entrusted
to the International Boundary and Water Commission, which shall
function in conformity with the powers and limitations set forth
in this Treaty.
The Commission shall in all respects have the status of an
international body, and shall consist of a United States Section
and a Mexican Section. The head of each Section shall be an Engi-
neer Commissioner. Wherever there are provisions in this Treaty
for joint action or joint agreement by the two Governments, or
for the furnishing of reports, studies or plans to the twro Gov-
ernments, or similar provisions, it shall be understood that the
particular matter in question shall be handled by or through the
Department of State of the United States and the Ministry of
Foreign Relations of Mexico.
The Commission or either of its two Sections may employ such
assistants and engineering and legal advisers as it may deem
necessary. Each Government shall accord diplomatic status to
the Commissioner, designated by the other Government. The
Commissioner, two principal engineers, a legal adviser, and a
secretary, designated by each Government as members of its
Section of the Commission, shall be entitled in the territory of the
other country to the privileges and immunities appertaining to
diplomatic officers. The Commission and its personnel may freely
carry out their observations, studies and field work in the territory
of either country.
The jurisdiction of the Commission shall extend to the limit-
rophe parts of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado
River, to the land boundary between the two countries, and to
works located upon their common boundary, each Section of the
Commission retaining jurisdiction over that part of the works
located within the limits of its own country. Neither Section shall
assume jurisdiction or control over works located within the limits
of the country of the other without the express consent of the
Government of the latter. The works constructed, acquired or
used in fulfillment of the provisions of this Treaty and located
wholly within the territorial limits of either country, although
these works may be international in character, shall remain, ex-
cept as herein otherwise specifically provided, under the exclusive
jurisdiction and control of the Section of the Commission in whose
country the works may be situated.
-------
2218 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The duties and powers vested in the Commission by this Treaty
shall be in addition to those vested in the International Boundary
Commission by the Convention of March 1, 1889 and other per-
tinent treaties and agreements in force between the two countries
except as the provisions of any of them may be modified by the
present Treaty.
Each Government shall bear the expenses incurred in the main-
tenance of its Section of the Commission. The joint expenses,
which may be incurred as agreed upon by the Commission, shall
be borne equally by the two Governments.
ARTICLE 3
In matters in which the Commission may be called upon to
make provision for the joint use of international waters, the fol-
lowing order of preferences shall serve as a guide:
1. Domestic and municipal uses.
2. Agriculture and stock-raising.
3. Electric power.
4. Other industrial uses.
5. Navigation.
6. Fishing and hunting.
7. Any other beneficial uses which may be determined by the
Commission.
All of the foregoing uses shall be subject to any sanitary meas-
ures or works which may be mutually agreed upon by the two
Governments, which hereby agree to give preferential attention
to the solution of all border sanitation problems.
II—RIO GRANDE (RIO BRAVO)
ARTICLE 4
The waters of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) between Fort Quit-
man, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico are hereby allotted to the two
countries in the following manner:
A. To Mexico:
(a) All of the waters reaching the main channel of the Rio
Grande (Rio Bravo) from the San Juan and Alamo Rivers,
including the return flow from the lands irrigated from the
latter two rivers.
(b) One-half of the flow in the main channel of the Rio
Grande (Rio Bravo) below the lowest major international
storage dam, so far as said flow is not specifially allotted un-
der this Treaty to either of the two countries.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2219
(c) Two-thirds of the flow reaching the main channel of
the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Conchos, San Diego,
San Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las Vacas
Arroyo, subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c) of
paragraph B of this Article.
(d) One-half of all other flows not otherwise allotted by
this Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande
(Rio Bravo), including the contributions from all the un-
measured tributaries, which are those not named in this
Article, between Fort Quitman and the lowest major inter-
national storage dam.
B. To the United States:
(a) All of the waters reaching the main channel of the
Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Pecos and Devils Rivers,
Goodenough Spring, and Alamito, Terlingua, San Felipe and
Pinto Creeks.
(b) One-half of the flow in the main channel of the Rio
Grande (Rio Bravo) below the lowest major international
storage dam, so far as said flow is not specifically allotted
under this Treaty to either of the two countries.
(c) One-third of the flow reaching the main channel of
the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from the Conchos, San Diego,
San Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers and the Las Vacas
Arroyo, provided that this third shall not be less, as an aver-
age amount in cycles of five consecutive years, than 350,000
acre-feet (431,721,000 cubic meters) annually. The United
States shall not acquire any right by the use of the waters
of the tributaries named in this subparagraph, in excess of
the said 350,000 acre-feet (431,721,000 cubic meters) an-
nually, except the right to use one-third of the flow reaching
the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from said tributaries, although
such one-third may be in excess of that amount.
(d) One-half of all other flows not otherwise allotted by
this Article occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande
(Rio Bravo), including the contributions from all the un-
measured tributaries, which are those not named in this
Article, between Fort Quitman and the lowest major inter-
national storage dam.
In the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the
hydraulic systems on the measured Mexican tributaries, making
it difficult for Mexico to make available the run-off of 350,000 acre-
feet (431,721,000 cubic meters) annually, allotted in subparagraph
-------
2220 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(c) of paragraph B of this Article to the United States as the
minimum contribution from the aforesaid Mexican tributaries,
any deficiencies existing at the end of the aforesaid five-year cycle
shall be made up in the following five-year cycle with water from
the said measured tributaries.
Whenever the conservation capacities assigned to the United
States in at least two of the major international reservoirs, in-
cluding the highest major reservoir, are filled with waters belong-
ing to the United States, a cycle of five years shall be considered
as terminated and all debits fully paid, whereupon a new five-
year cycle shall commence.
ARTICLE 5
The two Governments agree to construct jointly, through their
respective Sections of the Commission, the following works in
the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo):
I. The dams required for the conservation, storage and regula-
tion of the greatest quantity of the annual flow of the river in a
way to ensure the continuance of existing uses and the develop-
ment of the greatest number of feasible projects, within the limits
imposed by the water allotments specified.
II. The dams and other joint works required for the diversion
of the flow of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo).
One of the storage dams shall be constructed in the section be-
tween Santa Helena Canyon and the mouth of the Pecos River;
one in the section between Eagle Pass and Laredo, Texas (Piedras
Negras and Nuevo Laredo in Mexico) ; and a third in the section
between Laredo and Roma, Texas (Nuevo Laredo and San Pedro
de Roma in Mexico). One or more of the stipulated dams may be
omitted, and others than those enumerated may be built, in either
case as may be determined by the Commission, subject to the
approval of the two Governments.
In planning the construction of such dams the Commisson shall
determine:
(a) The most feasible sites;
(b) The maximum feasible reservoir capacity at each site;
(c) The conservation capacity required by each country at each
site, taking into consideration the amount and regimen of its
allotment of water and its contemplated uses;
(d) The capacity required for retention of silt;
(e) The capacity required for flood control.
The conservation and silt capacities of each reservoir shall be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2221
assigned to each country in the same proportion as the capacities
required by each country in such reservoir for conservation pur-
poses. Each country shall have an undivided interest in the flood
control capacity of each reservoir.
The construction of the international storage dams shall start
within two years following the approval of the respective plans
by the two Governments. The works shall begin with the con-
struction of the lowest major international storage dam, but
works in the upper reaches of the river may be constructed
simultaneously. The lowest major international storage dam shall
be completed within a period of eight years from the date of the
entry into force of this Treaty.
The construction of the dams and other joint works required
for the diversion of the flows of the river shall be initiated on the
dates recommended by the Commission and approved by the two
Governments.
The cost of construction, operation and maintenance of each of
the international storage dams shall be prorated between the two
Governments in proportion to the capacity allotted to each country
for conservation purposes in the reservoir at such dam.
The cost of construction, operation and maintenance of each of
the dams and other joint works required for the diversion of the
flows of the river shall be prorated between the two Governments
in proportion to the benefits which the respective counties receive
therefrom, as determined by the Commission and approved by the
two Governments.
ARTICLE 6
The Commission shall study, investigate, and prepare plans for
flood control works, where and when necessary, other than those
referred to in Article 5 of this Treaty, on the Rio Grande (Rio
Bravo) from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. These
works may include levees along the river, floodways and grade-
control structures, and works for the canalization, rectification
and artificial channeling of reaches of the river. The Commission
shall report to the two Governments the works which should be
built, the estimated cost thereof, the part of the works to be con-
structed by each Government, and the part of the works to be
operated and maintained by each Section of the Commission.
Each Government agrees to construct, through its Section of the
Commission, such works as may be recommended by the Com-
mission and approved by the two Governments. Each Govern-
-------
2222 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment shall pay the costs of the works constructed by it and the
costs of operation and maintenance of the part of the works as-
signed to it for such purpose.
ARTICLE 7
The Commission shall study, investigate and prepare plans for
plants for generating hydro-electric energy which it may be feasi-
ble construct at the international storage dams on the Rio Grande
(Rio Bravo). The Commission shall report to the two Govern-
ments in a Minute the works which should be built, the estimated
cost thereof, and the part of the works to be constructed by each
Government. Each Government agrees to construct, through its
Section of the Commission, such works as may be recommended
by the Commission and approved by the two Governments. Both
Governments, through their respective Sections of the Commis-
sion, shall operate and maintain jointly such hydroelectric plants.
Each Government shall pay half the cost of the construction, op-
eration and maintenance of such plants, and the energy generated
shall be assigned to each country in like proportion.
ARTICLE 8
The two Governments recognize that both countries have a
common interest in the conservation and storage of waters in the
international reservoirs and in the maximum use of these struc-
tures for the purpose of obtaining the most beneficial, regular
and constant use of the waters belonging to them. Accordingly,
within the year following the placing in operation of the first of
the major international storage dams which is constructed, the
Commission shall submit to each Government for its approval,
regulations for the storage, conveyance and delivery of the waters
of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) from Fort Quitman, Texas to the
Gulf of Mexico. Such regulations may be modified, amended or
supplemented when necessary by the Commission, subject to the
approval of the two Governments. The following general rules
shall severally govern until modified or amended by agreeemnt of
the Commission, with the approval of the two Governments:
(a) Storage in all major international reservoirs above the
lowest shall be maintained at the maximum possible water level,
consistent with flood control, irrigation use and power require-
ments.
(b) Inflows to each reservoir shall be credited to each country
in accordance with the ownership of such inflows.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2223
(c) In any reservoir the ownership of water belonging to the
country whose conservation capacity therein is filled, and in ex-
cess of that needed to keep it filled, shall pass to the other country
to the extent that such country may have unfilled conservation
capacity, except that one country may at its option temporarily
use the conservation capacity of the other country not currently
being used in any of the upper reservoirs; provided that in the
event of flood discharge or spill occurring while one country is
using the conservation capacity of the other, all of such flood
discharge or spill shall be charged to the country using the other's
capacity, and all inflow shall be credited to the other country until
the flood discharge or spill ceases or until the capacity of the other
country becomes filled with its own water.
(d) Reservoir losses shall be charged in proportion to the
ownership of water in storage. Releases from any reservoir shall
be charged to the country requesting them, except that releases
for the generation of electrical energy, or other common purpose,
shall be charged in proportion to the- ownership of water in
storage.
(e) Flood discharges and spills from the upper reservoirs shall
be divided in the same proportion as the ownership of the inflows
occurring at the time of such flood discharges and spills, except
as provided in subparagraph (c) of this Article. Flood discharges
and spills from the lowest reservoir shall be divided equally ex-
cept that one country, with the consent of the Commission, may
use such part of the share of the other country as is not used
by the latter country.
(f) Either of the tw~ countries may avail itself, whenever it so
desires, of any water belonging to it and stored in the interna-
tional reservoirs, provided that the water so taken is for direct
beneficial use or for storage in other reservoirs. For this purpose
the Commissioner of the respective country shall give appropriate
notice to the Commission, which shall prescribe the proper meas-
ures for the opportune furnishing of the water.
ARTICLE 9
(a) The channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) may be used
by either of the two countries to convey water belonging to it.
(b) Either of the two countries may, at any point on the main
channel of the river from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of
Mexico, divert and use the water belonging to it and may for this
purpose construct any necessary works. However, no such diver-
-------
2224 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sion or use, not existing on the date this Treaty enters into force,
shall be permitted in either country, nor shall works be con-
structed for such purpose, until the Section of the Commission
in whose country the diversion or use is proposed has made a
finding that the water necessary for such diversion or use is avail-
able from the share of that country, unless the Commission has
agreed to a greater diversion or use as provided by paragraph
(d) of this Article. The proposed use and the plans for the diver-
sion works to be constructed in connection therewith shall be
previously made known to the Commission for its information.
(c) Consumptive uses from the main stream and from the un-
measured tributaries below Fort Quitman shall be charged against
the share of the country making them.
(d) The Commission shall have the power to authorize either
country to divert and use water not belonging entirely to such
country, when the water belonging to the other country can be
diverted and used without injury to the latter and can be re-
placed at some other point on the river.
(e) The Commission shall have the power to authorize tem-
porary diversion and use by one country of water belonging to
the other, when the latter does not need it or is unable to use it,
provided that such authorization or the use of such water shall
not establish any right to continue to divert it.
(f) In case of the occurrence of an extraordinary drought in
one country with an abundant supply of water in the other coun-
try, water stored in the international storage reservoirs and be-
longing to the country enjoying such abundant water supply may
be withdrawn, with the consent of the Commission, for the use
of the country undergoing the drought.
(g) Each country shall have the right to divert from the main
channel of the river any amount of water, including the water be-
longing to the other country, for the purpose of generating hydro-
electric power, provided that such diversion causes no injury to
the other country and does not interfere with the international
generation of power and that the quantities not returning direct-
ly to the river are charged against the share of the country mak-
ing the diversion. The feasibility of such diversions not existing
on the date this Treaty enters into force "shall be determined by
the Commission, which shall also determine the amount of water
consumed, such water to be charged against the country making
the diversion.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2225
(h) In case either of the two countries shall construct works
for diverting into the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
or its tributaries waters that do not at the time this Treaty enters
into force contribute to the flow of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
such water shall belong to the country making such diversion.
(i) Main stream channel losses shall be charged in proportion
to the ownership of water being conveyed in th6 channel at the
times and places of the losses.
(j) The Commission shall keep a record of the waters belong-
ing to each country and of those that may be available at a given
moment, taking into account the measurement of the allotments,
the regulation of the waters in storage, the consumptive uses, the
withdrawals, the diversions, and the losses. For this purpose the
Commission shall construct, operate and maintain on the main
channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and each Section shall
construct, operate and maintain on the measured tributaries in
its own country, all the gaging stations and mechanical apparatus
necessary for the purpose of making computations and of obtain-
ing the necessary data for such record. The information with re-
spect to the diversions and consumptive uses on the unmeasured
tributaries shall be furnished to the Commission by the appro-
priate Section. The cost of construction of any new gaging sta-
tions located on the main channel of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
shall be borne equally by the two Governments. The operation
and maintenance of all gaging stations or the cost of such opera-
tion and maintenance shall be apportioned between the two Sec-
tions in accordance with determinations to be made by the Com-
mission.
Ill—COLORADO RIVER
ARTICLE 10
Of the waters of the Colorado River, from any and all sources,
there are allotted to Mexico:
(a) A guaranteed annual quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet
(1,850, 234,000 cubic meters) to be delivered in accordance with
the provisions of Article 15 of this Treaty.
(b) Any other quantities arriving at the Mexican points of
diversion, with the understanding that in any year in which, as
determined by the United States Section, there exists a surplus
of waters of the Colorado River in excess of the amount necessary
to supply uses in the United States and the guaranteed quantity
of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic meters) annually to
-------
2226 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mexico, the United States undertakes to deliver to Mexico, in the
manner set out in Article 15 of this Treaty, additional waters of
the Colorado River system to provide a total quantity not to ex-
ceed 1,700,000 acre-feet (2,096,931,000 cubic meters) a year.
Mexico shall acquire no right beyond that provided by this sub-
paragraph by the use of the waters of the Colorado River system,
for any purpose whatsoever, in excess of 1,500,000 acre-feet
(1,850,234,000 cubic meters) annually.
In the event of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the
irrigation system in the United States, thereby making it difficult
for the United States to deliver the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,-
000 acre-feet (1,850,234,000 cubic meters) a year, the water al-
lotted to Mexico under subparagraph (a) of this Article will be
reduced in the same proportion as consumptive uses in the United
States are reduced.
ARTICLE 11
(a) The United States shall deliver all waters allotted to
Mexico wherever these waters may arrive in the bed of the
limitrophe section of the Colorado River, with the exceptions
hereinafter provided. Such waters shall be made up of the waters
of the said river, whatever their origin, subject to the provisions
of the following paragraphs of this Article.
(b) Of the waters of the Colorado River allotted to Mexico by
subparagraph (a) of Article 10 of this Treaty, the United States
shall deliver, wherever such waters may arrive in the limitrophe
section of the river, 1,000,000 acre-feet (1,233,489,000 cubic
meters) annually from the time the Davis dam and reservoir
are placed in operation until January 1, 1980 and thereafter 1,125,-
000 acre-feet (1,387,675,000 cubic meters) annually, except that,
should the main diversion structure referred to in subparagraph
(a) of Article 12 of this Treaty be located entirely in Mexico and
should Mexico so request, the United States shall deliver a quan-
tity of water not exceeding 25,000 acre-feet (30,837,000 cubic
meters) annually, unless a larger quantity may be mutually agreed
upon, at a point, to be likewise mutually agreed upon, on the in-
ternational land boundary near San Luis, Sonora, in which event
the quantities of 1,000,000 acre-feet (1,233,489,000 cubic meters)
and 1,125,000 acre-feet (1,387,675,000 cubic meters) provided
hereinabove as deliverable in the limitrophe section of the river
shall be reduced by the quantities to be deliverd in the year con-
cerned near San Luis, Sonora.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2227
(c) During the period from the time the Davis dam and reser-
voir are placed in operation until January 1, 1980, the United
States shall also deliver to Mexico annually, of the water allotted
to it, 500,000 acre-feet (616,745,000 cubic meters), and there-
after the United States shall deliver annually 375,000 acre-feet
(462,558,000 cubic meters), at the international boundary line,
by means of the All-American Canal and a canal connecting the
lower end of the Pilot Knob Wasteway with the Alamo Canal
or with any other Mexican canal which may be substituted for the
Alamo Canal. In either event the deliveries shall be made at an
operating water surface elevation not higher than that of the
Alamo Canal at the point where it crossed the international
boundary line in the year 1943.
(d) All the deliveries of water specified above shall be made
subject to the provisions of Article 15 of this Treaty.
ARTICLE 12
The two Governments agree to construct the following works:
(a) Mexico shall construct at its expense, within a period of
five years from the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, a
main diversion structure below the point where the northernmost
part of the international land boundary line intersects the
Colorado River. If such diversion structure is located in the limi-
trophe section of the river, its location, design and construction
shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. The Commis-
sion shall thereafter maintain and operate the structure at the
expense of Mexico. Regardless of where such diversion structure
is located, there shall simultaneously be constructed such levees,
interior drainage facilities and other works, or improvements to
existing works, as in the opinion of the Commission shall be nec-
essary to protect lands within the United States against damage
from such floods and seepage as might result from the construc-
tion, operation and maintenance of this diversion structure. These
protective works shall be constructed, operated and maintained
at the expense of Mexico by the respective Sections of the Com-
mission, or under their supervision, each within the territory of
its own country.
(b) The United States, within a period of five years from the
date of the entry into force of this Treaty, shall construct in its
own territory and at its expense, and thereafter operate and main-
tain at its expense, the Davis storage dam and reservoir, a part
of the capacity of which shall be used to make possible the regula-
-------
2228 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion at the boundary of the waters to be delivered to Mexico in
accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of this Treaty.
(c) The United States shall construct or acquire in its own
territory the works that may be necessary to convey a part of
the waters of the Colorado River allotted to Mexico to the Mexi-
can diversion points on the international land boundary line re-
ferred to in this Treaty. Among these works shall be included:
the canal and other works necessary to convey water from the
lower end of the Pilot Knob Wasteway to the international bound-
ary, and, should Mexico request it, a canal to connect the main
diversion structure referred to in subparagraph (a) of this Ar-
ticle, if this diversion structure should be built in the limitrophe
section of the river, with the Mexican system of canals at a point
to be agreed upon by the Commission on the international land
boundary near San Luis, Sonora. Such works shall be constructed
or acquired and operated and maintained by the United States
Section at the expense of Mexico. Mexico shall also pay the costs
of any sites or rights of way required for such works.
(d) The Commission shall construct, operate and maintain in
the limitrophe section of the Colorado River, and each Section shall
construct, operate and maintain in the territory of its own coun-
try on the Colorado River below Imperial Dam and on all other
carrying facilities used for the delivery of water to Mexico, all
necessary gaging stations and other measureing devices for the
purpose of keeping a complete record of the waters delivered to
Mexico and of the flows of the river. All data obtained as to such
deliveries and flows shall be periodically compiled and exchanged
between the two Sections.
ARTICLE 13
The Commission shall study, investigate and prepare plans for
flood control on the Lower Colorado River between Imperial Dam
and the Gulf of California, in both the United States and Mexico,
and shall, in a Minute, report to the two Governments the works
which should be built, the estimated cost thereof, and the part of
the works to be constructed by each Government. The two Gov-
ernments agree to construct, through their respective Sections of
the Commission, such works as may be recommended by the Com-
mission and approved by the two Governments, each Government
to pay the costs of the works constructed by it. The Commission
shall likewise recommend the parts of the works to be operated
and maintained jointly by the Commission and the parts to be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2229
operated and maintained by each Section. The Two Governments
agree to pay in equal shares the cost of joint operation and main-
tenance, and each Government agrees to pay the cost of opera-
tion and maintenance of the works assigned to it for such purpose.
ARTICLE 14
In consideration of the use of the All-American Canal for the
delivery to Mexico, in the manner provided in Articles 11 and 15
of this Treaty, of a part of its allotment of the waters of the
Colorado River, Mexico shall pay to the United States:
(a) A proportion of the costs actually incurred in the construc-
tion of Imperial Dam and the Imperial Dam-Pilot Knob section
of the All-American Canal, this proportion and the method and
terms of repayment to be determined by the two Governments,
which, for this purpose, shall take into consideration the propor-
tionate uses of these facilities by the two countries, these deter-
minations to be made as soon as Davis dam and reservoir are
placed in operation.
(b) Annually, a proportionate part of the total costs of mainte-
nance and operation of such facilities, these costs to be prorated
between the two countries in proportion to the amount of water
delivered annually through such facilities for use in each of the
two countries.
In the event that revenues from the sale of hydro-electric
power which may be generated at Pilot Knob become available for
the amortization of part or all of the costs of the facilities named
in subparagraph (a) of this Article, the part that Mexico should
pay of the costs of said facilities shall be reduced or repaid in the
same proportion as the balance of the total costs are reduced or
repaid. It is understood that any such revenue shall not become
available until the cost of any works which may be constructed
for the generation of hydro-electric power at said location has
been fully amortized from the revenues derived therefrom.
ARTICLE 15
A. The water allotted in subparagraph (a) of Article 10 of this
Treaty shall be delivered to Mexico at the points of delivery speci-
fied in Article 11, in accordance with the following two annual
schedules of deliveries by months, which the Mexican Section shall
formulate and present to the Commission before the beginning
of each calendar year:
-------
2230 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SCHEDULE I
Schedule I shall cover the delivery, in the limitrophe sec-
tion of the Colorado River, of 1,000,000 acre-feet (1,233,489,-
000 cubic meters) of water each year from the date Davis
dam and reservoir are placed in operation until January 1,
1980 and the delivery of 1,125,000 acre-feet (1,387,675,000
cubic meters) of water each year thereafter. This schedule
shall be formulated subject to the following limitations:
With reference to the 1,000,000 acre-foot (1,233,489,000 cubic
meter) quantity:
(a) During the months of January, February, October,
November and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall
be not less than 600 cubic feet (17.0 cubic meters) nor more
than 3,500 cubic feet (99.1 cubic meters) per second.
(b) During the remaining months of the year the pre-
scribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 1,000 cubic feet
(28.3 cubic meters) nor more than 3,500 cubic feet (99.1
cubic meters) per second.
With reference to the 1,125,000 acre-foot (1,387,675,000 cubic
meter) quantity:
(a) During the months of January, February, October,
November and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall
be not less than 675 cubic feet (19.1 cubic meters) nor more
than 4,000 cubic feet (113.3 cubic meters) per second.
(b) During the remaining months of the year the pre-
scribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 1,125 cubic
feet (31.9 cubic meters) nor more than 4,000 cubic feet (113.3
cubic meters) per second.
Should deliveries of water be made at a point on the land bound-
ary near San Luis, Sonora, as provided for in Article 11, such
deliveries shall be made under a sub-schedule to be formulated
and furnished by the Mexican Section. The quantities and monthly
rates of deliveries under such sub-schedule shall be in proportion
to those specified for Schedule I, unless otherwise agreed upon
by the Commission.
SCHEDULE II
Schedule II shall cover the delivery at the boundary line
by means of the All-American Canal of 500,000 acre-feet
(616,745,000 cubic meters) of water each year from the date
Davis dam and reservoir are placed in operation until Janu-
ary 1, 1980 and the delivery of 375,000 acre-feet (462,558,000
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2231
cubic meters) of water each year thereafter. This schedule
shall be formulated subject to the following limitations:
With reference to the 500,000 acre-feet (616,745,000 cubic
meter) quantity:
(a) During the months of January, February, October,
November and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall
be not less than 300 cubic feet (8.5 cubic meters) nor more
than 2,000 cubic feet (56.6 cubic meters) per second.
(b) During the remaining months of the year the pre-
scribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 500 cubic feet
(14.2 cubic meters) nor more than 2,000 cubic feet (56.6 cubic
meters) per second.
With reference to the 375,000 acre-foot (462,558,000 cubic
meter) quantity:
(a) During the months of January, February, October,
November and December the prescribed rate of delivery shall
be not less than 225 cubic feet (6.4 cubic meters) nor more
than 1,500 cubic feet (42.5 cubic meters) per second.
(b) During the remaining months of the year the pre-
scribed rate of delivery shall be not less than 375 cubic feet
(10.6 cubic meters) nor more than 1,500 cubic feet (42.5 cubic
meters) per second.
B. The United States shall be under no obligation to deliver,
through the Ail-American Canal, more than 500,000 acre-feet
(616,745,000 cubic meters) annually from the date Davis dam and
reservoir are placed in operation until January 1, 1980 or more
than 375,000 acre-feet (462,558,000 cubic meters) annually there-
after. If, by mutual agreement, any part of the quantities of water
specified in this paragraph are delivered to Mexico at points on
the land boundary otherwise than through the All-American
Canal, the above quantities of water and the rates of deliveries
set out under Schedule II of this Article shall be correspondingly
diminished.
C. The United States shall have the option of delivering, at the
point on the land boundary mentioned in subparagraph (c) of
Article 11, any part or all of the water to be delivered at that
point under Schedule II of this Article during the months of Janu-
ary, February, October, November and December of each year,
from any source whatsoever, with the understanding that the
total specified annual quantities to be delivered through the All-
American Canal shall not be reduced because of the exercise of
this option, unless such reduction be requested by the Mexican
Section, provided that the exercise of this option shall not have
-------
2232 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the effect of increasing the total amount of scheduled water to
be delivered to Mexico.
D. In any year in which there shall exist in the river water in
the excess of that necessary to satisfy the requirements in the
United States and the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet
(1,850,234,000 cubic meters) allotted to Mexico, the United States
hereby declares its intention to cooperate with Mexico in attempt-
ing to supply additional quantities of water through the All-
American Canal as such additional quantities are desired by
Mexico, if such use of the Canal and facilities will not be detri-
mental to the United States, provided that the delivery of any
additional quantities through the Ail-American Canal shall not
have the effect of increasing the total scheduled deliveries to
Mexico. Mexico hereby declares its intention to cooperate with the
United States by attempting to curtail deliveries of water through
the All-American Canal in years of limited supply, if such cur-
tailment can be accomplished without detriment to Mexico and is
necessary to allow full use of all available water supplies, provided
that such curtailment shall not have the effect of reducing the
total scheduled deliveries of water to Mexico.
E. In any year in which there shall exist in the river water in
excess of that necessary to satisfy the requirements in the United
States and the guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 acre-feet (1,850,-
234,000 cubic meters) allotted to Mexico, the United States Sec-
tion shall so inform the Mexican Section in order that the latter
may schedule such surplus water to complete a quantity up to a
maximum of 1,700,000 acre-feet (2,096,931,000 cubic meters). In
this circumstance the total quantities to be delivered under Sched-
ules I and II shall be increased in proportion to their respective
total quantities and the two schedules thus increased shall be
subject to the same limitations as those established for each under
paragraph A of this Article.
F. Subject to the limitations as to rates of deliveries and total
quantities set out in Schedules I and II, Mexico shall have the
right, upon thirty days notice in advance to the United States
Section, to increase or decrease each monthly quantity prescribed
by those schedules by not more than 20 % of the monthly quantity.
G. The total quantity of water to be delivered under Schedule
I of paragraph A of this Article may be increased in any year
if the amount to be delivered under Schedule II is correspondingly
reduced and if the limitations as to rates of delivery under each
schedule are correspondingly increased and reduced.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2233
IV—TIJUANA RIVER
ARTICLB 16
In order to improve existing uses and to assure any feasible
further development, the Commission shall study and investigate,
and shall submit to the two Governments for their approval:
(1) Recommendations for the equitable distribution between
the two countries of the waters of the Tijuana River system;
(2) Plans for storage and flood control to promote and develop
domestic, irrigation and other feasible uses of the waters of this
system;
(3) An estimate of the cost of the proposed works and the man-
ner in which the construction of such works or the cost thereof
should be divided between the two Governments;
(4) Recommendations regarding the parts of the works to be
operated and maintained by the Commission and the parts to be
operated and maintained by each Section.
The two Governments through their respective Sections of the
Commission shall construct such of the proposed works as are
approved by both Governments, shall divide the work to be done
or the cost thereof, and shall distribute between the two coun-
tries the waters of the Tijuana River system in the proportions
approved by the two Governments. The two Governments agree
to pay in equal shares the costs of joint operation and mainte-
nance of the works involved, and each Government agrees to pay
the cost of operation and maintenance of the works assigned to
it for such purpose.
V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 17
The use of the channels of the international rivers for the dis-
charge of flood or other excess waters shall be free and not sub-
ject to limitation by either country, and neither country shall
have any claim against the other in respect of any damage caused
by such use. Each Government agrees to furnish the other Gov-
ernment, as far in -advance as practicable, any information it may
have in regard to such extraordinary discharges of water from
reservoirs and flood flows on its own territory as may produce
floods on the territory of the other.
Each Government declares its intention to operate its storage
dams in such manner, consistent with the normal operations of
its hydraulic systems, as to avoid, as far as feasible, material
damage in the territory of the other.
-------
2234 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ARTTCLE 18
Public use of the water surface of lakes formed by international
dams shall, when not harmful to the services rendered by such
dams, be free and common to both countries, subject to the police
regulations of each country in its territory, to such general regu-
lations as may appropriately be prescribed and enforced by the
Commission with the approval of the two Governments for the
purpose of the application of the provisions of this Treaty, and
to such regulations as may appropriately be prescribed and en-
forced for the same purpose by each Section of the Commission
with respect to the areas and borders of such parts of those lakes
as lie within its territory. Neither Government shall use for mili-
tary purposes such water surface situated within the territory
of the other country except by express agreement between the
two Governments.
ARTICLE 19
The two Governments shall conclude such special agreements
as may be necessary to regulate the generation, development and
disposition of electric power at international plants, including the
necessary provisions for the export of electric current.
ARTICLE 20
The two Governments shall, through their respective Sections
of the Commission, carry out the construction of works allotted to
them. For this purpose the respective Sections of the Commis-
sion may make use of any competent public or private agencies in
accordance with the laws of the respective countries. With re-
spect to such works as either Section of the Commission may
have to execute on the territory of the other, it shall, in the execu-
tion of such works, observe the laws of the place where such works
are located or carried out, with the exceptions hereinafter stated.
All materials, implements, equipment and repair parts intended
for the construction, operation and maintenance of such works
shall be exempt from import and export customs duties. The whole
of the personnel employed either directly or indirectly on the
construction, operation or maintenance of the works may pass
freely from one country to the other for the purpose of going to
and from the place of location of the works, without any immi-
gration restrictions, passports or labor requirements. Each Gov-
ernment shall furnish, through its own Section of the Commis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2235
sion, convenient means of identification to the personnel employed
by it on the aforesaid works and verification certificates covering
all materials, implements, equipment and repair parts intended
for the works.
Each Government shall assume responsibility for and shall ad-
just exclusively in accordance with its own laws all claims arising
within its territory in connection with the construction, operation
or maintenance of the whole or of any part of the works herein
agreed upon, or of any works which may, in the execution of this
Treaty, be agreed upon in the future.
ARTICLE 21
The construction of the international dams and the formation
of artificial lakes shall produce no change in the fluvial interna-
tional boundary, which shall continue to be governed by existing
treaties and conventions in force between the two countries.
The Commission shall, with the approval of the two Govern-
ments, establish in the artificial lakes, by buoys or by other suit-
able markers, a practicable and convenient line to provide for the
exercise of the jurisdiction and control vested by this Treaty in
the Commission and its respective Sections. Such line shall also
mark the boundary for the application of the customs and police
regulations of each country.
ARTICLE 22
The provisions of the Convention between the United States
and Mexico for the rectification of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
in the El Paso-Juarez Valley signed on February 1, 1933, shall
govern, so far as delimitation of the boundary, distribution of
jurisdiction and sovereignty, and relations with private owners
are concerned, in any places where works for the artificial chan-
neling, canalization or rectification of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)
and the Colorado River are carried out.
ARTICLE 23
The two Governments recognize the public interest attached to
the works required for the execution and performance of this
Treaty and agree to acquire, in accordance with their respective
domestic laws, any private property that may be required for
the construction of the said works, including the main structures
and their appurtenances and the construction materials therefor,
-------
2236 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and for the operation and maintenance thereof, at the cost of the
country within which the property is situated, except as may be
otherwise specifically provided in this Treaty.
Each Section of the Commission shall determine the extent and
location of any private property to be acquired within its own
country and shall make the necesssary requests upon its Govern-
ment for the acquisition of such property.
The Commission shall determine the cases in which it shall be-
come necessary to locate works for the conveyance of water or
electrical energy and for the servicing of any such works, for the
benefit of either of the two countries, in the territory of the other
country, in order that such works can be built pursuant to agree-
ment between the two Governments. Such works shall be subject
to the jurisdiction and supervision of the Section of the Commis-
sion within whose country they are located.
Construction of the works built in pursuance of the provisions
of this Treaty shall not confer upon either of the two countries
any rights either of property or of jurisdiction over any part
whatsoever of the territory of the other. Thes6 works shall be
part of the territory and be the property of the country wherein
they are situated. However, in the case of any incidents occurring
on works constructed across the limitrophe part of a river and
with supports on both banks, the jurisdiction of each country
shall be limited by the center line of such works, which shall be
marked by the Commission, without thereby changing the in-
ternational boundary.
Each Government shall retain, through its own Section of the
Commission and within the limits and to the extent necessary to
effectuate the provisions of this Treaty, direct ownership, control
and jurisdiction within its own territory and in accordance with
its own laws, over all real property—including that within the
channel of any river—rights of way and rights in rem, that it
may be necessary to enter upon and occupy for the construction,
operation or maintenance of all the works constructed, acquired
or used pursuant to this Treaty. Furthermore, each Government
shall similarly acquire and retain in its own possession the titles,
control and jurisdiction over such works.
ARTICLE 24
The International Boundary and Water Commission shall have,
in addition to the powers and duties otherwise specifically pro-
vided in this Treaty, the following powers and duties:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2237
(a) To initiate and carry on investigations and develop plans
for the works which are to be constructed or established in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this and other treaties or agree-
ments in force between the two Governments dealing with boun-
daries and international waters; to determine, as to such works,
their location, size, kind and characteristic specifications; to es-
timate the cost of such works; and to recommend the division of
such costs between the two Governments, the arrangements for
the furnishing of the necessary funds, and the dates for the be-
ginning of the works, to the extent that the matters mentioned
in this subparagraph are not otherwise covered by specific pro-
visions of this or any other Treaty.
(b) To construct the works agreed upon or to supervise their
construction and to operate and maintain such works or to super-
vise their operation and maintenance, in accordance with the re-
spective domestic laws of each country. Each Section shall have,
to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this
Treaty, jurisdiction over the works constructed exclusively in
the territory of its country whenever such works shall be con-
nected with or shall directly affect the execution of the provisions
of this Treaty.
(c) In general to exercise and discharge the specific powers
and duties entrusted to the Commission by this and other treaties
and agreements in force between the two countries, and to carry
into execution and prevent the violation of the provisions of those
treaties and agreements. The authorities of each country shall
aid and support the exercise and discharge of these powers and
duties, and each Commissioner shall invoke when necessary the
jurisdiction of the courts or other appropriate agencies of his
country to aid in the execution and enforcement of these powers
and duties.
(d) To settle all differences that may arise between the two
Governments with respect to the interpretation or application of
this Treaty, subject to the approval of the two Governments. In
any case in which the Commissioners do not reach an agreement,
they shall so inform their respective governments reporting their
respective opinions and the grounds therefor and the points upon
which they differ, for discussion and adjustment of the differ-
ence through diplomatic channels and for application where proper
of the general or special agreements which the two Governments
have concluded for the settlement of controversies.
(e) To furnish the information requested of the Commissioners
jointly by the two Governments on matters within their jurisdic-
-------
2238 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion. In the event that the request is made by one Government
alone, the Commissioner of the other Government must have the
express authorization of his Government in order to comply with
such request.
(f) The Commission shall construct, operate and maintain upon
the limitrophe parts of the international streams, and each Sec-
tion shall severally construct, operate and maintain upon the parts
of the international streams and their tributaries within the
boundaries of its own country,/such stream gaging stations as
may be needed to provide the hydrographic data necessary or
convenient for the proper functioning of this Treaty. The data so
obtained shall be compiled and periodically exchanged between
the two Sections.
(g) The Commission shall submit annually a joint report to
the two Governments on the matters in its charge. The Com-
mission shall also submit to the two Governments joint reports
on general or any particular matters at such other times as it
may deem necessary or as may be requested by the two Govern-
ments.
ARTICLE 25
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Treaty, Articles
III and VII of the Convention of March 1, 1889 shall govern the
proceedings of the Commission in carrying out the provisions of
this Treaty. Supplementary thereto the Commission shall estab-
lish a body of rules and regulations to govern its procedure, con-
sistent with the provisions of this Treaty and of Articles III and
VII of the Convention of March 1, 1889 and subject to the ap-
proval of both Governments.
Decisions of the Commission shall be recorded in the form of
Minutes done in duplicate in the English and Spanish languages,
signed by each Commissioner and attested by the Secretaries,
and copies thereof forwarded to each Government within three
days after being signed. Except where the specific approval of
the two Governments is required by any provision of this Treaty,
if one of the Governments fails to communicate to the Commission
its approval or disapproval of a decision of the Commission within
thirty days reckoned from the date of the Minute in which it shall
have been pronounced, the Minute in question and the decisions
which it contains shall be considered to be approved by that Gov-
ernment. The Commissioners, within the limits of their respective
jurisdictions, shall execute the decisions of the Commission that
are approved by both Governments.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2239
If either Government disapproves a decision of the Commission
the two Governments shall take cognizance of the matter, and if
an agreement regarding such matter is reached between the two
Governments, the agreement shall be communicated to the Com-
missioners, who shall take such further proceedings as may be
necessary to carry out such agreement.
VI—TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 26
During a period of eight years from the date of the entry into
force of this Treaty, or until the beginning of operation of the
lowest major international reservoir on the Rio Grande (Rio
Bravo), should it be placed in operation prior to the expiration of
said period, Mexico will cooperate with the United States to re-
lieve, in times of drought, any lack of water needed to irrigate
the lands now under irrigation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
in the United States, and for this purpose Mexico will release
water from El Azucar reservoir on the San Juan River and allow
that water to run through its system of canals back into the
San Juan River in order that the United States may divert such
water from the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo). Such releases shall be
made on condition that they do not affect the Mexican irrigation
system, provided that Mexico shall, in any event, except in cases
of extraordinary drought or serious accident to its hydraulic
works, release and make available to the United States for its use
the quantities requested, under the following conditions: that dur-
ing the said eight years there shall be made available a total of
160,000 acre-feet (197,358,000 cubic meters) and up to 40,000 acre-
feet (49,340,000 cubic meters) in any one year; that the water
shall be made available as requested at rates not exceeding 750
cubic feet (21.2 cubic meters) per second; that when the rates of
flow requested and made available have been more than 500 cubic
feet (14.2 cubic meters) per second the period of release shall not
extend beyond fifteen consecutive days; and that at least thirty
days must elapse between any two periods of release during which
rates of flow in excess of 500 cubic feet (14.2 cubic meters) per^
second have been requested and made available. In addition to
the guaranteed flow, Mexico shall release from El Azucar reXer-
voir and conduct through its canal system and the San Juan River,
for use in the United States during periods of drought and after
satisfying the needs of Mexican users, any excess water that does
not in the opinion of the Mexican Section have to be stored and
-------
2240 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that may be needed for the irrigation of lands which were under
irrigation during the year 1943 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
in the United States.
ARTICLE 27
The provisions of Article 10, 11, and 15 of this Treaty shall not
be applied during a period of five years from the date of the entry
into force of this Treaty, or until the Davis dam and the major
Mexican diversion structure on the Colorado River are placed in
operation, should these works be placed in operation prior to the
expiration of said period. In the meantime Mexico may construct
and operate at its expense a temporary diversion structure in the
bed of the Colorado River in territory of the United States for
the purpose of diverting water into the Alamo Canal, provided
that the plans for such structure and the construction and opera-
tion thereof shall be subject to the approval of the United States
Section. During this period of time the United States will make
available in the river at such diversion structure river flow not
currently required in the United States, and the United States
will cooperate with Mexico to the end that the latter may satisfy
its irrigation requirements within the limits of those requirements
for lands irrigated in Mexico from the Colorado River during the
year 1943.
VH—FINAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 28
This Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall
be exchanged in Washington. It shall enter into force on the day
of the exchange of ratifications and shall continue in force until
terminated by another Treaty concluded for that purpose between
the two Governments.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
this Treaty and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate in the English and Spanish languages, in
Washington on this third day of February, 1944.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
CORDELL HULL [SEAL]
GEORGE S. MESSERSMITH [SEAL]
LAWRENCE M. LAWSON. [SEAL]
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES:
F. CASTILLO NAJERA [SEAL]
RAFAEL FERNANDEZ MACGREGOR [SEAL]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2241
PROTOCOL
The Government of the United States of America and the Gov-
ernment of the United Mexican States agree and understand that:
Wherever, by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty between
the United States of America and the United Mexican States,
signed in Washington on February 3, 1944, relating to the utiliza-
tion of the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the
Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico,
specific functions are imposed on, or exclusive jurisdiction is
vested in, either of the Sections of the International Boundary
and Water Commission, which involve the construction or use of
works for storage or conveyance of water, flood control, stream
gaging, or for any other purpose, which are situated wholly within
the territory of the country of that Section, and which are to be
used only partly for the performance of treaty provisions, such
jurisdiction shall be exercised, and such functions, including the
construction, operation and maintenance of the said works, shall
be performed and carried out by the Federal agencies of that
country which now or hereafter may be authorized by domestic
law to construct, or to operate and maintain, such works. Such
functions or jurisdictions shall be exercised in conformity with
the provisions of the Treaty and in cooperation with the respec-
tive Section of the Commission, to the end that all international
obligations and functions may be coordinated and fulfilled.
The works to be constructed or used on or along the boundary,
and those to be constructed or used exclusively for the discharge
of treaty stipulations, shall be under the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission or of the respective Section, in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Treaty. In carrying out the construction of such
works the Sections of the Commission may utilize the services
of public or private organizations in accordance with the laws of
their respective countries.
This Protocol, which shall be regarded as an integral part of
the aforementioned Treaty signed in Washington on February 3,
1944, shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be ex-
changed in Washington. This Protocol shall be effective beginning
with the day of the entry into force of the Treaty and shall con-
tinue effective so long as the Treaty remains in force.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
this Protocol and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, in
Washington, this fourteenth day of November, 1944.
-------
2242 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
E. R. STETTINIUS, JR. [SEAL]
Acting Secretary of State
of the United States of America
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES :
F. CASTILLO NAJEBA [SEAL]
Ambassador Extraordinary and PlenipO'tentiary
of the United Mexican States in Washington
AND WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by
their Resolution of April 18, 1945, two-thirds of the Senators pre-
sent concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification
of the said treaty and protocol, subject to certain understandings,
the text of which Resolution is word for word as follows:
"Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratifica-
tion of Executive A, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session,
a treaty between the United States of America and the United
Mexican States, signed at Washington on February 3, 1944,
relating to the utilization of the waters of the Colorado and
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande from Fort Quitman,
Texas, to the Gulf of Mexico, and Executive H. Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, a protocol, signed at Wash-
ington on November 14, 1944, supplementary to the treaty
subject to the following understandings, and that these un-
derstandings will be mentioned in the ratification of this
treaty as conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will
in effect form a part of the treaty:
"(a) That no committment for works to be built by the
United States in whole or in part at its expense, or for ex-
penditures by the United States, other than those specifically
provided for in the treaty, shall be made by the Secretary
of State of the United States, the Commissioner of the United
States Section of the International Boundary and Water Com-
mission, the United States Section of said Commission, or any
other officer or employee of the United States, without prior
approval of the Congress of the United States. It is under-
stood that the works to be built by the United States, in
whole or in part at its expense, and the expenditures by the
United States, which are specifically provided for in the
treaty, are as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2243
"1. The joint construction of the three storage and flood-
control dams on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman, Texas,
mentioned in article 5 of the treaty.
"2. The dams and other joint works required for the di-
version of the flow of the Rio Grande mentioned in subpara-
graph II of article 5 of the treaty, it being understood that
the commitment of the United States to make expenditures
under this subpararaph is limited to its share of the cost of
one dam and works appurtenant thereto.
"3. Stream-gaging stations which may be required under
the provisions of section (j) of article 9 of the treaty and
of subparagraph (d) of article 12 of the treaty.
"4. The Davis Dam and Reservoir mentioned in subpara-
graph (b) of article 12 of the treaty.
"5. The joint flood-control investigations, preparing of plans,
and reports on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman required
by the provisions of article 6 of the treaty.
"6. The joint flood-control investigations, preparations of
plans, and reports on the lower Colorado River between the
Imperial Dam and the Gulf of California required by article
13 of the treaty.
"7. The joint investigations, preparation of plans, and re-
reports on the establishment of hydroelectric plants at the in-
ternational dams on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman pro-
vided for by article 7 of the treaty.
"8. The studies, investigations, preparation of plans, rec-
ommendations, reports, and other matters dealing with the
Tijuana River system provided for by the first paragraph
(including the numbered subparagraphs) of article 16 of the
treaty.
"(b) Insofar as they affect persons and property in the
territorial limits of the United States, the powers and func-
tions of the Secretary of State of the United States, the Com-
missioner of the United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission, the United States Section
of said Commission, and any other officer or employee of the
United States, shall be subject to the statutory and constitu-
tional controls and processes. Nothing contained in the treaty
or protocol shall be construed as impairing the power of the
Congress of the United States to define the terms of office of
members of the United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission or to provide for their ap-
-------
2244 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pointment by the President by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate or otherwise.
" (c) That nothing contained in the treaty or protocol shall
be construed as authorizing the Secretary of State of the
United States, the Commissioner of the United States Section
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, or the
United States Section of said Commission, directly or indi-
rectly to alter or control the distribution of water to users
within the territorial limits of any of the individual States.
" (d) That 'international dam or reservoir' means a dam or
reservoir built across the common boundary between the two
countries.
"(e) That the words 'international plants,' appearing in
article 19, mean only hydroelectric generating plants in con-
nection with dams built across the common boundary be-
tween the two countries.
" (f) That the words 'electric current,' appearing in article
19, mean hydroelectric power generated at an international
plant.
"(g) That by the use of the words 'The jurisdiction of the
Commission shall extend to the limitrophe parts of the Rio
Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River, to the land
boundary between the two countries, and to works located
upon their common boundary * * *' in the first sentence of
the fifth paragraph of article 2, is meant: "The jurisdiction of
the Commission shall extend and be limited to the limitrophe
parts of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River,
to the land boundary between the two countries, and to works
located upon their common boundary * * *.'
"(h) The word 'agreements' whenever used in subpara-
graphs (a), (c), and (d) of article 24 of the treaty shall
refer only to agreements entered into pursuant to and subject
to the provisions and limitations of treaties in force between
the United States of America and the United Mexican States.
"(i) The word 'disputes' in the second paragraph of ar-
ticle 2 shall have reference only to disputes between the Gov-
evrnments of the United States of America and the United
Mexican States.
"(j) First, that the one million seven hundred thousand
acre-feet specified in subparagraph (b) of article 10 includes
and is not in addition to the one million five hundred thousand
acre-feet, the delivery of which to Mexico is guaranteed in
subparagraph (a) of article 10; second, that the one million
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2245
five hundred thousand acre-feet specified in three places in
said subparagraph (b) is identical with the one million five
hundred thousand acre-feet specified in said subparagraph
(a) ; third, that any use by Mexico under said subparagraph
(b) of quantities of water arriving at the Mexican points
of diversion in excess of said one million five hundred thou-
sand acre-feet shall not give rise to any future claim of right
by Mexico in excess of said guaranteed quantity of one mil-
lion five hundred thousand acre-feet of water.
"(k) The United States recognizes a duty to require that
the protective structures to be constructed under article 12,
paragraph (a), of this treaty, are so constructed, operated,
and maintained as to adequately prevent damage to property
and lands within the United States from the construction and
operation of the diversion structure referred to in said para-
graph."
AND WHEREAS the said treaty and protocol were duly ratified by
the President of the United States of America on November 1,
1945, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the
Senate and subject to the aforesaid understandings on the part
of the United States of America;
AND WHEREAS the said treaty and protocol were duly ratified by
the President of the United Mexican States on October 16, 1945,
in pursuance and according to the terms of a Decree of September
27, 1945 of the Senate of the United Mexican States approving
the said treaty and protocol and approving the said understand-
ings on the part of the United States of America in all that refers
to the rights and obligations between the parties;
AND WHEREAS it is provided in Article 28 of the said treaty that
the treaty shall enter into force on the day of the exchange of
ratification;
AND WHEREAS it is provided in the said protocol that the protocol
shall be regarded as an integral part of the said treaty and shall
be effective beginning with the day of the entry into force of the
said treaty;
AND WHEREAS the respective instruments of ratification of the
said treaty and protocol were duly exchanged, and a protocol of
exchange of instruments of ratification was signed in the English
and Spanish languages, by the respective Plenipotentiaries of the
United States of America and the United Mexican States on No-
vember 8, 1945, the English text of which protocol of exchange
of instruments of ratification reads in part as follows:
-------
2246 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"The ratification by the Government of the United States
of America of the treaty and protocol aforesaid recites in
their entirety the understandings contained in the resolution
of April 18, 1945 of the Senate of the United States of
America advising and consenting to ratification, the text of
which resolution was communicated by the Government of
the United States of America to the Government of the
United Mexican States. The ratification by the Government of
the United Mexican States of the treaty and protocol afore-
said is effected, in the terms of its instrument of ratification,
in conformity to the Decree of September 27, 1945 of the
Senate of the United Mexican States approving the treaty
and protocol aforesaid and approving also the aforesaid
understandings on the part of the United States of America
in all that refers to the rights and obligations between both
parties, and in which the Mexican Senate refrains from con-
sidering, because it is not competent to pass judgment upon
them, the provisions which relate exclusively to the internal
application of the treaty within the United States of America
and by its own authorities, and which are included in the
understandings set forth under the letter (a) in its first part
to the period preceding the words 'It is understood' and under
the letters (b) and (c)."
Now, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Hary S. Truman, President
of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make
public the said treaty and the said protocol supplementary thereto,
to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may
be observed and fulfilled with good faith, on and from the eighth
day of November, one thousand nine hundred forty-five, by the
United States of America and by the citizens of the United States
of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction
thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused
the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the city of Washington this twenty-seventh day of No-
vember in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
[SEAL] hundred forty-five and of the Independence of the
United States of America the one hundred seventieth.
HARRY S TRUMAN
By the President:
JAMES F BYRNES
Secretary of State
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2247
1.9a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 91 (1945)
April 18: Senate advises and consents to treaty and supplementary
protocol, pp. 3480-3492
TREATY WITH MEXICO RELATING
TO THE UTILIZATION OF THE
WATERS OF CERTAIN RIVERS ,
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the treaty (Executive A, 78th
Cong., 2d sess.) between the United
States of America and the United Mexi-
can States, relating ^to the utilization of
the waters of certain rivers, and (Execu-
tive H, 78th Cong., 2d ssss.) a protocol
supplementary to the treaty.
Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. President, for
several days I have been conferring with
the very distinguished senior Senator
from Wyoming on the bill which he has
just introduced, which provides for the
extensive development of the upper
Colorado River.
Whenever this Government enters into
a contract or a treaty, of course it does
so with no other thought than fully to
discharge each and every obligation un-
dertaken in the contract or treaty. It
is quite obvious that the pending treaty
will be ratified this afternoon. It is my
opinion that under that treaty we have
not only been fair to the Republic of
Mexico, but we have been generous—in
my opinion more generous than circum-
stances and conditions warrant. But
inasmuch as the treaty will in all prob-
ability be ratified today, and inasmuch
as I am willing to abide by the decision
of the Senate, all I have in mind to say
at this time is that the United States, in
order to carry out its agreement with
Mexico for the delivery of waters of the
Colorado River, should leave no stone
unturned in preparing itself to do that
very thing.
When the Colorado River compact was
entered into in 1922 by the seven Colo-
rado River States, it allotted 7,500,000
acre-feet of water for consumptive use
to the upper basin. It also allotted eight
and half million acre-feet of the waters
of the Colorado River for consumptive
use in the lower basin States.
As has been pointed out several times
during the debate on the treaty, the
compact also provided that in the event
a treaty was ever made with Mexico, the
waters allotted under such treaty should
be made up, first, of any surplus over
and above the allotments in the com-
pacts; and in the event there was not
sufficient surplus water to take care of
any allotment which might be made to
Mexico by treaty, whatever deficit there
might be would be made up equally by
the two basins, the upper and lower
basins of the Colorado.
I believe that the evidence which was
submitted to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, which considered the treaty,
and statements which have been made
on the floor of the Senate, especially the
statement made yesterday by the hon-
orable and distinguished senior Senator
from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN], demon-
strate that there is already a shortage of
water in the Colorado River system to
supply the allotments under the com-
pact and the guaranty to Mexico. The
only way that deficit can be made up is
by further conservation of the water of
the Colorado River system.
In my opinion the future conservation
of the waters of the river is dependent
on projects in the upper basin. The
State of Utah is second only to the State
of Arizona in area drained by this great
river. It is second only to the State of
Colorado in its contribution of water to
the river. But notwithstanding these
facts, very few projects have been con-
structed in the State of Utah for the
utilization of its share of Colorado River
waters.
Mr. President, I invite the attention of
the Senate today to the record on the
part of my State of wholehearted and
vigorous cooperation with the State of
California and all other States in the
Colorado River system, in the negotia-
-------
2248
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion and realization of the seven-State
compact entered into at Santa Fe in 1922.
As a result of the cooperation of the
Colorado River States and the Federal
Government the Boulder Canyon proj-
ect is a reality; and as a result 30,000,000
acre-feet of storage capacity has been
provided on the lower reaches of the
river. A number of other projects have
been constructed in Arizona, Nevada,
and California for the further conserva-
tion of the waters of the river. But not-
withstanding all these projects in the
lower basin, unless projects are con-
structed in the near future in the upper
basin, this country will find that it can-
not carry out the guaranty of delivery
of 1,500,000 acre-feet of water to Mexico
without some rights in the United States
being impaired.
Today the distinguished senior Sen-
ator from Wyoming introduced a bill
which would authorize the construction
of projects necessary to the fulfillment
of, and which would greatly facilitate,
our treaty obligations, if and when the
Mexican treaty is ratified. Other Sen-
ators from the upper-basin States have
joined with the senior Senator from
Wyoming in introducing that bill. I
hope the Senate, and also the House of
Representatives, will not hesitate to pass
the bill, and I hope that as soon as the
bill is passed steps will immediately be
taken to bring into realization all the
projects which are necessary and feasi-
ble on the upper river. By that means,
[p. 3480]
and only by that means, can the allot-
ments under the compact and under the
treaty be filled.
Mr. President, I do not wish to take
my seat today without saying something
about California. I deplore some of the
things which have been said about the
great State of California during this
treaty fight and debate on the floor of
the Senate. Several times in the debate
the statement has been made that Cali-
fornia contributes no water to the Colo-
rado River. It is true that California
does not naturally contribute any water
to the Colorado River; but by the con-
struction of the Boulder Canyon project
the State of California contributes more
water to the Colorado River than does
any other State in the system. When I
say that I have fully in mind the fact
that under natural conditions my State
is second only to Colorado in its con-
tribution of water to this great river
system. Until the completion of Boulder
Dam the Colorado River was nothing
but a wild, torrential flood most of the
time, the waters of which wasted into
the Gulf of California. Back in the early
20's and even prior to that, we found a
great migration of people going into the
southern part of California. As the pop-
ulation in southern California expanded,
the most important thing to the life of
that rapidly-growing community in that
great State was water for culinary and
other domestic purposes. The great
population of southern California could
not exist if it were not for the flow of
Colorado River water through the great
aqueduct from the Colorado River, over
the mountains, through the deserts, and
into southern California. When the
Boulder Canyon project was first visual-
ized, it was one of the greatest engineer-
ing projects ever contemplated by man.
Today it is one of the greatest engineer-
ing projects which human beings have
ever constructed. Its cost was enormous.
It was estimated at $165,000,000, if I re-
member the correct figures, including
the cost of the All-American Canal. I
call the attention of the Senate to the
fact that after the seven States had
agreed on the Colorado River compact,
after six States had ratified it, after it
was presented to the Congress of the
United States, and after the Boulder
Canyon Project Act was enacted, the
people of California were told by that act
that the Federal Government would not
spend one penny and not a spade would
be put into the earth out there in the
construction of that project until the
people of California submitted to the
Secretary of the Interior satisfactory
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2249
contracts providing for full and com-
plete amortization within a period of 50
years, with interest. Mr. President, how
many projects which have been con-
structed in the United States have been
subjected to such conditions before they
were commenced? Some say that Cali-
fornia has not contributed any water to
the Colorado River. I ask the Members
of the Senate to go there and look at the
gigantic Boulder Dam and at the great
and enormous Lake Mead behind it.
Then they will see that by taxation and
electric power charges the people of Cali-
fornia contribute and will contribute
down through the years as much water
or more water than does any other State
in the system, not simply by reason of
the snows and rains which fall on the
mountains and finally flow into the river,
but by reason of the fact that the people
of California had the courage, they had
the foresight, they had the fortitude to
undertake, by taxation, directly and in-
directly, the repayment of the enormous
cost of the Boulder Canyon project.
When we find the people of California
making such a great fight in connection
with the pending treaty, I call the at-
tention of the Senate to the fact that
they are fighting for their very life
blood. Water that makes their desert
blossom. Water that makes their vigor-
ous growth possible. Water, without
which that great civilization could not
exist. When the debate was begun by
the able and distinguished senior Sena-
tor from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY], he
rolled up the sleeve on his great right
arm in dramatic fashion, and said to us,
"Yes; we are mighty enough to deny
everything to Mexico. But are we going
to stand on that might and power, and
refuse to do equity?" Mr. President, my
answer to him is this: Yes; we are a
great and mighty Nation, and God grant
that we shall always continue to be.
But even with all our might and all our
strength, we cannot fail to consider the
great natural resources of the country
which give us that might and strength.
No nation, no people, can be so mighty
and strong that they can dissipate their
great natural resources in a way that is
too generous to others, and might be un-
fair to our own people. Our people and
taxpayers have been fed for many years,
now, on the diet that it is more blessed
to give than it is to receive. I say that
the time is coming, and probably it is
here now, when our country, by reason
of our great generosity, has reached the
point where, from this time on, we must
think of the people of the United States,
as well as of other peoples. I say that
in making this treaty with Mexico—and
it will be ratified this afternoon—the
United States has not only been fair but,
again, it has been generous.
What did Mexico have in the Colorado
River before its erratic flow was equated
by our money? The best description I
can give of it is in the language of the
West. Mexico, so far as the Colorado
River is concerned, had a wild cayuse
horse which was hard to catch and was
not worth anything after he was caught.
Under this treaty the Government of the
United States substitutes a fine Ken-
tucky saddle horse for a worthless cayuse
which could not be used. We put the
saddle, the bridle, and all the necessary
equipment on the horse which is being
substituted for the wild cayuse, and then
we say to our neighbor, Mexico, "Here,
it is for you. Whenever you call for it
the United States will deliver it right
at your door. Use it in any way you
wish to use it. When it has served its
purpose for the present bring it back to
your door, get off it, and then the United
States will take it back and have it ready
when you call for it again." This cer-
tainly is the good-neighbor policy car-
ried to the nth degree. I hope our
generosity is appreciated. It is some-
thing new in the world.
Mr. President, that is exactly what we
do under this treaty. We developed a
river which was worth nothing to Mexico
in its natural state. It had flowed for
centuries into the Gulf of Mexico.
Mexico had never attempted to cope with
its wild floods. They waited and, not in
-------
2250
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
vain, for our enterprise, for our engi-
neering ingenuity, for our courage and
willingness to bear the cost. The people
of California undertook, first, the con-
struction of a canal for the irrigation of
the Imperial Valley. Because a part of
the canal had to run through Mexican
territory she demanded one-half of the
waters which flowed through it. Those
who built the canal O.K.'d the demand
and delivered the water which had been
demanded by Mexico. What a contrast
to our attitude under this treaty.
I ask Senators to bear in mind that
Mexico has never successfully diverted
one drop of the waters of the Colorado
River within her own borders. With the
4 exception of pumping, all the waters
which she has used have been diverted
within the United States, carried in a
canal to the Mexican border line, and
delivered to Mexico. But, by reason of
the fact that the people of California
were willing to undertake the construc-
tion of the Boulder Canyon project, store
the water, equate the stream, and make
it possible for Mexico to use the water,
the people of California, as well as the
people of my State, and all other Colo-
rado River States, are penalized by this
treaty for making it possible for Mexico
to use the water.
Mr. President, I do not wish to be
greedy or stingy with Mexico, but I do
want to be fair to the people of my State,
the people of California, and the people
of the other States in the Colorado River
system.
I return to the argument of the distin-
guished senior Senator from Texas. He
rolled up his sleeve and raised his arm,
and said, "Shall we take the water away
from Mexico merely because we are
mighty enough to do so?" Mr. Presi-
dent, that is not the true picture.
Through the expenditures of American
taxpayers, we have made it possible for
Mexico to use the waters of the Colorado
River. Mexico is entitled to an equita-
ble part of the natural flow of the river.
But she is not entitled to a dedication
of all our facilities in perpetuity for the
delivery of that water. Why do we not
say to Mexico with respect to the Colo-
rado what we say with respect to the Rio
Grande, namely, "You are entitled to so
much water, but we do not undertake
to guarantee the delivery of it?" Why
should this country undertake, at the
expense of the American taxpayers, to
guarantee the delivery of water to the
people of any foreign country? I ask
that question in all fairness.
Although we are a mighty country, the
mightiest in the world, the taxpayer of
my country is no stronger, no larger, nor
more able to pay taxes than the taxpayer
of Mexico. It is just as difficult for him
to wrest a living from the desert soil of
California or Utah and to pay taxes as
it is for the taxpayer of Mexico to wrest
a living from his soil and pay taxes.
That is why I assert that we have not
[p. 3481]
only been fair in this treaty but we have
perhaps been too generous. The money
which is raised through taxation is not
raised collectively. When we pay our
tax bills we pay as individuals.
Mr. President, I repeat that collectively
we are mighty, but our great wealth and
power have made it possible for us to
be very generous to all the world, and
we have not failed. We shall continue
to be generous. However, I ask Senators
to bear in mind that the individual tax-
payer in this country is no more able to
pay taxes and his tax burden is just as
heavy as in Mexico or any other country.
In carrying on its part in the prosecu-
tion of the war the State of Utah has be-
come depleted to such a degree in its
great mineral wealth that some other
type of wealth must be supplied or it
will be greatly impoverished. The sol-
diers from Utah who are fighting battles
today in all the war theaters of the
world desire to return to Utah. Why?
Because they love that land more than
they love any other soil under heaven.
Many will desire to return to Utah and
take up farming. They desire to return
in order to rear their families in their
native State. Mr. President, they are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2251
entitled to every drop of water from the
Colorado River that their State is
equitably entitled to. Every acre which
is put under cultivation in Mexico means
that another acre in some Western State
shall forever remain desert. I do not
mean by that statement that Mexico is
not entitled to water from the Colorado
River. However, it is my opinion that
had we granted her not in excess of a
million acre-feet we would have been
fair to her, and even generous.
I did not intend, Mr. President, to
make a lengthy statement on the pend-
ing treaty this afternoon. I shall vote
for it, but I cannot let the opportunity
pass without saying that in the treaty
we are not only fair but we are generous.
I cannot let the opportunity pass with-
out saying that California has con-
tributed, and will continue in perpetuity
to contribute, to the waters of the river
by the great conservation works she has
constructed and obligated her citizens
and taxpayers to pay for.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Utah yield to the Senator
from New Mexico?
Mr. MURDOCK. I yield.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I never doubt the
sincerity or purpose of any of my col-
leagues and I never inquire as to motives,
but I do find myself a little confused
after hearing the Senator from Utah
make a statement as to the bad features
of this treaty and then hear him state
that he proposes to vote for it. Is there
any particular good thing about this
treaty that would compel the Senator
from Utah to vote for it?
Mr. MURDOCK. There is something
good about it. One good thing about it,
and perhaps the best thing, in my
opinion, so far as my country is con-
cerned, is that I am hopeful that it will
set at rest for all time the question of the
division of the waters of the Colorado
River; and if it does that, even with its
bad features, even with its too generous
provisions, I am willing to vote for it.
Mr. CHAVEZ. In the hearings I notice
a question asked by the junior Senator
from Colorado of one of the witnesses
which brings out what the Senator has
just stated, namely, that this treaty will
forever quiet any claims that Mexico
might have to the waters of the Colorado
or other rivers, and I think that is a very
good feature of the treaty.
Mr. MURDOCK. I agree with the
Senator that that is its redeeming
feature.
Mr. CHAVEZ. So far as New Mexico
is concerned, I agree with the Senator
from Utah that the upper basin States
up to this particular time have done
nothing but deliver water.
Mr. MURDOCK. And to guarantee
rights. That is about all we have done
up to this point.
Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct. Utah
has not received any benefits that I know
of, except in an indirect way from the
great Boulder Canyon project; neither
has Wyoming, nor Colorado, nor New
Mexico, and I was glad that the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY], in
conjunction with other Senators from
the upper basin States, has introduced
the bill which he has presented today,
and I hope there will be action on it.
Personally I am not here representing
any other State in the United States ex-
cept New Mexico, and I want to do
everything I possibly can to try to do my
duty by the people of my State. I think
that the treaty is beneficial to the people
of my State for many reasons, but, in the
making of a treaty, there has to be
an agreement between the parties. A
treaty between two countries is more or
less like a contract between the Senator
from Utah and possibly the Senator from
New Mexico. It is necessary to agree on
something; it is necessary to recognize
rights, and I dislike to have the idea
spread that we are giving everything
away and the other country is not giv-
ing something. The Senator agrees,
does he not, that so far as Texas is con-
cerned the water which will be obtained
under this treaty practically all comes
from Mexico?
-------
2252
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. MURDOCK. I do not want to
take the position, and I have not taken
it, that one section of the country is be-
ing traded off against another section. I
have studiously avoided saying that.
Mr. CHAVEZ. But, as a practical
proposition, is not what I have said true?
Mr. MURDOCK. It is my opinion, I
may say to the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico, that it was a mistake
in the first place to approach a treaty
with Mexico on the basis of the two
rivers instead of dealing individually
with them. In my opinion, equity could
have been much better served if the two
rivers had been treated in separate
treaties instead of together.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Possibly I would have
preferred that, but that is not the ques-
tion now before us. The fact still re-
mains that the Government of the United
States has entered into a contractual
obligation with a friendly republic, and
I do not feel that the Government of the
United States would enter into such a
contractual obligation with a foreign
country unless the United States felt
that they were getting something under
the contract, and I believe that under
the contract we are getting something
from Mexico.
The point I am trying to make is this:
I think we made a pretty good treaty so
far as the United States is concerned,
although of course there is a difference
of opinion; but the question still remains
that I do not see how it can be proved
to the American people that under this
contract this country is giving every-
thing away and getting nothing in re-
turn. I think we are getting something.
Mr. MURDOCK. I respect the Sena-
tor's opinion and I never quarrel with
him as to any opinion he may express.
I may be considered a little too vehement
in my statement, but the point I am
making today is that we are not only be-
ing fair to Mexico but we are being
generous. It is my opinion that if under
the treaty we had limited Mexico to
1,000,000 acre-feet, we would have been
not only fair but generous. I may say
further to the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico that I object to my
country undertaking to guarantee de-
livery of water. This is a very extraor-
dinary undertaking. I do not think
there is any obligation on our part to do
that. In my opinion all we are obligated
to do is to say to Mexico, "You are en-
titled to so much water from the Colo-
rado River," and, having said that, then
it would become our obligation not to
enlarge our use to the point where the
right of Mexico would have to be cur-
tailed except as the natural flow of the
river is diminished by natural causes.
But for my country to say that forever
and ever we will dedicate, for Mexican
use, facilities along the Colorado River
which we have built, in my opinion goes
too far.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I understand what the
Senator from Utah has in mind, and I
respect his opinion. The Senator from
Utah feels about this particular matter
as possibly some of us in the upper basin
"Hates feel about the original Colorado
River compact. The upper basin States
were left in the same situation the Sena-
tor now suggests the United States is be-
ing left. Of course, the upper basin
States were all for the Boulder Dam
project, but what have we gotten up to
now? California gets the power, Cali-
fornia gets the water, but the upper
States furnish the water and have not
a single project.
Mr. MURDOCK. My answer to the
distinguished Senator is that all Cali-
fornia gets she will pay for. She not
only is amortizing the cost of the project
to the Federal Government but she is
also paying—and I think rightly so—to
Arizona so much every year, to Nevada
so much every year, and she is paying
into a development fund for the river
$500,000 annually for a period of 50
years.
Mr. CHAVEZ. That is paid by the
users of the power which is developed
by the water that comes from the upper
basin States.
Mr. MURDOCK. That is correct.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2253
Mr. CHAVEZ. So they are not paying
anything back, but they are getting
power cheaper than it can be obtained
in any of the upper basin States.
Mr. MURDOCK. The Senator must
admit if they were not paying $1,100,000
[p. 3482]
a year as itemized a moment ago by me
their power would come much cheaper.
Mr. CHAVEZ. But, of course, the tax-
payer of California is paying for that
power only in an indirect way. The user
of the power pays for it.
Mr. MURDOCK. If the distinguished
Senator can distinguish between the
taxpayers of California and the users of
power in California, then he is capable
of doing something that I cannot do.
Whether the Boulder Canyon project is
paid for by direct taxation or in power
rates it costs the people of southern Cali-
fornia the same amount. The distin-
guished Senator from New Mexico may
get some satisfaction out of his distinc-
tion between taxpayers and power users,
but the people who pay will get little
comfort.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Utah yield to the Senator
from California?
Mr. MURDOCK. I yield.
Mr. DOWNEY. I know my dear
friend, the Senator from New Mexico,
will want the RECORD to be correct. As
the Senator knows, one of the power
contractors under the Colorado River
project was the metropolitan water
district, which obligated itself to take 36
percent of the power, and to pay for that
power, I might say, whether they could
use it or not, or whether they could re-
sell it or not. In the few years before
the war came on, the metropolitan water
district, as I recall the figures—and I
know they are approximately correct—
was compelled to pay for four and a half
million dollars' worth of power which it
could not dispose of, and which repre-
sented a total loss, and the only unhappy
and tragic event which saved the situa-
tion was the coming on of the war, with
its great demand for power. But I might
say to the distinguished Senator that the
California power interests, including the
largest, the metropolitan water district,
have guaranteed the obligation, even
though they lose vast sums on it, as they
may. They still have to make good on
the payments to Uncle Sam on Boulder
Dam.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from California will also recognize
that when the original contract was made
with the Federal Government for the
payment for power by the water district
of southern California, or the agency
that was using it, it was under a cer-
tain rate. Is not that correct?
Mr. DOWNEY. That is correct.
Mr. CHAVEZ. For delivery of power
at Boulder Dam?
Mr. DOWNEY. That is correct.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Is it not true that with-
in the last few years the same agency
has been before the Congress and has
had the rates lowered to the very mini-
mum, so they certainly are getting some
benefits out of Boulder Dam?
Mr. DOWNEY. Will the Senator from
Utah yield?
Mr. MURDOCK. I should like to say
just this to the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico. When the Boulder
Canyon Adjustment Act was before the
Congress, what California did was to
liquidate the uncertain claims which
were contained in the Boulder Canyon
Project Act, to reduce to a cash basis
payments to Arizona and Nevada, and
she also reduced to a cash basis her con-
tribution to the development fund.
I yield to the junior Senator from
California.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, if the
Senator will permit me, I merely wish to
reply to the last very logical point per-
tinently made by the Senator from New
Mexico.
It is true that the rates as originally
fixed for the amortization and operation
of the Boulder Canyon project have been
-------
2254
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
reduced. The obligation of the power
contract is to amortize out the debt, to
pay the interest, to pay $1,100,000 extra
for 50 years, and turn the project over
to Uncle Sam at the end of 50 years in
good condition.
The power rates must, in the opinion of
the Secretary of the Interior, be sufficient
to do that, and whenever he thinks ex-
isting rates are too high, he can lower
them, and when he thinks they are too
low, he can increase them. Of course,
as the Senator has correctly stated, there
has been one decrease from the original
rate.
Mr. MURDOCH.. Mr. President, I
conclude my remarks by saying that
while I do intend to, and shall, vote for
the treaty, I do it because, as the Sen-
ator from New Mexico has said, we do
gain something. I hope we have set at
rest for all time any controversy over
the division of waters between the two
countries. That, in my opinion, is a big
accomplishment.
I also secured the adoption of a reser-
vation which, in my opinion, emphati-
cally and clearly places a ceiling on the
maximum quantity of water which Mex-
ico will get.
Having done that, in my opinion, Mr.
President, we have accomplished at least
something of permanent value. I am
confident that the Congress will cooper-
ate with the Colorado River States in full
development of the river. Utmost con-
servation of Colorado River waters will
lessen the burden under the treaty and
protect the States' rights under the com-
pact. The present international situa-
tion, coupled with the fact that the
reservations adopted have greatly im-
proved the treaty cause me to forego my
objections and I shall vote for the treaty.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
wonder if the Senator from California
would allot me about 5 minutes' time.
Mr. DOWNEY. Is the implication
from that, Mr. President, that the dis-
tinguished Senator is about to lend his
persuasive ability to the rejection of the
treaty?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Not at all. I
merely wish to talk for the treaty.
Mr. DOWNEY. I shall be happy to
yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from California has the floor,
and he yields to the Senator from Wyo-
ming for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I thank the Sena-
tor. I desire to add one or two items
with respect to the revenues which are
being derived under the Boulder Canyon
Act from the Boulder Dam and its facili-
ties, indicating what may be expected
from the development of the other proj-
ects to which I referred when I took the
floor earlier today.
The Boulder Canyon Adjustment Act,
which was enacted in July 1920, directed
the Secretary of the Interior to fix rates
and charges for electrical energy gener-
ated at Boulder Dam in such a manner
as to produce certain revenue for certain
purposes. Among those purposes was
one to build up a fund known as the
Colorado River development fund.
The table which I have in my hand,
and which is taken from pages 556 and
557 of the Senate committee hearings on
the Interior Department appropriation
bill for 1945, shows that the receipts of
the Colorado River development fund
under this act, from the year 1938 to
1945, inclusive—the revenues for the
latter year being estimated—total for the
entire river $4,000,000, and for the upper
division $2,500,000.
Out of this sum there has been appro-
priated to date, from the Colorado River
development fund, for the lower basin
a total of $1,349,750 and for the upper
basin $750,000. These appropriations
are all for the preparation of the plans
for future development.
I cite these figures, Mr. President, as
indicating that the construction of these
projects will create new opportunities
for Federal revenue. They may well be
called self-liquidating projects. They
are not to be regarded as in the category
of wasteful Federal expenditures which
produce nothing. They are investments
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2255
in productive enterprise, and as such,
deserve the support and consideration of
the entire Congress in the future, as they
have in the past.
I thank the Senator from California.
*****
[p. 3483]
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I should
like to ask the senior from Texas a
question.
The real nut of this whole treaty is
the 1,500,000 acre-feet of water to be
delivered to Mexico. As I understand,
we guarantee to Mexico a minimum of
1,500,000 acre-feet. In some of the state-
ments which I have heard, speakers have
taken the position that in case of an ex-
tended drought less than 1,500,000 acre-
feet could be delivered. Can the Senator
from Texas direct my attention to the
clause of the treaty which protects the
United States in that respect?
Mr. CONNALLY. I will find it in a
moment. We discussed it on the floor
of the Senate yesterday.
Mr. AUSTIN. It is found in article
10, in the fourth paragraph.
Mr. CONNALLY. Without reading it
now, does that explain the situation?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I wish
to make a very brief statement to the
Senate concerning this treaty, as I see it
developing. I will appreciate it if the
distinguished presiding officer will notify
me when I have occupied 20 minutes of
time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That
will be done.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I as-
sume from what has occurred in the
Senate that there will be a vote at 4
o'clock today, and that two-thirds of
the Senators present will vote to approve
the treaty.
First, on behalf of myself and the
State which I represent, I wish to thank
the Foreign Relations Committee, par-
ticularly the distinguished chairman of
the committee [Mr. CONNALLY] for his
courtesy and patience in permitting me
to participate in the committee's hear-
ings by questioning witnesses who of-
fered testimony. On behalf of the many
witnesses who came here from California
to testify, I want to thank the chairman
for his most generous consideration. We
have not had as much time or opportun-
ity to express our ideas as we should like
to have, but in view of the tremendous
flow of issues in and out of Washington,
I know that we have had all we are justi-
fied in having.
At the beginning of this debate I stated
that impartial political writers seem to
agree that the Senate has improved al-
most every treaty it has amended in any
way, and has been justified in rejecting
the treaties which it has rejected. I re-
serve my opinion with respect to the
great League of Nations Treaty which,
of course, is in a class by itself.
In hundreds of cases the Senate has
prevented the administrative agencies
from making ambiguous and imprudent
commitments. I wish to express to the
Senate my gratitude that here in this
free forum we have greatly improved the
pending treaty. Vast and extreme pow-
ers which were grasped at by the de-
signers of the treaty have been swept
aside or greatly curtailed. Many ambi-
guities have been clarified. Possibly im-
prudent commitments have been
prevented. We are grateful for that.
When the treaty left the State Depart-
ment it was a tragic and unfortunate
.document. The protocol first greatly
curtailed its powers, and the 10 or 15
reservations, to which we have here
agreed, accomplish a great deal.
Mr. President, I hope the Senate will
not think I am dealing too much in per-
sonalities when I now express my deep
appreciation and gratitude for our senior
Senator from California [Mr. JOHNSON]
for the gallant struggle he has made
here. The gallantry and the courage
which he has so often shown in well over
30 years of public service have again
been demonstrated in this treaty fight.
In our State our distinguished senior
Senator will always remain one of our
-------
2256
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
great figures. One of his great under-
takings and great dreams was consum-
mated by the building of Boulder Dam,
by which the water in the Colorado River
available for irrigation and other bene-
ficial uses was more than doubled.
I also wish to express my appreciation,
if I may do so, of our California wit-
nesses. As this record is examined by
engineers, attorneys, and historians, I
think they will find that the witnesses
from California dealt with the subject
matter with intelligence, accuracy, and
integrity. Most of the witnesses who
were presented by California were men
eminent in our State as engineers, law-
yers, and industrial leaders; I am proud
of the record they have presented.
Without their valuable technical services
and their clear understanding of the
dangers which lurked in the cumber-
some provisions in the treaty as it was
revealed well over a year ago, I am
certain the situation would not have
been so much improved by the protocol
to the treaty and the several clarifying
reservations.
While I am very happy over a greatly
improved treaty, I still find at least
three serious faults in it. The Interna-
tional Boundary Commissioner and his
aides apparently never realized that
there is a great body of underground
water in the Colorado River delta in
Mexico which is not in the United States.
At least, they never dealt with that sub-
ject at all. The Supreme Court of the
United States declared, in the Kansas-
Colorado case, that under similar condi-
tions existing in Kansas and Colorado,
underground waters must be considered
as one of the equities chargeable against
the lower State. What is more important
in this respect, the future development
of underground waters in Lower Cali-
fornia might, by affecting the capacity of
the geological structure there, allow
Mexico to draw down another 200,000 or
300,000 or 400,000 acre-feet of water
which would be from our river in the
United States.
Mr. President, yesterday I tried un-
availingly to convince the Senate that,
as a part of the treaty, we should make
a commitment to build the Gila Dam.
Of the many matters entirely over-
looked in the negotiations or at least in
the writing of the treaty, one of the out-
standing ones was with respect to the
building of the Gila Dam. I serve notice
on the Senate now that at some time in
the immediate future it will be my in-
tention to press in this body for action on
the Gila Dam, and I hope similar action
will be taken in the House of
Representatives.
The great defect in the treaty at this
time—and whether it strikes at the heart
of Mexico or of the United States, I do
not pretend to say—is the failure to
clarify the provision with reference to
the salinity of water to be delivered to
Mexico. In irrigation the salinity of the
water is a factor just as important as the
actual volume of water. In my opinion,
the treaty contains a very serious am-
biguity in respect to that matter. I doubt
very much whether we shall ever know,
until there has been some kind of ad-
judication by some international body,
whether Mexico will be compelled to
take water regardless of its quality. If
Mexico is obligated to take water from
the Colorado River from our return flow,
however saline it may be, in my opinion
she will have a treaty which will be
[p. 3484]
dangerous and of very doubtful value
to her. The State Department antici-
pates that there will be over a million
acre-feet of return flow from the Colo-
rado, most of which, I believe, will be
highly saline. In arriving at that figure
it did not count upon the 500,000 or
1,000,000 acre-feet of water which might
at some time be returned by California
to the Colorado River. It might very
well be, according to the interpretation
given by our State Department, that
under this treaty all the water obtained
by Mexico might be from return flow,
and all of it might be so saline as to be
unusable. If hereafter it should be de-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2257
termined that Mexico does not have to
take water of poor quality, then we
might be obligated to add 300,000 or
400,000 acre-feet of water to the 1,500,000
acre-feet of water, and to bring that
additional water down to the boundary
from Lake Mead. In that event, a most
dangerous condition would exist. I think
the situation is such that the danger to
the upper basin States is much greater
than the danger to the lower basin
States. It might be that the lower basin
would provide a return flow of 1,500,000
acre-feet of water and would receive
credit for it from the upper basin States.
In that event, we might immediately find
that the whole burden of furnishing
1,500,000 acre-feet of fresh water might
fall upon the upper basin States. All
those States are represented in the Sen-
ate by distinguished and able men; and,
of course, it is not for me to fight the
battle for those States, inasmuch as the
Senators who represent them are very
much better able to do so than I am.
Mr. President, another serious defect
in the treaty, so far as I am concerned,
has to do with the number of the Com-
missioners. As we know, the treaty now
provides that there shall be a Commis-
sion which shall be composed of only two
members. It seems to me that in con-
sideration of the tremendous obligations
and responsibilities which those Com-
missioners will have, the Commission
should be increased to six members. I
shall rely upon the very gracious state-
ments made to me by the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY]
and the distinguished Senator from
Texas [Mr. CONNALLY], and hereafter I
will pursue some kind of legislative
process in an effort to see whether, by
an additional treaty, we can increase the
personnel of the Commission to six
members.
Mr. President, what I am about to say
may be considered by some Senators to
be a Utopian dream. I myself believe
that in 20 or 30 years there will be such
a scarcity of water in the Colorado River
Basin that we shall find ourselves com-
pelled to go out of that basin and into
other basins in order to find additional
water. During the course of the argu-
ment by the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAHONEY], I stated on the floor
of the Senate certain figures, which are
only approximations and general, but
they convey the general idea. The Colo-
rado River Basin, for example, has a
drainage basin of about 243,000 square
miles, as compared with 204,000 square
miles for the Ohio. But the average
annual run-off of the Ohio, which is
181,000,000 acre-feet, is over 10 times
that of the Colorado. The Columbia,
which has a basin of 259,000 square miles,
has a run-off of about 200,000,000 acre-
feet or well over 11 times that of the
Colorado. Manifestly, because of a
cooler climate and a greater precipita-
tion in the Columbia Basin, they do not
need water as badly as we do.
Looking into the future 25 or 50 years
from now, I have no doubt that it will be
a comparatively small and simple engi-
neering problem to bring additional
waters from some of the tributaries of
the Columbia, or from the Columbia it-
self, to amplify the very small quantity
of water in the Colorado Basin. It is
my intention at the proper time to sub-
mit some kind of a resolution authoriz-
ing an investigation by the Bureau of
Reclamation of the best method of am-
plifying the waters of the Colorado
River.
Mr. President, I know that many intel-
ligent and prudent men would hold up
their hands in horror at the idea of con-
veying large quantities of water by aque-
ducts 500 or 1,000 miles in length. But
if we consider for a moment the 5 great-
est irrigation projects constructed in the
United States—namely, the T. V. A.,
Boulder Dam, Bonneville Dam, Grand
Coulee, and the Central Valley project of
California—we will agree that the con-
struction of all of them did not require
more than 150,000 men over a period of
5 years.
Mr. President, if those projects had
required the employment of 1,500,000
-------
2258
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
men, or even 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 men,
we would, nevertheless, have desired the
projects. No citizen in the great area
from which the distinguished and be-
loved Senator who now presides comes
would want to see the great T. V. A. proj-
ect destroyed for $10,000,000,000, or 10
times what it cost.
While those great public projects may
at times seem to have been costly, we
know that we would not sacrifice them
for many times their original cost. Con-
sider, for example, the great Boulder
Dam project, the construction of which
was largely the result of the energy and
vision of the beloved senior Senator from
California [Mr. JOHNSON]. We in the
Southwest would not willingly see that
project destroyed for 10 times or a hun-
dred times its cost.
Mr. President, if I may know the
amount of time I have remaining, I will
conclude.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator has 27 minutes.
Mr. DOWNEY. I shall not speak fur-
ther at this time.
Mr. CONNALLY. How much time
have I remaining?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thirty
minutes.
Mr. CONNALLY. How much time
has the Senator from California?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from California has 27 minutes.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I shall
be happy to yield additional time to the
senior Senator from Texas. However, I
wish to accommodate the Senator from
New Jersey [Mr. HAWKES].
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Florida.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How
much time does the Senator from Flor-
ida desire?
Mr. PEPPER. Only 2 or 3 minutes. I
wish to make what I believe will be a
brief but fitting statement.
Mr. President, I wish to say a word in
commendation of the valiant and able
fight which has been made in respect to
the improvement and clarification of this
treaty by the able junior Senator from
California [Mr. DOWNEY]. Being a law-
yer myself, I have seen a great many
advocates in forums where causes were
being tried. Neither in my experience as
a lawyer, nor as a Senator, have I ever
seen an abler, a more gallant, a more
valiant, and at the same time a more
courteous and generous fight made in
behalf of a cause than has been made
in this debate by the able junior Senator
from California.
I wish also to pay high tribute to the
senior Senator from California [Mr.
JOHNSON] for his diligence and his ef-
forts under difficult circumstances.
I wish to assure the junior Senator
from California that I have listened at-
tentively to every word which I have
been privileged to hear of his argument.
I was very much impressed with the
need which he indicated of a further
study of the problem of amplifying the
waters of the Colorado River Basin. I
assure the junior Senator as well as his
able senior colleague, that when he
presents his resolution to the Senate he
will find the junior Senator from Florida
desirous of cooperating in every possible
way. I foresee the day when all the arid
lands in the great area of the West will
be irrigated by the waters of the Colo-
rado River. In order that we may keep
our commitments to Mexico—and at the
same time in order that there may be no
limit to what we shall be able to do in the
United States, I wish to help in every
possible way in amplifying the Colorado
River Basin waters.
Mr. President, I cannot take my seat
without paying a compliment to the se-
nior Senator from Texas, the distin-
guished chairman of the Foreign
Delations Committee [Mr. CONNALLY].
He has carried a burden which has been
almost back-breaking and heart-rend-
ing. He has carried a weight which
would have bent the back of the
strongest. He has carried on with pa-
tience, consideration, and generosity to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2259
all. He enjoys the esteem and respect of
the Members of the Senate for the way
in which he has conducted his own
gallant part in this debate.
Mr. CONNALLY. I thank the Sen-
ator from Florida for his sincerity.
Mr. President, in view of the fact that
the proponents have rested, will the
Senator from California now use some of
his remaining time?
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I had
thought that the reservations which were
being handled by the senior Senator
from New Jersey [Mr. HAWKES] would
be acceptable to the other interested
Members of the Senate, but apparently
I am not correct. I ask him if he is now
ready to proceed. If he is ready, and if
it be agreeable to the senior Senator
from
[p. 3485]
Texas, I will yield to him the remainder
of the time allotted to our side.
Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, I thank
the junior Senator from California. I
have been waiting to see if some of us
could reach an agreement with respect
to certain matters. If that can be ac-
complished, it will save the time of the
Senate. I refer to the reservation which
I submitted the other day to the effect
that nothing in the treaty should impair
the rights and obligations of contracts
which the United States Government has
made with its citizens. I am not pre-
pared at the moment to present the
reservation.
Mr. CONNALLY. I suggest to the
Senator that he proceed with his argu-
ment because it is not probable that an
agreement will be reached. In the in-
terest of the time of the Senate I think
it would be well for him to proceed with
the presentation of the reservation.
Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, I have
submitted two reservations. One of
them deals with the question of the
American section having the right to de-
clare the existence of a drought. That
question was virtually disposed of yes-
terday by the presentation of a similar
reservation by the junior Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY]. I therefore
withdraw that reservation.
But, Mr. President, I offer another
reservation, which reads:
That nothing in this treaty shall impair or
require a violation of any valid compact or
contract heretofore made by the United States
with its States, public agencies, or citizens.
I realize that we are coming to a vote
at 4 o'clock this afternoon, and therefore
I shall try to be as brief as I can. I be-
lieve it is unnecessary for me to go over
the various points I have previously
made in the Senate on different days. I
feel very definitely that, regardless of
what may happen to the pending treaty,
it has been substantially improved by
the debate, by the better understanding
Senators now have of it, and by the
reservations which have already been
adopted.
We are all familiar with the Colorado
River compact involving seven States. I
believe every Member of the Senate is
familiar with the Boulder Dam Act, and
with the fact, upon which I shall briefly
touch, that when the Boulder Canyon
bill came to the Senate from the House
it was amended in the Senate so as to
state definitely that the water to be con-
served by Boulder Dam was for the ex-
clusive use of the citizens of the United
States. To me that meant something,
and it should always mean something.
The distinguished Senator from Ne-
vada [Mr. McCARRAN] yesterday read
into the RECORD the words of the late
Senator Pittman at the time that
amendment was discussed in the Senate.
They were very prophetic words, be-
cause it seems that the Government of
the United States and the Senate are
about to do what Senator Pittman pre-
dicted could not be done or, at least,
would not be done. I shall not take the
time of the Senate to reread Senator
Pittman's remarks, as I believe Senators
are familiar with them.
Mr. President, I am one who believes
very sincerely that this is a new pattern
of a treaty, and I feel that no Senator
-------
2260
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
should fail to analyze the meaning of
this new pattern of treaty which the
United States Government is willing to
make with a foreign nation, practically
knowing at the time it is made that it
will interfere with the rights and the
property of people who have relied upon
the contracts and the compacts which
have been made by the Federal Govern-
ment with the States, its agencies, and
its citizens. It is my feeling that we
cannot afford to let down our own citi-
zens, and, so far as I am concerned, un-
less we can protect them in the things
they have done and will do under con-
tracts and compacts upon which they
had a right to rely, there is not much
hope of building that reverence for gov-
ernment which is required in the United
States if we are to get back to sound
moorings.
I have said before, but, at the expense
of repetition, I should like to emphasize
that 40 or 50 years is a very short time
in the life of a great nation. Many
Senators say to me, "Why are you wor-
ried about this treaty? The States which
are affected cannot use the water now
and they will not be able to use it for
40 or 50 years." I say to you, Mr. Presi-
dent, that 40 or 50 years in the life of
a great nation such as the United States
is a very short time. One of the best-
known passages of the Bible is "For a
thousand years in Thy sight are but as
yesterday when it is past."
Fifty years in the life of this great
Nation, I repeat, is an insignificant per-
riod and the fact that under this treaty
additional water may not be needed by
Western States during my lifetime or
possibly during the lifetime of my chil-
dren does not cause me for one moment
to forget that we have a duty to future
generations.
I know that there is not much chance
of this reservation being adopted by the
Senate. The votes yesterday on reser-
vations equally important clearly indi-
cate that the treaty is pretty well in the
bag; but that does not relieve me of my
responsibility to place myself on record
as being in favor of protecting the rights
of our American citizens and establish-
ing some way by which their rights may
be preserved, as they had a right to as-
sume they would be when they under-
took^ development work and spent
hundreds of millions of dollars in build-
ing dams, aqueducts, and waterways.
Mr. President, regardless of my fervent
hope and deep desire for peace on earth,
I still believe that the representatives
of the people and the Government of the
United States as a whole owe first al-
legiance to our American citizens and
the established agencies which have
been built up by the authority of the
people.
My real concern about this instru-
ment is that it is a brand new pattern
of treaty; and I caution my colleagues
that, in my opinion, the people of the
United States will ultimately expect pro-
tection of their valid rights by the
Government.
There may be times when it is neces-
sary for the peace of the world and in
order to be a fair, just, and considerate
neighbor to do things which may injure
a few of our citizens, but when that be-
comes necessary in the interest of the
welfare of all, then the Government,
which is composed by all, should care-
fully consider the making of any treaty
which, in advance, indicates that it will
breach faith with the citizens of this
country.
We should then weigh the importance
of the two things, and if it is deemed
that the treaty is more important than
the protection of the rights of all of our
citizens, we should make the treaty,
knowing that we will be called upon to
remedy the injury to the full extent of
our ability.
This is the only kind of justice which
will keep faith with our citizens. Unless
we keep faith with our own citizens, no
one in the world has a right to expect us
to keep faith with them under a treaty
or otherwise.
Peace cannot be purchased with
money or gifts of natural resources, be-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2261
cause the money and the gifts will not
hold out long enough to make an endur-
ing peace. Peace has to be in the hearts
of the people of the world, and it can
only result from the character of the in-
dividuals who seek it and through sacri-
fices which are sound enough and just
enough to cause future generations to be
willing to live with the bargains we cre-
ate for them.
Mr. President, I think it is unnecessary
for me to take any more time of the
Senate in connection with the reserva-
tion I have proposed, but I do want a
yea-and-nay vote on it. I am willing to
try to answer any questions any Senator
may desire to ask me as to why I take
this position; but I must keep faith with
myself in trying to see to it that the
United States protects its citizens.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
reservation offered by the Senator from
New Jersey will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. At the end of the
resolution of ratification it is proposed
to insert the following:
With the understanding, as a part of this
ratification—•
That nothing in this treaty shall impair or
require violation of any valid compact or con-
tract heretofore made by the United States,
with its States, public agencies, or citizens.
and that this understanding will be men-
tioned in the ratification of this treaty as
conveying the true meaning of the treaty and
will in effect form a part of the treaty.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
rise to express my opposition to the res-
ervation. I oppose it upon two grounds,
first, that there is nothing in the treaty
itself which makes necessary such a res-
ervation. The treaty sets forth the man-
ner in which any obligation we have to
Mexico is to be distributed among the
States. I regard it to be an obligation
upon the entire Colorado River system.
The second reason is that it deals with
a subject matter which should be han-
dled solely by the States which entered
into the Colorado River compact. There
is no question in my mind that if a res-
ervation of this kind were added to the
treaty it would amount to prejudgment
of an issue which might arise in the fu-
[p. 3486]
ture among the States. It has nothing
to do with the treaty with Mexico, as I
see it.
The obligation we are assuming with
respect to Mexico is to the advantage of
all the States—California and Wyoming
and all the other lower and upper basin
States—because it stabilizes this river.
Any effort by a reservation to the
treaty to lend extra validity or power or
sanction to contingent contracts which
may have been entered into by the Gov-
ernment of the United States, and the
enforcement of which may be sought in
the future, is, as I see it, altogether ir-
relevant, but the addition of such a res-
ervation would lend color and force to
the position of one side. I suggest to
the Senator that a reservation of this
kind, offered so shortly before the time
agreed upon for a vote upon the treaty,
deprives us of proper opportunity for
consideration. The committee which
considered the treaty did not approve
the reservation.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. BARKLEY. As I understand it,
the compact entered into among the Col-
orado River States anticipated an ulti-
mate treaty between the United States
and Mexico, and provision was made in
the compact for such treaty as might be
entered into. So that it seems to me it
is possible that contracts may have been
entered into under the compact which
would be inconsistent with the treaty
with Mexico, and that this reservation
would have the effect of nullifying the
treaty with Mexico, and preserving some
arrangement among the States which
they themselves might want to change,
regardless of either the treaty or the
compact, so long as it did not violate the
treaty.
Have I interpreted the compact prop-
erly as it relates to the treaty with
Mexico?
-------
2262
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator has.
Mr. BARKLEY. This reservation,
then, would in effect be an amendment
of the treaty itself which would nullify
the anticipation of the States in making
the compact, looking forward to a treaty
between the United States and Mexico?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator per-
ceives the situation as it exists.
I wish to add that the Colorado River
compact provides for the division of the
waters of the river between the upper
and lower basin. Article III, paragraph
(a), provides:
There is hereby apportioned from the Col-
orado River system in perpetuity to the upper
basin and to the lower basin, respectively,
the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of
7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum.
In paragraph (b) it is provided:
In addition to the apportionment in para-
graph (a), the lower basin is hereby given
the right to increase its beneficial consump-
tive use of such waters by 1,000,000 acre-feet
per annum.
Then in paragraph (d) it is provided:
The States of the upper division will not
cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be
depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000
acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive
years reckoned in continuing and progressive
series beginning with the 1st day of October
next succeeding the ratification of this
compact.
Mr. President, what I desire to point
out is that the upper basin States have
been more than generous to the lower
basin States. The upper basin States
have contributed here, on the floor of
the Senate, and on the floor of the House,
to the building of works in the lower
basin States, and I say respectfully to
the author of the reservation, who is
speaking on behalf of California, that
he need have no fear of the desire for
justice on the part of the upper basin
States, and he can very properly and
confidently remit any question which
may be in his mind to the judgment of
the States in the Colorado River basin.
He should not attempt to foreclose any
dispute which may arise among the
States by adding a reservation of this
kind to the treaty. It forecloses the
judgment of the States. I regard it as
an impairment of the Colorado River
compact, and I hope the Senate will not
agree to the reservation, or to any modi-
fication of it. It has no place in the
treaty.
Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. McFARLAND. As I understand
the Senator from Wyoming, if a State or
an individual were damaged, and the
case were presented at the proper time
and place, the Senator would be willing
to vote to award damages?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I should be very
willing to consider any case which might
be made out, but I do not want to be
foreclosed, and I do not want anyone to
ask the Senate to foreclose a dispute of
that kind which may arise in the future
and the character of which we know
nothing about at this moment.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wyoming yield?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. LUCAS. From the hearings I
understood that the Colorado River
compact gave to the upper basin States a
certain amount of firm water and to the
lower basin States a certain amount of
firm water. I am correct in that, am
I not?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. LUCAS. In addition to that, cer-
tain contracts were made by California
with certain agencies of the Govern-
ment, and under those contracts they
got additional water over and above the
amount they received under the Colo-
rado River compact, but at the same
time always taking into consideration
in the contracts what the compact
provided.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. The contracts
were in effect contingent contracts, and
the compact was the superior document.
Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct.
In the event that this reservation shall
be adopted by the Senate, we will give
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2263
color of validity to such contingent
contract?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Precisely.
Mr. LUCAS. That is exactly what we
do not want to do, because, as I noted
the testimony from time to time before
the committee, it seemed to me that
those contracts should never have been
made and that some time, some place,
the States affected are going to have
litigation over their rights as a result of
some of the contracts which have been
made. I do not want to be a party in
the United States Senate to voting for
a reservation which will do something
to give color of validity to a contract
which, in my opinion, was dubious in the
beginning.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I thank the Sen-
ator from Illinois.
Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. If the Senator will
pardon me for a moment, I wish to add
that this matter was before the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations, the committee
had ample opportunity to consider it,
and the committee did not agree to the
reservation. Had it been before the
committee with any likelihood of being
adopted, I should have been before the
committee talking about it, as I do not
want to be in the position, if I can avoid
it, of being compelled, 40 minutes before
the time we have agreed, under unani-
mous consent, on a vote on the treaty,
to resist a reservation which prejudges a
possible controversy, and I think the
Senator from New Jersey should not ask
the Senate to do that.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
President, will the Senator from Wyom-
ing yield to me?
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I wish
to associate myself with the argument
and the contention being made by the
Senator from Wyoming. The proposed
reservation would certainly be an inter-
ference with the rights of the compact
States, and with the compact to which
they have agreed.
The Senator has no right, it seems to
me, to bring a contentious matter of that
kind into the consideration of the treaty
at this late hour.
Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, let
me ask the Senator from New Jersey if
he will not speak in his own time now?
Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, I shall
be glad to speak in my own time now.
I should like to say that I cannot fol-
low the reasoning of the distinguished
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MA-
HONEY] or the distinguished Senator
from Illinois [Mr. LUCAS], or my friend
the distinguished Senator from Colorado
[Mr. JOHNSON]. I do not think the res-
ervation attempts in any way to deter-
mine whether a contract is good or valid,
or what was done in the compact when
the seven States reached their agree-
ment. The reservation does not attempt
to set forth what the Boulder Canyon
Dam Act provides. It does not attempt
to deal with the matters which were
before the parties at all. It simply pro-
vides that nothing in the treaty shall
impair or require violation of any valid
compact or contract, and I emphasize the
word "valid," heretofore made by the
United States with its States, public
agencies, or citizens.
Mr. President, I think it is most unfair
for the distinguished Senator from Illi-
nois, the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming, or any other Member of the
Senate to say that they are having to
act upon this matter on 40 minutes'
[p. 3487]
notice. I presented the reservation more
than 3 days ago. I spoke on it in the
Senate. The reservation was printed
and has been lying on the table. I am
daily asked to vote in the Senate on
unprinted resolutions and bills and
amendments. I do not like to do that. I
think it is a very unsound method of
legislating. But, Mr. President, I say
that the Senators who have just spoken
have known about this matter by reason
of my discussion on the Senate floor and
-------
2264
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
from the fact that the reservation has
been printed and distributed for more
than 3 days. So I think it is almost an
unfair insinuation for the Senator from
Wyoming to intimate that I am bring-
ing in a new issue and asking him to
vote on it on 40 minutes' notice.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. HAWKES. I yield.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I did not say that
the Senator was bringing in any new
issue which would require me or anyone
else to talk about it within 40 minutes
of time. I said that the issue is precipi-
tated here after having been rejected by
the committee. I am well aware that
the reservation offered by the Senator
was printed and was lying on the table.
Mr. HAWKES. If I may interrupt at
that point, let me say that the reserva-
tion was never rejected by the Senate
committee. Let us have this matter
entirely clear. The subcommittee of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
which was headed by the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. GEORGE], said the reserva-
tion was not germane to the subjects
which had been assigned to them, and
therefore the subcommittee could not
give it consideration. That is a vastly
different thing from being rejected.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, I
recognize and respect the good faith of
the Senator from New Jersey, and I
make no imputation whatsoever re-
specting what he is doing. I am merely
pointing out that, while it may be true
that the Foreign Relations Committee
did not formally vote to reject this res-
ervation, it did not act favorably on it,
and I assumed, and I know that all Sen-
ators from the upper-basin States as-
sumed, that it was not to be brought
forward by the committee. It certainly
does not have the approval of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations. I may say
to the Senator from New Jersey that it
does not have the approval of the Sena-
tors from the upper-basin States.
Mr. HAWKES. I understand that. If
I may interpose at this point, let me
inquire if the Senator from Wyoming
was in the Senate Chamber when the
Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE]
reported on this reservation? If the
Senator from Wyoming was in the
Chamber he will remember, if my recol-
lection is correct, that the Senator from
Georgia said that while the reservation
was not germane to the issues which had
been given to the subcommittee to con-
sider, it was perfectly proper for me to
offer the reservation on the floor and
have it printed, and lie on the table.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. That is proper,
certainly.
Mr. HAWKES. Yes, I know it is
proper; but the point I am making is that
if the Senator was present he certainly
cannot say now that he has not had
more than 40 minutes to think about it.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I did not say that
I had not had more than 40 minutes to
think about it. I have had a long time
to think about it, and my thought is
such that I think the reservation should
be rejected. What I say is that I have
had only 40 minutes in which to explain
my point of view to the Senate.
Mr. HAWKES. I may say to the dis-
tinguished Senator—and I have great
respect for him—
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. HAWKES. I may say that some
day I believe the people of the United
States will be working together in the
interest of the United States of America
so that the United States can do its
duty to the world. I think this thing has
the earmarks of different basins fighting
each other, and I believe some day they
will regret that they are doing so. I be-
lieve some day they will have a very
deep regret that they did not recognize
the rights and interests of each other and
work for the preservation of the golden
water which is so important to the Sen-
ator's State of Wyoming. I know the
Senator's State. I have been there many
times. The Senator and I had the pleas-
ure of being on the same platform in his
State.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2265
Mr. O'MAHONEY. And it was a very
great pleasure, I will say to the Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. HAWKES. It was a great pleas-
ure to me. We had the great pleasure
of being there together. I say to the
Senator from Wyoming that it is too
bad that there is an insinuation all
through this discussion that California
is a culprit.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. No.
Mr. HAWKES. That California wants
something she should not have. That
she made the best of a bargain in time
past. If we are to take everyone in the
United States who ever honestly made
the best of a bargain and then overturn
it because they were ingenious and able
enough to make a good bargain, we will
have a very rough time in the United
States.
Mr. O'MAHONEY. I will say to the
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. President,
that I would be the last person in the
world to imply that California was a
culprit. Certainly I have the deepest
respect and admiration for the senior
Senator from California [Mr. JOHNSON]
whose courageous and effective service
upon this floor I have been familiar with
since the day he entered the Senate back
in 1917. I was here when the Senator
from California took the oath of office.
I was proud to have the opportunity of
seeing him take the oath of office. I cast
no reflection upon anyone in California.
I cast no reflection upon the California
representation here. I would say the
same thing about the junior Senator
from Califorina that I have said with
respect to the senior Senator from Cali-
fornia. I cast no reflection on the Sen-
ator from New Jersey. I am merely say-
ing that the upper basin States have an
obligation which they have observed of
supplying at least 75,000,000 acre-feet of
water during a 10-year period. They
will continue to observe that obligation.
The upper basin States have seen de-
velopments proceed in other States in
the lower basin. They have watched
them. Their representatives in the Sen-
ate have now agreed to this treaty which
guarantees a certain supply of water to
Mexico. We have supported that treaty
because we want the situation stabi-
lized. But, Mr. President, we do not
want the treaty or any reservation to it
to be used as the instrumentality of set-
tling a controversy which ought to be
settled among the States. We should
not be foreclosed in this manner.
I thank the Senator from New Jersey
for permitting me to intrude upon his
time.
Mr. HAWKES. The Senator from
Wyoming is entirely welcome. I only
wish to say I do not think the reserva-
tion in any way precludes the States
from settling their problems, and I em-
phasize again the point that the reser-
vation deals only with valid compacts
and contracts heretofore made by the
United States with its States, public
agencies, or citizens.
Mr. President, I have no desire to
delay the proceedings. I ask for a yea-
and-nay vote on my reservation.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, inas-
much as the unanimous-consent agree-
ment provides for a vote to be taken at
4 o'clock, and inasmuch as I understand
the Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY]
and one or two other Senators desire to
discuss some features of the treaty be-
fore 4 o'clock, I suggest that the Senate
begin voting at 4 o'clock, and vote on
the reservation offered by the Senator
from New Jersey first. In that way we
will lose no time between now and 4
o'clock.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Chair will state to the Senator from New
Jersey that the first vote will come on
his reservation.
Mr. HAWKES. So long as it is un-
derstood that my reservation is to be
voted on separately, I am satisfied.
Mr. BARKLEY. Oh, yes; and I am
willing to agree now that there be a yea-
and-nay vote on the Senator's reser-
vation.
Mr. HAWKES. I ask for the yeas and
nays on my reservation.
-------
2266
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there a sufficient number seconding the
request of the Senator from New Jersey
for the yeas and nays on his reservation?
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I
hope the Senator from California will
use the remainder of his time, because
the proponents of the treaty are entitled
to the last word.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from California has 14 minutes,
and the Senator from Texas has 16
minutes.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I do
not desire to consume any additional
time. If any volunteer wishes to speak
on behalf of the reservation, or against
the treaty, I shall be glad to yield time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ap-
parently there are no volunteers. Does
the Senator from California yield his
time to the Senator from Texas?
[p. 3488]
Mr. DOWNEY. I shall be glad to do
so, Mr. President, unless some new point
should be injected into the debate. Un-
less I intervene, I shall be glad to yield
the time to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, after
many days of discussion and considera-
tion, we are approaching a vote on the
pending reservation and on the treaty.
I wish to thank Senators for the interest
which they have manifested in the treaty
and for the patience with which they
have listened to those of us who have
spoken on the subject.
Mr. President, I should like to be noti-
fied at the end of 8 minutes, because I
wish to reserve some time for the Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
The pending reservation, offered by
the Senator from New Jersey, is wholly
unacceptable, not only to all members
of the Foreign Relations Committee ex-
cept two, but especially to Senators from
the upper-basin States. They are bit-
terly opposed to it. It would be very
deleterious to the treaty and might in-
terfere with its acceptance by Mexico,
because it is a variation of the terms of
the treaty.
The purpose of the reservation is this:
Originally the States of the upper basin
and the States of the lower basin entered
into what was called an interstate com-
pact. Under that compact the States of
the upper basin were to receive 7,500,000
acre-feet of water a year, and the States
in the lower basin were to receive 8,500,-
000 acre-feet. Then came the Boulder
Canyon Dam Act, which, in a way rati-
fied and adopted the interstate compact
between the States as the basis for the
division of the water. It was also pro-
vided that the State of California should
enact a statute accepting limitations on
the amount of water which she should
receive. The State of California,
through its legislature, enacted such a
statute.
Under the interstate compact between
the States, California was allocated
4,400,000 acre-feet of water each year.
She accepted the terms of that limitation
by act of her own legislature, limiting
her claim to that amount. Subsequently
the Secretary of the Interior made cer-
tain so-called contracts with the users
of the water which greatly increased the
allotment to California. They provided
more than 5,000,000 acre-feet for Cali-
fornia. Those contracts were predicated
upon the theory that the water would be
available under the terms of the com-
pact, under the terms of the Boulder
Canyon Act, and under all laws and
agreements relating thereto.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. I yield.
Mr. DOWNEY. In the interest of ac-
curacy, I think it should be stated that
the Boulder Canyon Dam Act not only
provided 4,400,000 acre-feet for Cali-
fornia, but also one-half of the surplus
in addition.
Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator is cor-
rect. Of course, so long as there is a
surplus, no one complains.
Every one of the contracts to which
I have referred had written into it the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2267
provision that it was subject to the in-
terstate compact. They are all subor-
dinate to the interstate compact, and
the solemn pledge of California herself,
by an act of her own legislature, that
she was entitled to only 4,400,000 acre-
feet a year.
The effect of the pending reservation,
if it could have any legal effect, would
be to give color of validation to the so-
called contracts in excess of 4,400,000
acre-feet. To that extent it would rob
the other States in the lower basin and
the States in the upper basin of their
rights under the interstate compact, be-
cause the water which California gets
must come either from the upper basin
or from the lower basin.
If those contracts should be indirectly
validated, as is sought to be done by the
pending reservation, the result would be
a rank injustice to all the other States
within the Colorado River Basin. So I
hope Senators will not be misled. I hope
they will not be influenced to support
this reservation on the theory that it is a
protection of the legal rights of citizens.
We have already, by suitable reserva-
tions, amply protected such rights. We
have made it clear that the rights of citi-
zens of the United States within United
States territory shall not be impaired,
but shall be under the control of our own
constitutional processes, domestic laws,
and regulations. That is sufficient. All
the constitutional processes which are in
force shall continue to be in force within
the United States as to its citizens.
I appeal to Senators to vote against
the pending reservation. If Senators
want this treaty, they should not vote
for the reservation, because the reserva-
tion would drive a dagger into the heart
of the treaty.
Mr. President, how much time have I?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. CONNALLY. Two minutes out of
the 8 minutes, at the end of which I
asked to be notified by the Chair?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That
is correct.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, this
question has been engaging the atten-
tion of the two Governments for 30 or
40 years. There have been negotiations
back and forth, with a claim on the part
of Mexico that she was entitled to a
much greater amount than is granted
her under the pending treaty. In the
course of the negotiations, Mexico con-
tended that she was entitled to 3,600,000
acre-feet of water annually, whereas
under the treaty she is given only 1,500,-
000—that, Mr. President, in the face of
the fact that according to the testimony
before the committee, Mexico is now
using for beneficial purposes 1,800,000
acre-feet a year.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I do
not like to give up my time.
Mr. DOWNEY. I shall not ask the
Senator to give up his time. I wish to
give him some of my time. Unless some
other Senator desires to speak in behalf
of the reservation offered by the Senator
from New Jersey [Mr. HAWKES], or
against the treaty, I shall be glad to
yield 10 minutes of our time to the
Senator from Texas.
Mr. CONNALLY. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. DOWNEY. We are being just as
generous with our time as we were with
our water.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator's 8 minutes have expired. The
Senator has 8 minutes more of his own
time, and 10 minutes of the time of the
opposition.
Mr. CONNALLY. I thank the Sena-
tor from California. If he had been as
generous at the start of the hearings be-
fore the committee as he now is, we
probably could have completed consid-
eration of the treaty a little earlier. I am
very happy to have had this experience,
and to have had an opportunity to work
with the Senator. I am very glad that
he is approaching a vote on the treaty
with so much equanimity and good
nature.
-------
2268
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. DOWNEY. I am sure that if we
had been more generous we could have
completed consideration of the treaty
before this, but we would not have had
any water left.
Mr. CONNALLY. The treaty will give
California more water. It provides for
the building of the Davis Dam, below
Boulder Dam. Davis Dam will catch
and hold waters which are now being
discharged from Boulder Dam, for the
manufacture of electricity for the Sen-
ator and his constituents in San Diego,
Los Angeles, and many other cities.
That water now goes to waste. Ten
million acre-feet, with the majesty of a
torrent, tears down the Colorado River
and wastes itself in the broad expanse of
the Gulf of California.
We shall save that water, under this
treaty, with Davis Dam; more water will
be available than ever heretofore. The
water will not be wasted simply because
it has been expended in the manufacture
of cheap electric power. I do not be-
grudge the State of California getting
the power. All I ask is that California
recognize the rights of other common-
wealths. There are seven States in that
basin. Five of them are enthusiastically
supporting the treaty. They are doing
so because they believe it is to the inter-
est of that basin that the treaty be
ratified.
A moment ago I said that Mexico is
now using 1,800,000 acre-feet of water.
Under the doctrine of prior beneficial
use, a doctrine with which the lawyers
from the West are familiar, and with
which I am largely unacquainted, a
State adjacent to a stream, which uses
the water of the stream and appropriates
it for beneficial usage, has an equitable
claim to continue the use of that water
for all time. Let us look at this picture.
With the unrestrained flow of the river—
10,000,000 acre-feet of water sweeping
down the river—there is nothing to pre-
vent Mexico, without a treaty, from
vastly increasing the beneficial uses
within her own country. If she does so,
and if we have no treaty, the gates of
international arbitration will stand wide
open for her. We have a treaty with all
the republics of the Western Hemisphere
that we shall arbitrate questions and
disputes which arise, whenever they
cannot be settled by the Governments or
by diplomatic means. If Mexico should
increase her beneficial use of the waters
of the Colorado River to 2,000,000, 3,000,-
000, or 4,000,000 acre-feet, and if we
should
[p. 3489]
then go to an arbitration tribunal,
who can say that her claims would not
be recognized on the basis of equity and
on the basis of the precedents in inter-
national law involving the allocation of
water rights and on the basis of the legal
decisions of the courts in this country,
as applied between State and State?
So, Mr. President, this treaty will not
take away a drop of water from Califor-
nia. In the long run I believe this treaty
will prove a blessing to California. If
we have the treaty and if we limit the
amount of water which Mexico can de-
mand, we then will make it possible for
the States in the upper basin and the
States in the lower basin alike to know
what their situation will be. They will
be free to go ahead with the construction
of adequate works, based upon accurate
data, and to utilize the waters more fully
than they now are doing.
Mr. President, if the treaty is ratified
I doubt not that in the upper basin, upon
various streams, there will be con-
structed additional reservoirs and addi-
tional retaining structures to save the
waters and to use them for agriculture
and then let them flow back into the
rivers, and on, down, into the Colorado.
That will take money. Investors do not
care to invest money in projects of that
kind unless they have assurance of sta-
bility and of soundness and that they
will get their money back. If the treaty
is ratified and if the Bureau of Reclama-
tion and our engineering services are
able to advise accurately as to what the
prospects may be relative to the sources
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2269
and supplies of water, investors will not
be hesitant to invest their funds in such
projects.
Mr. President, the Boulder Canyon
Dam has a possible capacity of 32,000,000
acre-feet of water. Its average holding
is approximately 23,000,000 or 24,000,000
acre-feet of water. That is the normal
condition at Boulder Dam in Lake Mead.
In addition, as I pointed out a while ago,
we shall construct Davis Dam, which
will still further increase the supply of
water available for use in the low pe-
riods. This treaty will serve to equate
the flow of the Colorado River. Instead
of pouring its valuable current of life
and energy out into the Gulf of Califor-
nia, it will be conserved for the people of
these seven States. We shall devote it
to the uses about which Senators have
been speaking. We shall convert it to
the production of food. We shall be able
to use it for the employment of labor in
the construction of works. We shall
perhaps use it for the generation of elec-
tricity, to bring comfort and convenience
to the people of that whole area.
This treaty, when we look at it from a
national standpoint, will be of tremen-
dous value to the people of the United
States, regarded as a whole. We are not
simply dealing with a small portion of
territory in southern California. We are
dealing with all the seven States in that
great basin. We are dealing with my
own State, as it borders upon Mexico.
The Rio Grande is an international
stream. No dam can be built across it,
no structure can be erected upon it, un-
less we have a treaty or agreement with
Mexico. Today 4,000,000 acre-feet of
water flow down the Rio Grande each
year, out into the Gulf of Mexico, to
waste itself amidst the briny waters of
that ocean. The treaty will make it
possible to harness those waters, to make
them usable by Mexico and by Ameri-
cans on our side of the border.
So, Mr. President, I earnestly appeal to
the Senate to vote down this reservation.
The Committee on Foreign Relations for
4% weeks carefully, meticulously, and
thoroughly examined every aspect of
the treaty. Eighteen members out of
22 members of the committee voted
to report the treaty favorably. Since
that time 2 of the other Senators are
supporting the treaty—making a total
of 20 members out of 22. The Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations was not act-
ing through pique. It was not acting
through any particular affinity for any
particular State or any particular sec-
tion. Its members were acting as Amer-
icans; they were acting in an effort to
carry out the high functions of the com-
mittee to consider all aspects and all
angles of the problem.
I respectfully ask the Senate to ratify
what was done by the Committee on
Foreign Relations, to ratify this treaty
in behalf of all the people of the United
States.
I yield the balance of my time to the
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, how
much time have I?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator has 6 minutes.
Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, unless
there are other Senators who desire to
be heard in favor of the reservation
offered by the Senator from New Jersey
or against the treaty, we will yield the
additional time to the Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Then
the Senator from Kentucky has 12
minutes.
Mr. BARKLEY. I thank the Senator
from California. That will consume the
remainder of the time before the vote is
taken.
Mr. President, in order that we may
understand the connection between the
reservation now under consideration, the
Colorado River Compact, and the pend-
ing treaty, I wish to read three para-
graphs of the Colorado River Compact.
That compact was made in anticipation
of a treaty between the United States
and Mexico, and it provided that in the
event it should become necessary to the
extent described in these paragraphs, the
-------
2270
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
compact among the seven States should
be modified. Article III, paragraphs (a)
and (b), read as follows:
ARTICLE III. (a) There is hereby appor-
tioned from the Colorado River system in
perpetuity to the upper basin and to the lower
basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial
consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of
water per annum, which shall include all
water necessary for the supply of any rights
which may now exist.
(b) In addition to the apportionment in
paragraph (a), the lower basin is hereby
given the right to increase its beneficial con-
sumptive use of such waters by 1,000,000 acre-
feet per annum
So, under those two paragraphs the
lower basin is allotted out of the waters
of the Colorado River eight and a half
million acre-feet annually, while the up-
per basin is allotted seven and a half
million acre-feet annually.
Paragraph (c) of article III provides
as follows:
(e) If, as a matter of international comity,
the United States of America shall hereafter
recognize in the United States of Mexico any
right to the use of any waters of the Colorado
River system, such waters shall be supplied
first from the waters which are surplus over
and above the aggregate of the quantities
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) —
Which I have just read—
and if such surplus shall prove insufficient
for this purpose, then, the burden of such
deficiency shall be equally borne by the upper
basin and the lower basin, and whenever
necessary the States of the upper division
shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply
one-half of the deficiency so recognized in ad-
dition to that provided in paragraph (d).
Mr. President, it may be that either
in the upper or lower basin of the Colo-
rado River contracts have been entered
into which are not void per se, but may
well be voidable or may become voidable
in the event, and subject to the con-
tingency, that a treaty shall be entered
into between the United States and
Mexico. That being true, the pending
reservation seeks to freeze all the con-
tracts made either in the upper basin
or in the lower basin, regardless of the
provisions of the compact between the
States, and regardless of the provisions
of the treaty.
The pending reservation seeks to
modify not only the terms of the treaty
upon which we are presently to vote but
in effect it seeks to modify the terms of
the compact entered into among the
seven Colorado River Basin States. I do
not believe there is any escape from that
conclusion. Therefore, Mr. President, it
seems to me that the Senate ought not to
agree to this reservation.
In the few remaining moments which
I have at my disposal I wish to say a
word concerning the treaty as a whole.
I think it is a reason for general con-
gratulation and satisfaction that after
nearly half a century of negotiations
between the United States and the Re-
public of Mexico we have arrived at a
juncture where a treaty between those
two countries is to be voted upon by the
United States Senate. I can well under-
stand that the treaty may not satisfy
everyone. I can well understand that
if a committee of the Senate had writ-
ten the treaty, it might have written it in
different terms. I am not sure that it
could have done a better job than has
been done. It might have done a worse
job. Perhaps we ourselves would have
formulated a different structure if we
had written the treaty.
In the process of treaty-making be-
tween our country and other nations it is
obviously impossible for the Senate to
write treaties, except insofar as it may
be possible to send its representatives to
conferences at which treaties may be
drawn. As an example, I cite the con-
ference which will take place in a few
days at San Francisco. Members of this
body are on a delegation to participate
in writing a treaty. However, the Senate
as a body cannot write a treaty. We
must deal with treaties after they are
submitted to us.
[p. 3490]
I think the reservations which have
been agreed to have improved the
treaty. I think some of them were un-
necessary; but in order to endeavor to
satisfy the fears, and suspicions—if I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2271
may use such a word—expressed by
some Members of the Senate, the reser-
vations were agreed to, and they are
now a part of the treaty.
Regardless of the war which now rav-
ages the world, regardless of the work
of the conference which will soon be
held at San Francisco, and regardless of
the form of any treaty which may be
negotiated, entered into, and finally rati-
fied at the end of the war, I think it is a
happy omen that here in the Western
Hemisphere we are now able to enter
into a treaty with our nearest neighbor,
with whom for more than a century we
have had difficulties and controversies.
I repeat, Mr. President, I think it is a
happy omen. It would be so regardless
of all the other circumstances which now
beset the world.
I congratulate the senior Senator from
Texas, the chairman of the committee
on Foreign Relations [Mr. CONNALLY],
for the patience, forbearance, and cour-
tesy with which he has piloted this treaty
to its present position.
I wish also to congratulate the junior
Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN],
who, although not a member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, has
given the Senate the benefit of his wise
judgment. He has exhibited a masterly
understanding of the terms of the treaty
and all the conditions which brought it
about.
I join in the tribute which was paid
to the senior Senator from California
[Mr. JOHNSON], to which he is entitled.
We do not vote for the treaty because
he objects to it; we vote for it in spite
of his objection to it. We vote for it
with regret on his account, but with the
consciousness, after all, that it is the best
treaty, under present conditions, which
could be agreed to for our whole coun-
try in its relations with our next-door
neighbor.
To the Junior Senator from California
[Mr. DOWNEY], who has shown such dil-
igence and industry, and who has ex-
hibited rare patience with those of us
who from the beginning felt that this
treaty should be ratified, I pay my trib-
ute of respect and admiration. He is
one of the most industrious and able,
and frequently one of the most eloquent,
Members of the Senate in any contro-
versy in which he takes part.
Mr. President, I hope that the treaty
will receive the overwhelming ratifica-
tion of the Senate. I also hope that the
reservation offered by the Senator from
New Jersey will be rejected. In its very
terms, and I presume by its very intent,
it would modify the treaty itself and
would affect all the compacts which have
been made, regardless of whether, as a
matter of law, they were void or
voidable.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, under
the agreement heretofore made, further
debate is not in order, and the Senate
will proceed to vote. The first vote will
be on the reservation of the Senator
from New Jersey [Mr. HAWKES]. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
* # * * *
So Mr. HAWKES' reservation was
rejected.
*****
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question now is on agreeing to the reso-
lution of ratification, with the reserva-
tions heretofore agreed to.
Mr. LUCAS. I ask for the "yeas" and
"nays."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
*****
[p. 3491]
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two-
thirds of the Senators present having
voted in the affirmative, the Senate ad-
vises and consents to the treaty and to
the protocol supplementary thereto, with
reservations.
The resolution of ratification, with the
reservations, is as follows:
-------
2272
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators pres-
ent concurring therein), That the Senate
advise and consent to the ratification of
Executive A, Seventy-eighth Congress, second
session, a treaty between the United States
of America and the United Mexican States,
signed at Washington on February 3, 1944,
relating to the utilization of the waters of
the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the
Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Tex., to the
Gulf of Mexico, and Executive H, Seventy-
eighth Congress, second session, a protocol,
signed at Washington on November 14, 1944,
supplementary to the treaty, subject to the
following understandings, and that these un-
derstandings will be mentioned in the ratifica-
tion of this treaty as conveying the true
meaning of the treaty, and will in effect form
a part of the treaty:
(a) That no commitment for works to be
built by the United States in whole or in part
at its expense, or for expenditures by the
United States, other than those specifically
provided for in the treaty, shall be made by
the Secretary of State of the United States,
the Commissioner of the United States sec-
tion of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, the United States Section of
said Commission, or any other officer or em-
ployee of the United States, without prior
approval of the Congress of the United States.
It is understood that the works to be built
by the United States, in whole or in part at
its expense, and the expenditures by the
United States, which are specifically provided
for in the treaty, are as follows:
1. The joint construction of the three stor-
age and flood-control dams on the Rio Grande
below Fort Quitman, Tex., mentioned in
article 5 of the treaty.
2. The dams and other joint works required
for the diversion of the flow of the Rio Grande
mentioned in subparagraph II of article 5 of
the treaty, it being understood that the com-
mitment of the United States to make ex-
penditures under this subparagraph is
limited to its share of the cost of one dam
and works appurtenant thereto.
3. Stream-gaging stations which may be
required under the provisions of section (j)
of article 9 of the treaty and of subparagraph
(d) of article 12 of the treaty.
4. The Davis Dam and Reservior mentioned
in subparagraph (b) of article 12 of the
treaty.
5. The joint flood-control investigations,
preparation of plans, and reports on the Rio
Grande below Fort Quitman required by the
provisions of article 6 of the treaty.
6. The joint flood-control investigations,
preparation of plans, and reports on the lower
Colorado River between the Imperial Dam
and the Gulf of California required by article
13 of the treaty.
7. The joint investigations, preparation of
plans, and reports on the establishment of
hydroelectric plants at the international dams
on the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman pro-
vided for by article 7 of the treaty.
8. The studies, investigations, preparation
of plans, recommendations, reports, and other
matters dealing with the Tijuana River sys-
tem provided for by the first paragraph (in-
cluding the numbered subparagraphs) of
article 16 of the treaty.
(b) Insofar as they affect persons and prop-
erty in the territorial limits of the United
States, the powers and functions of the Sec-
retary of State of the United States, the Com-
missioner of the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commis-
sion, the United States Section of said Com-
mission, and any other officer or employee of
the United States, shall be subject to the stat-
utory and constitutional controls and proc-
esses. Nothing contained in the treaty or
protocol shall be construed as impairing the
power of the Congress of the United States to
define the terms of office of members of the
United States Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission or to pro-
vide for their appointment by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate
or otherwise.
(c) That nothing contained in the treaty or
protocol shall be construed as authorizing the
Secretary of State of the United States, the
Commissioner of the United States Section of
the International Boundary and Water Com-
mission, or the United States Section of said
Commission, directly or indirectly to alter or
control the distribution of water to users
within the territorial limits of any of the
individual States.
(d) That "international dam or reservoir"
means a dam or reservoir built across the
common boundary between the two countries.
(e) That the words "international plants",
appearing in article 19, means only hydro-
electric generating plants in connection with
dams built across the common boundary be-
tween the two countries.
(f) That the words "electric current", ap-
pearing in article 19, mean hydroelectric
power generated at an international plant.
(g) That by the use of the words "The
jurisdiction of the Commission shall extend
to the limitrophe parts of the Rio Grande
(Rio Bravo) and the Colorado River, to the
land boundary between the two countries,
and to works located upon their common
boundary * * «" in the first sentence of
the fifth paragraph of article 2, is meant:
"The jurisdiction of the Commission shall
extend and be limited to the limitrophe parts
of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo) and the Colo-
rado River, to the land boundary between the
two countries, and to works located upon
their common boundary * * *."
(h) The word "agreements" whenever used
in subparagraphs (a), (c), and (d) of article
24 of the treaty shall refer only to agreements
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2273
entered into pursuant to and subject to the
provisions and limitations of treaties in force
between the United States of America and
the United Mexican States.
(i) The word "disputes" in the second
paragraph of article 2 shall have reference
only to disputes between the Governments
of the United States of America and the
United Mexican States.
(j) First, that the 1.700,000 acre-feet speci-
fied in subparagraph (b) of article 10 includes
and is not in addition to the 1,500,000 acre-
feet, the delivery of which to Mexico is guar-
anteed in subparagraph (a) of article 10;
second, that the 1,500,000 acre-feet specified
in three places in said subparagraph (b) is
identical with the 1,500,000 acre-feet specified
in said subparagraph (a); third, that any use
by Mexico under said subparagraph (b) of
quantities of water arriving at the Mexican
points of diversion in excess of said
1,500,000 acre-feet shall not give rise to any
future claim of right by Mexico in excess of
said guaranteed quantity of 1,500,000 acre-
feet of water.
(k) The United States recognizes a duty to
require that the protective structures to be
constructed under article 12, paragraph (a),
of this treaty, are so constructed, operated,
and maintained as to adequately prevent
damage to property and lands within the
United States from the construction and op-
eration of the diversion structure referred to
in said paragraph.
[p. 3492]
1.10 DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
GENERALLY, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1160(f)(2), (k)(l); 1163(g)(3)]
(See, "General 1.16a-1.16a(3) (c)" for legislative history)
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 em-
ployment. June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 791.
-------
2274
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.11 CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND
THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE, ARTICLE XXIV, 15 U.S.T. 1612,
1613 (1958)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161(a)(9)]
PART II
Contiguous Zone
Article 24
1. In a zone of the high sea contiguous to its territorial sea, the
coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
(b) Punish infringement of the above regulations committed
within its territory or territorial sea.
2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelve miles from
the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
3. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each
other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between
them to the contrary, to extend its contiguous zone beyond the me-
dian line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of the two
States is measured.
l.lla CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
May 26: Ratification Advised by Senate, pp. 11187, 11189-11192
LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTIONS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
conventions now before the Senate,
Executives J to N, inclusive, 86th Con-
gress, 1st session, codify existing inter-
national law and establish some new
international law with respect to activi-
ties on the seas. An optional protocol
provides for settlement of disputes con-
cerning these matters. They were
agreed upon at a United Nations confer-
ence in Geneva, February to April 1958,
and were signed by the United States
and 52 other nations.
The first convention is on the terri-
torial sea and the contiguous zone. The
convention codifies and settles questions
of international law on measuring the
belt of sea adjacent to a coast known as
the territorial sea and the 12-mile zone
beyond it called the contiguous zone.
The rights of coastal states and visiting
vessels in these areas, such as the right
of innocent passage through the terri-
torial sea, are defined.
The questions of the breadth of the
territorial sea and the fishing rights of
coastal states are not included in this
agreement, but were discussed in a sec-
ond conference in Geneva which ended
this past month. As you are no doubt
aware, the conference failed by only one
vote to reach agreement on these vital
matters.
*****
[p. 11187]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2275
EXECUTIVE REPORT No. 5—LAW or THE SEA
CONVENTIONS
The Committee on Foreign Relations, hav-
ing had under consideration Executives J to
N, inclusive, four conventions on the law of
the sea, and an optional protocol concerning
the settlement of disputes, reports the con-
ventions and the protocol without objection
and recommends that the Senate give its
advice and consent to their ratification.
PUIPOSI or THE CONVENTIONS
The purpose of the four conventions and
the optional protocol on the law of the sea
is to codify existing international law and to
establish additional international law in this
Held. The conventions are concerned with
the rights and duties of states and vessels in
the territorial sea, contiguous zone, and on
the high seas, rights and responsibilities with
regard to fishing and conservation on the
high seas, and the formulation of "interna-
tional law" with respect to the exploitation
of the natural resources of the Continental
Shelf. Not covered in these conventions are
the questions of the breadth of the terri-
torial sea and the extent of exclusive fishing
rights of coastal states.
BACKGROUND
The International Law Commission of the
United Nations at its first session in 1949 de-
cided to study the law of the high seas and
the law of the territorial sea with a view to
codification. This was done at subsequent
sessions, draft rules were prepared, and com-
ments of governments were considered. The
Commission completed its work at its eighth
session (1956) and pursuant to General As-
sembly Resolution 899(IX) of December 14,
1954, the Commission grouped together in its
report all the rules it had adopted concern-
ing the high seas, the territorial sea, the
Continental Shelf, the contiguous zone, and
the conservation of the living resources of
the sea.
The final report of the Commission stated
that its draft rules on the law of the sea
were a mixture of codification of existing
international law and recommendations for
the progressive development of international
law and that it had been unable to separate
the two. It therefore recommended that the
United Nations General Assembly call an
international conference to examine the law
of the sea, and to try to reach agreement
on appropriate international conventions.
The General Assembly, by Resolution
1105 (XI) of February 21,1957, provided terms
of reference for an International Conference
of Plenipotentiaries to examine the law of
the sea, taking into account the legal, bio-
logical, economic, and political aspects of the
problem. The General Assembly also rec-
ommended that the Conference study the
question of free access to the sea of land-
locked countries.
The United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea was held at Geneva from February
24 to April 27, 1958, and resulted In the fol-
lowing four conventions and an optional
protocol, dated April 29, 1958:
1. Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone;
2. Convention on the High Seas;
3. Convention on Fishing and Conservation
of the Living Resources of the High Seas;
4. Convention on the Continental Shelf;
and
5. Optional Protocol of Signature Concern-
ing the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
The conventions were signed on behalf of
the United States of America on September
15, 1958, and have been signed by 52 states;
some states not signing every convention.
While in some instances the proposed rules
tend to clarify issues that have been in con-
troversy in recent years, the greater part of
the rules are declaratory of the present prac-
tices of states and may be considered accepted
international law even without the conven-
tions being ratified.
MAIN PROVISIONS
1. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone
The Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone embodies those prin-
ciples of international law that have specific
reference to the status of these areas of the
sea, their demarcation, and the rights and
responsibilities of both the coastal state and
the community of nations with respect to
them. The first articles of the 32 contained
in this convention reiterate the universally
recognized principle of the sovereignty of the
coastal state over its internal waters and the
territorial seas, and that this right of sov-
ereignty extends to the airspace over the ter-
ritorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
The convention recognizes two methods for
determining the base line, that is, the line
from which the territorial sea Is measured.
The first method, long recognized as the gen-
eral rule, establishes as the base line the low
water line following the sinuosities of the
coast. The second method, which is an ex-
ception to the general rule, allows the use
of straight base lines joining appropriate
points where the coast line is deeply indented
or where there is a fringe of islands along
the coast in its immediate vicinity.
Where the straight base line is allowed it
has the effect of bringing into the territorial
sea areas of water heretofore considered high
seas. Hence, where the straight base line Is
applied the coastal state must Indicate the
lines on published charts.
• # « • •
Article 24, which provides that in a zone of
the high seas contiguous to Its territorial sea
—limited to 12 miles from the base line of the
territorial sea—the coastal state may prevent
-------
2276
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigra-
tion, or sanitary regulations and punish in-
fringement of such regulations. Although It
has become fairly common practice for the
coastal state to exercise a special jurisdiction
in a limited area of the high seas contiguous
to the territorial sea, particularly in customs
matters, no definite rule had been agreed
upon. Article 24 confirms the practice fol-
lowed by the United States of exercising cus-
toms jurisdiction over a zone outside of its
territorial sea.
This convention does not fix the breadth of
the territorial sea. This subject and the
closely related one of the extent to which the
coastal state should have exclusive fishing
rights in the sea off its coast were hotly de-
bated without any conclusion being reached.
A U.S. proposal for a 6-mile territorial sea
plus exclusive fishing rights for the coastal
state in a contiguous 6-mile zone (subject to
fishing rights of other states established
through fishing over a 5-year period) received
45 votes in favor and 33 against, but failed to
get the two-thirds required for adoption.
[p. 11189]
When the U.S. compromise failed, the
chairman of the American delegation to the
Conference, Arthur H. Dean, stated:
"Our offer to agree on a 6-mile breadth of
the territorial sea, provided agreement could
be reached on such a breadth under certain
conditions, was simply an offer and nothing
more. Its nonacceptance leaves the preex-
isting situation intact.
"We have made it clear from the beginning
that in our view the 3-mile rule is and will
continue to be established international law,
to which we adhere. It is the only breadth
of the territorial sea on which there has ever
been anything like common agreement.
Unilateral acts of states claiming greater ter-
ritorial seas are not only not sanctioned by
any principle of international law, but are in-
deed in conflict with the universally accepted
principle of freedom of the seas."
He noted further that—
"We have made it clear that in our view
there is no obligation on the part of the
states adhering to the 3-mile rule to recog-
nize claims on the part of other states to a
greater breadth of the territorial sea. On
that we stand."
The General Assembly of the United Na-
tions has convened a second international
conference for the further consideration of
the questions of the breadth of the territorial
sea and fishing rights in coastal waters. It
opened at Geneva on March 17, 1960.
[p. 11190]
COMMITTEE ACTION
The four conventions and the optional pro-
tocol were transmitted to the Senate on Sep-
tember 9, 1959. The Committee on Foreign
Relations held a public hearing on January
20, 1960, and the record was held open for 30
days thereafter. The principal executive
branch witness was Mr. Arthur H. Dean,
special consultant to the Department of State,
who was chief of the U.S. delegation at the
negotiations in Geneva which resulted in
these conventions.
During the questioning of Mr. Dean, Sena-
tor MANSFIELD raised the question of the use
of the high seas for the testing of nuclear or
other dangerous weapons. Mr. Dean testi-
fied that when this general problem was
raised during the Geneva Conference it was
the consensus of the Conference that the
matter should be referred to the General As-
sembly of the United Nations to be taken up
at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
During the questioning by Senator Lowe,
Mr. Dean made clear that the convention!
do not affect the relative rights as between
the several States of the United States and
the Federal Government. The conventions
only affect the rights of the United States
as a sovereign state with respect to the rights
of other sovereign states.
Mr. W. M. Chapman, representing the
American Tunaboat Association, the Cali-
fornia Fish Canners Association, and the
Westgate California Corp. of San Diego, sup-
ported the ratification of these conventions.
Mr. William R. Neblett, executive director of
the National Shrimp Congress, Inc., testified
that the groups he represented supported the
conventions. Mr. Fred Myers, executive di-
rector of the Humane Society of the United
States, gave the support of his organization
for ratification of the conventions and urged
the employment of humane methods of kill-
ing animals of the sea, especially whales,
seals, and polar bears. Letters and telegrams
received from numerous organizations repre-
senting the U.S. fishing industry were unani-
mous in urging approval of the conventions.
No opposition was registered. On April 5.
1960, the committee voted without objection
to report the conventions favorably to the
Senate.
CONCLUSION
The Committee on Foreign Relations was
impressed with the following list of benefits
accruing to the United States pursuant to the
law of the sea conventions, which was fur-
nished by the Department of State:
"As a country which believes in the rule
of law, any agreement on the rules of inter-
national law to which the United States can
subscribe is of benefit to it. It is also of
benefit to the United States as a principal
maritime and naval power to have interna-
tional agreement on the law of the sea.
Aside from these benefits of a general nature,
the following are some of the more specific
benefits to the United States.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2277
"In the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone, the articles on
straight base lines, innocent passage and the
contiguous zone are a marked advance in the
content and formulation of international law.
By restricting the use of the straight base-
line method to certain exceptional geographic
situations, its indiscriminate use to reduce
to internal waters large areas heretofore re-
garded as high seas or territorial sea is pre-
vented. This is in the interest of the United
States which believes in the greatest possible
freedom of the seas. The article defining
passage as innocent so long as it is not preju-
dicial to the peace, good order, or security of
the coastal state furnishes a clear, simple,
and precise definition of innocent passage,
something which has not heretofore existed
in international law. It thus affords to mari-
time navigation the greatest freedom of
movement consistent with the necessity of
the coastal state to protect itself. Article
24 on the contiguous zone is of benefit to the
United States since it confirms the practice
followed by the United States of exercising
customs jurisdiction over a zone outside of
its territorial sea and also sanctions the ex-
ercise of similar jurisdiction for fiscal,
immigration, and sanitary purposes in a con-
tiguous zone, the outer limit of which is 12
miles from the coast.
* # * * *
[p. 11191]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the unanimous consent agreement, the
question will now be taken on advising
and consenting to the resolution of rati-
fication of Executive V. The resolutions
of ratification of Executive J, Executive
K, Executive L, Executive M, and Ex-
ecutive N will be deemed to have been
respectively agreed to by the same vote.
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
*****
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this
vote, the yeas are 77, the nays are 4; and
the respective resolutions of ratification
are agreed to.
Without objection, the President will
be immediately notified of the agree-
ment to the respective resolutions of
ratification.
[p.11192]
-------
2278 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161(b)(2)(A)]
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION
OF POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS a series of amendments to the International Conven-
tion for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, t1]
adopted by a Conference of Contracting- Governments which con-
vened at London from April 4 to April 11, 1962, was communicated
to all Contracting Governments for their acceptance in accordance
with paragraph (3) of Article XVI of that Convention;
WHEREAS the text of those amendments, in the English and
French languages, as certified by the Secretary-General of the
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, is word
for word as follows:
ANNEX [i]
The following are the amendments to the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954:
1. The existing text of Article I of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE I
(1) For the purposes of the present Convention, the following ex-
pressions shall (unless the context otherwise requires) have the
meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
'The Bureau' has the meaning assigned to it by Article XXI;
'Discharge' in relation to oil or to oily mixture means any dis-
charge or escape howsoever caused;
'Heavy diesel oil' means marine diesel oil, other than those dis-
tillates of which more than 50 per cent by volume distils
at a temperature not exceeding 340° C. when tested by
A.S.T.M. Standard Method D.86/59;
'Mile' means a nautical mile of 6,080 feet or 1,852 metres;
'Oil' means crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating
oil, and 'oily' shall be construed accordingly;
4900; 12 UST 2989.
(1523)
TIAS 6109
1 The text of the amendments constituted the Annex to the Final Act of the
Conference of Contracting Governments.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2279
'Oily mixture' means a mixture with an oil content of 100 parts
or more in 1,000,000 parts of the mixture;
'Organization' means the Inter-Governmental Maritime Con-
sultative Organization;
'Ship' means any sea-going vessel of any type whatsoever,
including floating craft, whether self-propelled or towed
by another vessel, making a sea voyage; and 'tanker'
means a ship in which the greater part of the cargo space
is constructed or adapted for the carriage of liquid cargoes
in bulk and which is not, for the time being, carrying a
cargo other than oil in that part of its cargo space.
(2) For the purposes of the present Convention, the territories of a
Contracting Government mean the territory of the country of
which it is the Government and any other territory for the inter-
national relations of which it is responsible and to which the Con-
vention shall have been extended under Article XVIII.
2. The existing text of Article II of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE II
(1) The present Convention shall apply to ships registered in any
of the territories of a Contracting Government and to unregistered
ships having the nationality of a Contracting Party, except:
(a) tankers of under 150 tons gross tonnage and other ships of
under 500 tons gross tonnage, provided that each Contract-
ing Government will take the necessary steps, so far as is
reasonable and practicable, to apply the requirements of the
Convention to such ships also, having regard to their size,
service and the type of fuel used for their propulsion;
(b) ships for the time being engaged in the whaling industry
when actually employed on whaling operations ;
(c) ships for the time being navigating the Great Lakes of
North America and their connecting and tributary waters
as far east as the lower exit of St. Lambert Lock at Mon-
treal in the Province of Quebec, Canada;
(d) naval ships and ships for the time being used as naval
auxiliaries.
(2) Each Contracting Government undertakes to adopt appropri-
ate measures ensuring that requirements equivalent to those of the
present Convention are, so far as is reasonable and practicable,
applied to the ships referred to in subparagraph (d) of paragraph
(1) of this Article.
-------
2280 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
3. The existing text of Article III of the Convention is replaced by
the following :
ARTICLE III
Subject to the provisions of Articles IV and V:
(a) the discharge from a tanker to which the present Conven-
tion applies, within any of the prohibited zones referred to
in Annex A to the Convention, of oil or oily mixture shall be
prohibited;
(6) the discharge from a ship to which the present Convention
applies, other than a tanker, of oil or oily mixture shall be
made as far as practicable from land. As from a date three
years after that on which the Convention conies into force
for the relevant territory in respect of the ship in accordance
with paragraph (1) of Article II, sub-paragraph (a) of this
Article shall apply to a ship other than a tanker, except that
the discharge of oil or of oily mixture from such a ship shall
not be prohibited when the ship is proceeding to a port not
provided with such facilities for ships other than tankers as
are referred to in Article VIII;
(c) the discharge from a ship of 20,000 tons gross tonnage or
more, to which the present Convention applies and for which
the building contract is placed on or after the date on which
this provision comes into force, of oil or oily mixture shall be
prohibited. However, if, in the opinion of the master, special
circumstances make it neither reasonable nor practicable to
retain the oil or oily mixture on board, it may be discharged
outside the prohibited zones referred to in Annex A to the
Convention. The reasons for such discharge shall be reported
to the Contracting Government of the relevant territory in
respect of the ship in accordance with paragraph (1) of
Article II. Full details of such discharges shall be reported
to the Organization at least every twelve months by Con-
tracting Governments.
4. The existing text of Article IV of the Convention is replaced by
the following :
ARTICLE IV
Article III shall not apply to:
(a) the discharge of oil or of oily mixture from a ship for the
purpose of securing the safety of a ship, preventing damage
to a ship or cargo, or saving life at sea;
(b) the escape of oil or of oily mixture resulting from damage to
a ship or unavoidable leakage, if all reasonable precautions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2281
have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or dis-
covery of the leakage for the purpose of preventing or
minimizing the escape;
(c) the discharge of residue arising from the purification or
clarification of fuel oil or lubricating oil, provided that such
discharge is made as far from land as is practicable.
5. The existing text of Article V of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE V
Article III shall not apply to the discharge from the bilges of a ship:
(a) during the period of twelve months following the date on
which the present Convention comes into force for the rele-
vant territory in respect of the ship in accordance with
paragraph (1) of Article II, of oily mixture;
(6) after the expiration of such period, of oily mixture contain-
ing no oil other than lubricating oil which has drained or
leaked from machinery spaces.
6. The existing text of Article VI of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE VI
(1) Any convention of Articles III and IX shall be an offence
punishable under the law of the relevant territory in respect of the
ship in accordance with paragraph (1) of Article II.
(2) The penalties which may be imposed under the law of any of the
territories of a Contracting Government in respect of the unlawful
discharge from a ship of oil or oily mixture outside the territorial
sea of that territory shall be adequate in severity to discourage any
such unlawful discharge and shall not be less than the penalties
which may be imposed under the law of that territory in respect of
the same infringements within the territorial sea.
(3) Each Contracting Government shall report to the Organization
the penalties actually imposed for each infringement.
7. The existing text of Article VII of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE VII
(1) As from a date twelve months after the present Convention
comes into force for the relevant territory in respect of a ship in
accordance with paragraph (1) of Article II, such a ship shall be
required to be so fitted as to prevent, so far as reasonable and
practicable, the escape of fuel or heavy diesel oil into bilges, unless
-------
2282 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
effective means are provided to ensure that the oil in the bilges is
not discharged in contravention of this Convention.
(2) Carrying water ballast in oil fuel tanks shall be avoided if
possible.
8. The existing text of Article VIII of the Convention is replaced
by the following:
ARTICLE VIII
(1) Each Contracting Government shall take all appropriate steps
to promote the provision of facilities as follows:
(a) according to the needs of ships using them, ports shall be
provided with facilities adequate for the reception, without
causing undue delay to ships, of such residues and oily mix-
tures as would remain for disposal from ships other than
tankers if the bulk of the water had been separated from
the mixture;
(b) oil loading terminals shall be provided with facilities ade-
quate for the reception of such residues and oily mixtures as
would similarly remain for disposal by tankers;
(c) ship repair ports shall be provided with facilities adequate
for the reception of such residues and oily mixtures as
would similarly remain for disposal by all ships entering for
repairs.
(2) Each Contracting Government shall determine which are the
ports and oil loading terminals in its territories suitable for the
purposes of sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (1) of
this Article.
(3) As regards paragraph (1) of this Article, each Contracting
Government shall report to the Organization, for transmission to
the Contracting Government concerned, all cases where the facili-
ties are alleged to be inadequate.
9. The existing text of Article IX of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ARTICLE IX
(1) Of the ships to which the present Convention applies, every
ship which uses oil fuel and every tanker shall be provided with an
oil record book, whether as part of the ship's official log book or
otherwise, in the form specified in Annex B to the Convention.
(2) The oil record book shall be completed on each occasion, when-
ever any of the following operations takes place in the ship:
(a) ballasting of and discharge of ballast from cargo tanks of
tankers;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2283
(b) cleaning of cargo tanks of tankers;
(c) settling in slop tanks and discharge of water from tankers;
(d) disposal from tankers of oily residues from slop tanks or
other sources;
(e) ballasting, or cleaning during voyage, of bunker fuel tanks
of ships other than tankers;
(/) disposal from ships other than tankers of oily residues from
bunker fuel tanks or other sources;
(g) accidental or other exceptional discharges or escapes of oil
from tankers or ships other than tankers.
In the event of such discharge or escape of oil or oily mixture as is
referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of Article III or in Article IV, a
statement shall be made in the oil record book of the circumstances
of, and reason for, the discharge or escape.
(3) Each operation described in paragraph (2) of this Article shall
be fully recorded without delay in the oil record book so that all the
entries in the book appropriate to that operation are completed.
Each page of the book shall be signed by the officer or officers in
charge of the operations concerned and, when the ship is manned,
by the master of the ship. The written entries in the oil record book
shall be in an official language of the relevant territory in respect of
the ship in accordance with paragraph (1) of Article II, or in
English or French.
(4) Oil record books shall be kept in such a place as to be readily
available for inspection at all reasonable times, and, except in the
case of unmanned ships under tow, shall be kept on board the ship.
They shall be preserved for a period of two years after the last
entry has been made.
(5) The competent authorities of any of the territories of a Con-
tracting Government may inspect on board any ship to which the
present Convention applies, while within a port in that territory,
the oil record book required to be carried in the ship in compliance
with the provisions of this Article, and may make a true copy of
any entry in that book and may require the master of the ship to
certify that the copy is a true copy of such entry. Any copy so
made which purports to have been certified by the master of the
ship as a true copy of an entry in the ship's oil record book shall be
made admissible in any judicial proceedings as evidence of the
facts stated in the entry. Any action by the competent authorities
under this paragraph shall be taken as expeditiously as possible
and the ship shall not be delayed.
10. The existing text of Article X of the Convention is replaced by
the following:
-------
2284 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ARTICLE X
(1) Any Contracting Government may furnish to the Government
of the relevant territory in respect of the ship in accordance with
paragraph (1) of Article II particulars in writing of evidence that
any provision of the present Convention has been contravened in
respect of that ship, wheresoever the alleged contravention may
have taken place. If it is practicable to do so, the competent author-
ities of the former Government shall notify the master of the ship
of the alleged contravention.
(2) Upon receiving such particulars, the Government so informed
shall investigate the matter, and may request the other Govern-
ment to furnish further or better particulars of the alleged contra-
vention. If the Government so informed is satisfied that sufficient
evidence is available in the form required by its law to enable
proceedings against the owner or master of the ship to be taken in
respect of the alleged contravention, it shall cause such proceedings
to be taken as soon as possible, and shall inform the other Govern-
ment and the Organization of the result of such proceedings.
11. The existing text of Article XIV of the Convention is replaced
by the following:
ARTICLE XIV
(1) The present Convention shall remain open for signature for
three months from this day's date and shall thereafter remain
open for acceptance.
(2) Subject to Article XV, the Governments of States Members of
the United Nations or of any of the Specialized Agencies or parties
to the Statute of the International Court of Justice may become
parties to the present Convention by:
(a) signature without reservation as to acceptance;
(6) signature subject to acceptance followed by acceptance, or
(c) acceptance.
(3) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of
acceptance with the Bureau, which shall inform all Governments
that have already signed or accepted the present Convention of
each signature and deposit of an acceptance and of the date of such
signature or deposit.
12. The existing text of Article XVI of the Convention is replaced
by the following:
ARTICLE XVI
(1) (a) The present Convention may be amended by unanimous
agreement between the Contracting Governments.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2285
(&) Upon request of any Contracting Government a proposed
amendment shall be communicated by the Organization
to all Contracting Governments for consideration and
acceptance under this paragraph.
(2) (a) An amendment to the present Convention may be pro-
posed to the Organization at any time by any Contracting
Government, and such proposal if adopted by a two-
thirds majority of the Assembly of the Organization upon
recommendation adopted by a two-thirds majority of the
Maritime Safety Committee of the Organization shall be
communicated by the Organization to all Contracting
Governments for their acceptance.
(6) Any such recommendation by the Maritime Safety Com-
mittee shall be communicated by the Organization to all
Contracting Governments for their consideration at least
six months before it is considered by the Assembly.
(3) (a) A conference of Governments to consider amendments to
the present Convention proposed by any Contracting
Government shall at any time be convened by the Orga-
nization upon the request of one-third of the Contracting
Governments.
(&) Every amendment adopted by such conference by a two-
thirds majority of the Contracting Governments shall be
communicated by the Organization to all Contracting
Governments for their acceptance.
(4) Any amendment communicated to Contracting Governments
for their acceptance under paragraph (2) or (3) of this Article
shall come into force for all Contracting Governments, except those
which before it comes into force make a declaration that they do
not accept the amendment, twelve months after the date on which
the amendment is accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Gov-
ernments.
(5) The Assembly, by a two-thirds majority vote, including two-
thirds of the Governments represented on the Maritime Safety
Committee, and subject to the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Contracting Governments to the present Convention, or a confer-
ence convened under paragraph (3) of this Article by a two-thirds
majority vote, may determine at the time of its adoption that the
amendment is of such an important nature that any Contracting
Government which makes a declaration under paragraph (4) of
this Article and which does not accept the amendment within a
period of twelve months after the amendment comes into force,
-------
2286 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
shall, upon the expiry of this period, cease to be a party to the
present Convention.
(6) The Organization shall inform all Contracting Governments of
any amendments which come into force under this Article, together
with the date on which such amendments shall come into force.
(7) Any acceptance or declaration under this Article shall be made
by a notification in writing to the Organization which shall notify
all Contracting Governments of the receipt of the acceptance or
declaration.
13. The existing text of Article XVIII of the Convention is re-
placed by the following:
ARTICLE XVIII
(1) (a) The United Nations in cases where they are the admin-
istering authority for a territory or any Contracting Gov-
ernment responsible for the international relations of a
territory shall as soon as possible consult with such terri-
tory in an endeavour to extend the present Convention to
that territory and may at any time by notification in writ-
ing given to the Bureau declare that the Convention shall
extend to such territory.
(&) The present Convention shall from the date of the receipt
of the notification or from such other date as may be
specified in the notification extend to the territory named
therein.
(2) (a) The United Nations in cases where they are the admin-
istering authority for a territory or"any Contracting Gov-
ernment which has made a declaration under paragraph
(1) of this Article, at any time after the expiry of a
period of five years from the date on which the present
Convention has been so extended to any territory, may by
a notification in writing given to the Bureau after consul-
tation with such territory declare that the Convention
shall cease to extend to any such territory named in the
notification.
(&) The present Convention shall cease to extend to any
territory mentioned in such notification one year, or such
longer period as may be specified therein, after the date of
receipt of the notification by the Bureau.
(3) The Bureau shall inform all the Contracting Governments of
the extension of the present Convention to any territory under
paragraph (1) of this Article, and of the termination of any such
extension under the provisions of paragraph (2) stating in each
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2287
case the date from which the Convention has been or will cease to
be so extended.
14. The existing text of Annex A to the Convention is replaced by
the following:
ANNEX A
PROHIBITED ZONES
(1) All sea areas within 50 miles from the nearest land shall be
prohibited zones.
For the purposes of this Annex, the term 'from the nearest
land' means 'from the base-line from which the territorial sea of the
territory in question is established in accordance with the Geneva
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,
1958'. C1]
(2) The following sea areas, insofar as they extend more than 50
miles from the nearest land, shall also be prohibited zones:
(a) Pacific Ocean
The Canadian Western Zone
The Canadian Western Zone shall extend for a distance of
100 miles from the nearest land along the west coast of
Canada.
(b) North Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and Baltic Sea
(i) The North-West Atlantic Zone
The North-West Atlantic Zone shall comprise the
sea areas within a line drawn from latitude 38° 47'
north, longitude 73° 43' west to latitude 39° 58'
north, longitude 68° 34' west thence to latitude
42° 05' north, longitude 64° 37' west thence along
the east coast of Canada at a distance of 100 miles
from the nearest land.
(ii) The Icelandic Zone
The Icelandic Zone shall extend for a distance of
100 miles from the nearest land along the coast of
Iceland.
(iii) The Norwegian, North Sea and Baltic Sea Zone
The Norwegian, North Sea and Baltic Sea Zone
shall extend for a distance of 100 miles from the
nearest land along the coast of Norway and shall
include the whole of the North Sea and of the
Baltic Sea and its Gulfs.
(iv) The North-East Atlantic Zone
The North-East Atlantic Zone shall include the sea
'TIAS 6639; 15 UST 1606.
-------
2288 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
areas within a line drawn between the following
positions :
Latitude Longitude
62° north 2° east,
64° north 00°
64° north 10° west,
60"north 14° west;
54° 30' north 30° west,
53"north 40° west;
44° 20' north 40° west,
44° 20'north 30° west;
46° north 20° west, thence towards Cape
Finisterre at the intersection of the 50-mile limit.
(v) The Spanish Zone
The Spanish Zone shall comprise the areas of the
Atlantic Ocean within a distance of 100 miles from
the nearest land along the coast of Spain and shall
come into operation on the date on which the
present Convention shall have come into force in
respect of Spain.
(vi) The Portuguese Zone
The Portuguese Zone shall comprise the area of
the Atlantic Ocean within a distance of 100 miles
from the nearest land along the coast of Portugal
and shall come into operation on the date on which
the present Convention shall have come into force
in respect of Portugal.
(c) Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas
The Mediterranean and Adriatic Zone
The Mediterranean and Adriatic Zone shall comprise the
sea areas within a distance of 100 miles from the nearest
land along the coasts of each of the territories bordering
the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas and shall come into
operation in respect of each territory on the date on
which the present Convention shall have come into force
in respect of that territory.
(d) Black Sea and Sea of Azov
The Black Sea and Sea of Azov Zone
The Black Sea and Sea of Azov Zone shall comprise the
sea areas within a distance of 100 miles from the nearest
land along the coasts of each of the territories bordering
the Black Sea and Sea of Azov and shall come into opera-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2289
tion in respect of each territory on the date on which the
present Convention shall have come into force in respect
of that territory.
Provided that the whole of the Black Sea and the Sea of
Azov shall become a prohibited zone on the date on
which the present Convention shall have come into force
in respect of Roumania and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
(e) Red Sea
The Red Sea Zone
The Red Sea Zone shall comprise the sea areas within a
distance of 100 miles from the nearest land along the
coasts of each of the territories bordering the Red Sea
and shall come into operation in respect of each territory
on the date on which the present Convention shall have
come into force in respect of that territory.
(/) Persian Gulf
(i) The Kuwait Zone
The Kuwait Zone shall comprise the sea area
within a distance of 100 miles from the nearest
land along the coast of Kuwait.
(ii) The Saudi Arabian Zone
The Saudi Arabian Zone shall comprise the sea
area within a distance of 100 miles from the near-
est land along the coast of Saudi Arabia and shall
come into operation on the date on which the
present Convention shall have come into force in
respect of Saudi Arabia.
(fir) Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean
(i) The Arabian Sea Zone
The Arabian S-°, Zone shall comprise the sea areas
within a line drawu between the following positions:
Latitude Longitude
23° 33'north 68° 20'east,
23 ° 33' north 67 ° 30' east;
22° north 68° east,
20° north 70° east;
18° 55' north 72° east,
15° 40'north 72° 42'east;
8° 30'north 75° 48'east,
7° 10'north 76° 50'east;
7° 10'north 78° 14'east,
9° 06'north 79° 32'east,
-------
2290 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and shall come into operation on the date on which
the present Convention shall have come into force
in respect to India.
(ii) The Bay of Bengal Coastal Zone
The Bay of Bengal Coastal Zone shall comprise the
sea areas between the nearest land and a line
drawn between the following positions:
Latitude Longitude
10° 15'north 80° 50'east,
14° 30'north 81° 38'east;
20° 20'north 88° 10'east,
20° 20'north 89° east,
and shall come into operation oh the date on which
the present Convention shall have come into force
in respect of India.
(iii) The Malagasy Zone
The Malagasy Zone shall comprise the sea area
within a distance of 100 miles from the nearest
land along the coast of Madagascar west of the
meridans of Cape d'Ambre in the north and of
Cape Ste. Marie in the south and within a distance
of 150 miles from the nearest land along the coast
of Madagascar east of these meridans, and shall
come into operation when the present Convention
shall have come into force in respect of Madagascar.
(h) Australia
The Australian Zone
The Australian Zone shall comprise the sea area within
a distance of 150 miles from the nearest land along the
coasts of Australia, except off the north and west coasts
of the Australian mainland between the point opposite
Thursday Island and the point on the west coast at 20°
south latitude.
(3) (a) Any Contracting Government may propose:
(i) the reduction of any zone off the coast of any of
its territories;
(ii) the extension of any such zone to a maximum of
100 miles from the nearest land along any such
coast,
by making a declaration to that effect and the reduction
or extension shall come into force after the expiration of
a period of six months after the declaration has been
made, unless any one of the Contracting Governments
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2291
shall have made a declaration not less than two months
before the expiration of that period to the effect that it
considers that the destruction of birds and adverse
effects on fish and the marine organisms on which they
feed would be likely to occur or that its interests are
affected either by reason of the proximity of its coasts
or by reason of its ships trading in the area, and that it
does not accept the reduction or extension, as the case
may be.
(&) Any declaration under this paragraph shall be made by
a notification in writing to the Organization which shall
notify all Contracting Governments of the receipt of the
declaration.
(4) The Organization shall prepare a set of charts indicating the
extent of the prohibited zones in force in accordance with para-
graph (2) of this Annex and shall issue amendments thereto as
may be necessary.
15. The following changes to be made in Annex B to the Conven-
tion:
1. Throughout the Annex replace the words 'Identity numbers
of tank(s)' by 'Identity numbers of tank(s) concerned'.
2. In Form I (a) replace the words 'Place or position of ship' by
'Place or position of ship at time of discharge'.
3. In Form I(d) and Form II (a) and (b) replace the words
'Place or position of ship' by 'Place or position of ship at time
of disposal'.
4. In Form I(c) add a new line 17 as follows: '17. Approximate
quantities of water discharged' and re-number lines in (d)
18 to 20.
5. Delete the words 'from ship' in the headings of Forms l(d)
and II (6).
6. In Form III replace the words 'Place or position of ship' by
'Place or position of ship at time of occurrence'.
WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their
resolution of February 25, 1964, two-thirds of the Senators present
concurring therein, did advise and consent to the acceptance of the
said amendments;
WHEREAS the amendments were duly ratified and accepted by the
President of the United States of America on September 9, 1966, in
pursuance of the advice and consent of the Senate;
WHEREAS it is provided in paragraph (4) of Article XVI of the
International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, that any amendment communicated to Contract-
-------
2292 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ing Governments for their acceptance under paragraph (3) of that
Article shall come into force for all Contracting Governments, ex-
cept those which before it comes into force make a declaration that
they do not accept the amendment, twelve months after the date on
which the amendment is accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting
Governments;
WHEREAS instruments of acceptance of the said amendments
were deposited with the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consulta-
tive Organization by Contracting- Governments as follows: Poland,
except as to the amendment to Article XIV, on January 28, 1963;
France on April 29, 1963; Sweden on June 10, 1963; Canada on
July 5, 1963; Kuwait on July 17,1963; Norway on August 7,1963;
Liberia on August 21, 1963; the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland on August 28, 1963; the United Arab Re-
public on October 3, 1963; the Netherlands on December 23, 1963;
Denmark on May 22, 1964; Ghana on October 19, 1964; Jordan on
December 14, 1964; the Federal Republic of Germany on December
17, 1964; Malagasy Republic on June 21,1965; Ireland on August
3, 1965; the Philippines on November 9, 1965; Belgium on Febru-
ary 10,1966; Finland on March 14, 1966; Switzerland on May 11,
1966; Iceland on May 18, 1966; and Israel on June 28, 1966;
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the deposit by a Contracting Gov-
ernment (Iceland) of the twenty-first acceptance of the amend-
ments to Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XVI and
XVIII and the amendments to Annexes A and B, two-thirds of the
Contracting Governments to the Convention had accepted those
amendments, which will accordingly come into force on May 18,
1967;
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the deposit on June 28, 1966 by a
Contracting Government (Israel) of the twenty-first acceptance of
the amendment to Article XIV, two-thirds of the Contracting Gov-
ernments had accepted that amendment, which will accordingly
come into force on June 28,1967;
AND WHEREAS an instrument of acceptance of all of the aforesaid
amendments was deposited by the Government of the United States
of America on September 21,1966;
Now, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Lyndon B. Johnson, Presi-
dent of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make
public the said amendments to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, to the end that they
shall be observed and fulfilled with good faith, on and after May 18,
1967 with respect to the amendments to Articles I, II, III, IV, V,
VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XVI, and XVIII and the amendments to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2293
Annexes A and B, and on and after June 28, 1967 with respect to
the amendment to Article XIV, by the United States of America
and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other
persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused
the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the city of Washington this seventh day of October in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred sixty-six
[SEAL] and of the Independence of the United States of America
the one hundred ninety-first.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
By the President:
NICHOLAS DEB KATZENBACH
Acting Secretary of State
-------
2294
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.12a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 110 (1964)
1.12a(l)(a) Feb. 25: Ratification Advised by Senate, pp. 3471-3472,
3496.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
Executive C, amends a convention ap-
proved by the Senate in 1961—the In-
ternational Convention for the Preven-
tion of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. The
purpose of this convention was to regu-
late the discharge of oil and oily wastes
on the high seas by tankers and other
ships, in order to control the harmful
effect of these discharges on beaches
and coastal areas, birds, and other wild-
life, and fish and marine resources. In
general, the convention provided for a
50-mile zone around the coasts of all
countries into which no oil or oily wastes
could be discharged. It also provided
for the maintenance and inspection of oil
record books on all convention ships,
and specified the ships to which the con-
vention was to apply.
The committee recommended this
convention to the Senate in 1961, but it
did not gloss over its shortcomings
which had kept the United States from
signing the convention at the time it
was negotiated in 1954. In fact, the
Senate gave its advice and consent to
ratification, subject to one understand-
ing, two reservations, and five recom-
mendations—all proposed by the De-
partment of State—to deal with these
shortcomings. By the same token, the
committee shared the view of the De-
partment that by becoming a party, the
United States could be more effective in
its efforts toward improving the con-
vention and eliminating oil pollution.
The amendments now before the Sen-
ate are largely the result of this effort.
Many of the amendments were proposed
by the United States, and all of them
are considered improvements over the
original provisions.
Briefly stated, the amendments
strengthen the existing convention, first,
by the addition of new categories of
ships, both large and small, which must
practice antipollution measures; second,
by extending the system of prohibited
zones from 50 to 100 miles from shores
where pollution is particularly preva-
lent; and third, by amending the
prescribed penalties and enforcement
procedures.
[p. 3471]
The committee report contains a full
description of all amendments.
There are several points that I might
note in passing. One is that the re-
vised convention makes the former
understanding, reservations, and rec-
ommendations unnecessary. The new
provisions eliminate the language that
gave rise to them before. A second one
is that the convention applies only to
ships on the high seas. Within U.S.
territorial waters, only U.S. laws apply
—in this case, the Oil Pollution Acts of
1924 and 1961. The last point I wish to
stress is the complete agreement by
Government agencies, industry, and
conservation groups on the merits of
these amendments. This was disclosed
at a public hearing on February 11.
The Committee on Foreign Relations
feels that as a leading proponent of more
effective antipollution measures, the
United States should accept these
amendments promptly. I ask that the
Senate now give its advice and consent
to their acceptance.
[p. 3472]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN in the chair). Two-thirds of
the Senators present concurring there-
in, the resolution of ratification is agreed
to.
[p. 3496]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2295
1.13 GRANTING CLEARANCES, AS AMENDED,
46 U.S.C. §91 (1954)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161(b) (5)]
§ 91.
The master or person having the charge or command of any
vessel bound to a foreign port shall deliver to the collector of the
district from which such vessel is about to depart a manifest of
all the cargo on board the same, and the value thereof, by him
subscribed, and shall swear to the truth thereof; whereupon the
collecter shall grant a clearance for such vessel and her cargo, but
without specifying the particulars thereof in the clearance, unless
required by the master or other person having the charge or com-
mand of such vessel so to do. If any vessel bound to a foreign
port (other than a licensed yacht or an undocumented American
pleasure vessel not engaged in any trade nor in any way violating
the customs or navigation laws of the United States) departs
from any port or place in the United States without a clearance,
or if the master delivers a false manifest, or does not answer
truly the questions demanded of him, or, having received a clear-
ance adds to the cargo of such vessel without having mentioned
in the report outwards the intention to do so, or if the departure
of the vessel is delayed beyond the second day after obtaining
clearance without reporting the delay to the collector, the master or
other person having the charge or command of such vessel shall be
liable to a penalty of not more than $1,000 nor less than $500, or if
the cargo consists in any part of narcotic drugs, on any spirits,
wines, or other alcoholic liquors (sea stores excepted), a penalty of
not more than $5,000 nor less than $1,000 for each offense, and the
vessel shall be detained in any port of the United States until the
said penalty is paid or secured: Provided, That in order that the
commerce of the United States may move with expedition and
without undue delay, the Commissioner of Customs is authorized
to make regulations permitting the master of any vessel taking
on cargo for a foreign port or for a port in noncontiguous territory
belonging to the United States to file a manifest as hereinbefore
provided, and if the manifest be not a complete manifest and it
so appears upon such manifest, the collector of customs may
grant clearance to the vessel in the case of an incomplete manifest,
taking from the owner of the vessel, who may act in the premises
by a duly authorized attorney in fact, a bond with security ap-
proved by the collector of customs in the penal sum of $1,000,
conditioned that the master or someone for him will file a com-
pleted outward manifest not later than the fourth business day
after the clearance of the vessel. In the event that the said
-------
2296 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
complete outward manifest be not filed as required by the pro-
visions of this section and the regulations made by the Commis-
sioner of Customs in pursuance hereof, then a penalty of $50 for
each day's delinquency beyond the allowed period of four days
for filing the completed manifest shall be exacted, and if the
completed manifest be not filed within the three days following
the four-day period, then for each succeeding day of delinquency
a penalty of $100 shall be exacted. Suit may be instituted in the
name of the United States against the principal and surety on the
bond for the recovery of any penalties that may accrue and be
exacted in accordance with the terms of the bond. R.S. § 4197;
Aug. 5, 1935, c. 438, Title II, § 209, 49 Stat. 526; June 16, 1938, c.
476, § 1, 52 Stat. 758; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §§ 101-104, eff. July
16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097; Sept. 1, 1954, c. 1213, Title
V, § 501(a), 68 Stat. 1140.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2297
1.13a CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1935
August 5,1935, P.L. 74-238, Title II, §209, 49 Stat. 526
SEC. 209. Section 4197 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (U.S.C.,
title 46, sec. 91), is amended by striking out the second sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"If any vessel bound to a foreign port (other than a licensed yacht
not engaging in any trade nor in any way violating the revenue laws
of the United States) departs from any port or place in the United
States, without a clearance, or if the master delivers a false manifest,
or does not answer truly the questions demanded of him, or, having
received a clearance adds to the cargo of such vessel without having
mentioned in the report outwards the intention to do so, or if the
departure of the vessel is delayed beyond the second day after ob-
taining clearance without reporting the delay to the collector, the
master or other person having the charge or command of such vessel
shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $1,000 nor less than $500,
or if the cargo consists in any part of narcotic drugs, or any spirits,
wines, or other alcoholic liquors (sea stores excepted), a penalty of
not more than $5,000 nor less than $1,000, for each offense, and the
vessel shall be detained in any port of the United States until the
said penalty is paid or secured."
[p. 526]
1.13a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
H.R. EEP. No. 868, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935)
ANTISMUGGLING ACT
MAY 11, 1935.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DOUGHTON, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 7980]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 7980) to protect the revenue of the United States and provide
measures for the more effective enforcement of the laws respecting
-------
2298 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the revenue, to prevent smuggling, to authorize customs-enforcement
areas, and for other purposes, having had the same under considera-
tion, report it back to the House without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
NECESSITY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL
Evidence was presented to your committee at the hearings that a
loss of revenue of millions of dollars annually is being occasioned
since the repeal of the eighteenth amendment by the increased ac-
tivity of smugglers in evading our revenue laws. This activity can be
curbed by adequate remedial legislation. The bill is designed to ac-
complish this result by extending (within the limits authorized by
international law) our customs jurisdiction, by providing more effec-
tive means of enforcing laws relating to smuggling, and, generally, by
making smuggling unprofitable. The bill will not disturb our exist-
ing international relations, but rather is designed to clarify our po-
sition, and to strengthen the understanding between foreign nations
and ourselves in dealing with smuggling; nor will it interfere with
legitimate commerce.
The Secretary of the Treasury personally appeared before your
committee and testified to the necessity of enacting this bill if rapidly
increasing post-repeal smuggling activity and consequent frauds upon
the revenue of the United States are to be checked.
Prior to prohibition this country was not troubled much with
smuggling. During the 14 years of prohibition the business of smug-
[p-1]
gling liquor into the United States from all parts of the world
developed to very serious and troublesome proportions.
It was generally expected that with the repeal of prohibition
liquor-smuggling operations and frauds on our revenue would be
materially reduced. For a time after repeal such proved to be the
case, but, commencing with the spring of 1934, liquor smugglers again
appeared along our coasts, and their operations have now increased
to alarming proportions. Thus, in March 1934, only two smuggling
vessels were observed off the coast, but by February of this year this
number had increased to 22. Thirty-nine foreign vessels are pres-
ently known to the Coast Guard to be regularly engaged in the
illicit-liquor traffic. Inasmuch as these vessels are hovering beyond
our customs waters, they are not subject to seizure under existing
laws, and hence they carry on their smuggling operations almost with
impunity.
Alcohol constitutes almost the entire cargo of these vessels. This
is due to several things. It is very cheap. It can be produced
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2299
abroad at costs ranging from 20 to 50 cents a gallon. It is highly
concentrated. Two and one-half gallons of whisky can be made from
a gallon of alcohol. It enjoys a large price differential due to the
customs duties and internal-revenue taxes, which amount to $13.30
on a gallon of 190°proof.
A summary of the movements of known alcohol smugglers for the
last 4 months of 1934 indicates an outward movement from the princi-
pal ports of supply to the coast of the United States of over three-
quarters of a million gallons of alcohol. At this rate there would be
an annual movement of over 2% million gallons. The annual in-
ternal-revenue loss on this amount of alcohol, at $3.80 per gallon,
would be almost $9,000,000; the loss in customs duties, at $9.50 per
gallon, would be over $21,000,000, making a total loss of over
$30,000,000.
The practical difficulties in checking smuggling can hardly be exag-
gerated. Our 10,000-mile coastline with the many opportunities it
affords for concealment, our comparatively small Coast Guard force
of about 10,000 men, the seamanship and daring of the rumrunners,
and the highly efficient and well-financed smuggling organizations
that have grown up since the advent of prohibition, are all prime
factors in making the smuggling problem one difficult of solution.
Another, and not the least important factor, is the inadequacy of
existing antismuggling legislation. The ineffective legislative weap-
ons at present at our disposal for this work have time and time again
permitted the escape from punishment of vessels which were violat-
ing every principle behind our customs-enforcement laws, vessels, in
fact, which had never earned an honest dollar in their entire seagoing
lives, but had been designed, built, and used exclusively for smug-
gling into the United States.
*******
[p. 2]
EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Section 209 amends section 4197 of the Revised Statutes by im-
posing certain additional requirements with regard to clearance of
vessels for foreign ports (master must truly answer all questions
asked of him, must notify the collector if he adds to the cargo after
receiving clearance, or if he delays leaving more than 2 days after
obtaining clearance) and penalizing false statements in connection
with such clearances. The penalty is made more severe if the cargo
is in part composed of liquors or prohibited merchandise.
[p. 10]
-------
2300 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.13a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
S. REP. No. 1036, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935)
ANTISMUGGLING ACT
MAY 13 (calendar, day, JULY 10), 1935.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. KING, from the Committee on Finance, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7980]
The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
7980) to protect the revenue of the United States and provide meas-
ures for the more effective enforcement of the laws respecting the
revenue, to prevent smuggling, to authorize customs-enforcement
areas, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
NECESSITY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL
A loss of revenue of millions of dollars annually is being occasioned
since the repeal of the eighteenth amendment by the increased ac-
tivity of smugglers in evading our revenue laws. This activity can be
curbed by adequate remedial legislation. The bill is designed to
accomplish this result by extending (within the limits authorized by
international law) our customs jurisdiction, by providing more effec-
tive means of enforcing laws relating to smuggling, and, generally, by
making smuggling unprofitable. The bill will not disturb our exist-
ing international relations, but rather is designed to clarify our
position and to strengthen the understanding between foreign nations
and ourselves in dealing with smuggling; nor will it interfere with
legitimate commerce.
The Secretary of the Treasury personally appeared before the
Ways and Means Committee of the House and testified to the neces-
sity of enacting this bill if rapidly increasing post-repeal smuggling
activity and consequent frauds upon the revenue of the United States
are to be checked. The House hearings are available in printed form.
Prior to prohibition this country was not troubled much with
smuggling. During the 14 years of prohibition the business of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2301
smuggling liquor into the United States from all parts of the world
developed to very serious and troublesome proportions.
tP-1]
It was generally expected that with the repeal of prohibition
liquor-smuggling operations and frauds on our revenue would be ma-
terially reduced. For a time after repeal such proved to be the case,
but, commencing with the spring of 1934, liquor smugglers again
appeared along our coasts, and their operations have now increased
to alarming proportions. Thus, in March 1934, only 2 smuggling
vessels were observed off the coast, but by February of this year this
number had increased to 22. Thirty-nine foreign vessels are pres-
ently known to the Coast Guard to be regularly engaged in the
illicit-liquor traffic. Inasmuch as these vessels are hovering beyond
our customs waters, they are not subject to seizure under existing
laws, and hence they carry on their smuggling operations almost
with impunity.
Alcohol constitutes almost the entire cargo of these vessels. This
is due to several things. It is very cheap. It can be produced abroad
at costs ranging from 20 to 50 cents a gallon. It is highly con-
centrated. Two and one-half gallons of whisky can be made from a
gallon of alcohol. It enjoys a large price differential due to the
customs duties and internal-revenue taxes, which amount to $13.30
on a gallon of 190° proof.
A summary of the movements of known alcohol smugglers for the
last 4 months of 1934 indicates an outward movement from the princi-
pal ports of supply to the coast of the United States of over three-
quarters of a million gallons of alcohol. At this rate there would be
an annual movement of over 2x/4 million gallons. The annual in-
ternal-revenue loss on this amount of alcohol, at $3.80 per gallon,
would be almost $9,000,000; the loss in customs duties, at $9.50 per
gallon, would be over $21,000,000, making a total loss of over
$30,000,000.
The practical difficulties in checking smuggling can hardly be
exaggerated. Our 10,000-mile coastline with the many opportunities
it affords for concealment, our comparatively small Coast Guard force
of about 10,000 men, the seamanship and daring of the rumrunners,
and the highly efficient and well-financed smuggling organizations
that have grown up since the advent of prohibition, are all prime
factors in making the smuggling problem one difficult of solution.
Another, and not the least important factor, is the inadequacy of
existing antismuggling legislation. The ineffective legislative weap-
ons at present at our disposal for this work have time and time again
permitted the escape from punishment of vessels which were violat-
-------
2302 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ing every principle behind our customs-enforcement laws, vessels, in
fact, which had never earned an honest dollar in their entire sea-
going lives, but had been designed, built, and used exclusively for
smuggling into the United States.
*******
[p. 2]
EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Section 209 amends section 4197 of the Revised Statutes by im-
posing certain additional requirements with regard to clearance of
vessels for foreign ports (master must truly answer all questions
asked of him, must notify the collector if he adds to the cargo after
receiving clearance, or if he delays leaving more than 2 days after
obtaining clearance) and penalizing false statements in connection
with such clearances. The penalty is made more severe if the cargo
is in part composed of liquors or prohibited merchandise.
[p. 14]
1.13a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 78 (1935)
1.13a(3)(a) June 11: Amended and passed House, p. 9077
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13a(3) (b) July 26: Passed Senate, p. 11939
(No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13b 1938 AMENDMENTS TO §§91, 92 OF TITLE 46 U.S.C.
June 16,1938, P.L. 75-656, §1, 52 Stat. 758
AN ACT To amend section 4197 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (U.S.C., 1934
edition, title 46, sec. 91), and section 4200 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., 1934
edition, title 46, sec. 92), and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 4197
of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S.C., 1934 edition,
title 46, sec. 91), be amended to read as follows:
"The master or person having the charge or command of any vessel
bound to a foreign port shall deliver to the collector of the district
from which such vessel is about to depart a manifest of all the cargo
on board the same, and the value thereof, by him subscribed, and shall
swear to the truth thereof; whereupon the collector shall grant a
clearance for such vessel and her cargo, but without specifying the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2303
particulars thereof in the clearance, unless required by the master or
other person having the charge or command of such vessel so to do.
If any vessel bound to a foreign port (other than a licensed yacht not
engaging in any trade nor in any way violating the revenue laws of
the United States) departs from any port or place in the United
[p. 758]
States without a clearance, or if the master delivers a false manifest,
or does not answer truly the questions demanded of him, or, having
received a clearance adds to the cargo of such vessels without having
mentioned in the report outwards the intention to do so, or if the
departure of the vessel is delayed beyond the second day after obtain-
ing clearance without reporting the delay to the collector, the master
or other person having the charge or command of such vessel shall be
liable to a penalty of not more than $1,000 nor less than $500, or if the
cargo consists in any part of narcotic drugs, or any spirits, wines, or
other alcoholic liquors (sea stores excepted), a penalty of not more
than $5,000 nor less than $1,000 for each offense, and the vessel shall
be detained in any port of the United States until the said penalty is
paid or secured: Provided, That in order that the commerce of the
United States may move with expedition and without undue delay,
the Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized to make regulations
permitting the master of any vessel taking on cargo for a foreign
port or for a port in noncontiguous territory belonging to the United
States to file a manifest as hereinbefore provided, and if the manifest
be not a complete manifest and it so appears upon such manifest, the
collector of customs may grant clearance to the vessel in the case of
an incomplete manifest, taking from the owner of the vessel, who may
act in the premises by a duly authorized attorney in fact, a bond with
security approved by the collector of customs in the penal sum of
$1,000, conditioned that the master or someone for him will file a com-
pleted outward manifest not later than the fourth business day after
the clearance of the vessel. In the event that the said complete out-
ward manifest be not filed as required by the provisions of this sec-
tion and the regulations made by the Secretary of Commerce in
pursuance hereof, then a penalty of $50 for each day's delinquency
beyond the allowed period of four days for filing the completed mani-
fest shall be exacted, and if the completed manifest be not filed within
the three days following the four-day period, then for each succeed-
ing day of delinquency a penalty of $100 shall be exacted. Suit may
be instituted in the name of the United States against the principal
and surety on the bond for the recovery of any penalties that may
accrue and be exacted in accordance with the terms of the bond."
[p. 759]
-------
2304 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.13b(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE
AND FISHERIES
H.R. KEP. No. 2521, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., (1938)
EXPEDITING CLEARANCE OF VESSELS
MAY 31, 1938.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BLAND, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10672]
The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 10672) to amend section 4197 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 91), and section
4200 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 92), and
for other purposes, having had the same under consideration report
it back to the House without amendment and recommend that the
bill do pass.
R.S. 4197 is derived from the act of March 2, 1799, and provides
that the master of a vessel bound to a foreign port shall deliver to
the collector of customs a manifest of all cargo on board and the value
thereof, verified by oath; whereupon the collector of customs is di-
rected to grant a clearance for the vessel and her cargo. This section
of the revised statutes is amended by section 1 of the bill which pro-
vides that the Secretary of Commerce may formulate regulations
permitting the vessel to clear upon the filing of an incomplete mani-
fest and the posting of a bond in the penal sum of $1,000 upon the
condition that a complete manifest will be filed not later than the
fourth business day after the clearance of the vessel. Appropriate
penalties are provided for failure to file a complete manifest within
the time allowed. This amendment will enable commerce of the
United States to move without undue delay and with maximum
expedition.
R.S. 4200 is derived from the act of February 10, 1820, and pro-
vides that before a clearance shall be granted for any vessel on a
voyage to a foreign port, the owners, shippers, or consignors of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2305
cargo carried by the vessel shall deliver to the collector of customs
manifests (export declarations) of the cargo, verified by oath. This
statute is amended by section 2 of the bill in practically the same
manner as section 4197 of the Revised Statutes is amended by section
[p. 1]
1 above; namely, by authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to for-
mulate regulations permitting a vessel to clear without the filing of
shippers' manifests or export declarations upon the condition that the
shippers post a $1,000 bond maturing, if the proper manifests are not
filed, within 4 days after the clearance of the vessel. Appropriate
penalties are also provided for in this section, the express purpose of
the amendment being in the interest of the expeditious movement of
commerce of the United States.
Section 3 of the bill preserves intact the existing provisions of law
"with respect to the necessary papers, documents, or licenses required
to be produced by the master, owner, operator, or consignor, relating
to the required prerequisites for the granting of clearance for a cargo
destined to foreign ports or to a port in noncontiguous territory
belonging to the United States.
This legislation was recommended for enactment by the Acting
Secretary of Commerce to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives in a letter dated May 16, 1938. The amendments merely make
legal practices which have existed for many years but which have
been questioned slightly in the last few months. The proposed legis-
lation will remove all possibility of doubt or question by anyone. The
practice previously pursued and removed from the possibility of ques-
tion by this bill is needed to meet the increasing competition and
exigencies of modern maritime business practices.
The proposal involves no extra expense on the Treasury, and your
committee is advised that it also meets with the approval of the
Bureau of the Budget.
The following report of the Acting Secretary of Commerce, recom-
mending the enactment of the legislation, sets out in detail the situa-
tion complained of and the customs regulations involved. Your
committee concurs in the view of the Acting Secretary of Commerce
and recommends the enactment of the legislation proposed.
The letter referred to follows:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, May 16,1938.
HON. S. O. BLAND,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House oi Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with our conversation this morning, I
am forwarding in quadruplicate proposed amendments to sections 4197 and 4200,
Revised Statutes, the proposed changes to the present law being in italic.
-------
2306 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
As will be noted from the amendatory language these proposed amendments, are
only for the purpose of securing statutory authority to do that which is now being
done by regulation for which there is no apparent warrant of law.
In addition to the proposed amendments, I am transmitting memoranda which
I believe fully set forth the purpose of the desired amendments.
Cordially yours,
J. M. JOHNSON,
Assistant Secretary oj Commerce.
[p. 2]
1.13b(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 2020, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1938)
AMENDING SECTION 4197 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AS
AMENDED (U.S.C., 1934 ED., TITLE 46, SEC. 91), AND
SECTION 4200 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (U.S.C.,
1934 ED., TITLE 46, SEC. 92)
JUNE 7 (calendar day, JUNE 8), 1938.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. COPELAND, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10672]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
10672) to amend section 4197 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 91), and section 4200 of the Revised
Statutes (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 92), and for other purposes,
having considered the same report favorably thereon with the
recommendation that the bill do pass.
The House report follows:
The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 10672) to amend section 4197 of the Revised Statues, as amended
(U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 91), and section 4200 of the Revised Statutes
(U. S. C., 1934 ed., title 46, sec. 92), and for other purposes, having had the same
under consideration, report it back to the House without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
R. S. 4197 is derived from the act of March 2, 1799, and provides that the
master of a vessel bound to a foreign port shall deliver to the collector of customs
a manifest of all cargo on board and the value thereof, verified by oath; whereupon
the collector of customs is directed to grant a clearance for the vessel and her
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2307
cargo. This section of the revised statutes is amended by section 1 of the bill
which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may formulate regulations per-
mitting the vessel to clear upon the filing of an incomplete manifest and the posting
of a bond in the penal sum of $1,000 upon the condition that a complete manifest
will be filed not later than the fourth business day after the clearance of the vessel.
Appropriate penalties are provided for failure to file a complete manifest within
the time allowed. This amendment will enable commerce of the United States
to move without undue delay and with maximum expedition.
R. S. 4200 is derived from the act of February 10, 1820, and provides that before
a clearance shall be granted for any vessel on a voyage to a foreign port, the own-
ers, shippers, or consignors of the cargo carried by the vessel shall deliver to the
collector of customs manifests (export declarations) of the cargo, verified by oath.
[p. 1]
This statute is amended by section 2 of the bill in practically the same manner as
section 4197 of the Revised Statutes is amended by section 1 above; namely, by
authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to formulate regulations permitting a
vessel to clear without the filing of shippers' manifests or export declarations upon
the condition that the shippers post a $1,000 bond maturing, if the proper manifests
are not filed, within 4 days after the clearance of the vessel. Appropriate penalties
are also provided for in this section, the express purpose of the amendment being
in the interest of the expeditious movement of commerce of the United States.
Section 3 of the bill preserves intact the existing provisions of law "with respect
to the necessary papers, documents, or licenses required to be produced by the
master, owner, operator, or consignor, relating to the required prerequisites for
the granting of clearance for a cargo destined to foreign ports or to a port in non-
contiguous territory belonging to the United States.
This legislation was recommended for enactment by the Acting Secretary of
Commerce to the Speaker of the House of Representatives in a letter dated May
16, 1938. The amendments merely make legal practices which have existed for
many years but which have been questioned slightly in the last few months. The
proposed legislation will remove all possibility of doubt or question by anyone.
The practice previously pursued and removed from the possibility of question by
this bill is needed to meet the increasing competition and exigencies of modern
maritime business practices.
The proposal involves no extra expense on the Treasury, and your committee is
advised that it also meets with the approval of the Bureau of the Budget.
The following report of the Acting Secretary of Commerce, recommending the
enactment of the legislation, sets out in detail the situation complained of and the
customs regulations involved. Your committee concurs in the view of the Acting
Secretary of Commerce and recommends the enactment of the legislation proposed.
The letter referred to follows:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Washington, May 16,1938.
HON. S. O. BLAND,
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with our conversation this morning, I
am forwarding in quadruplicate proposed amendments to sections 4197 and 4200,
Revised Statutes, the proposed changes to the present law being in italic.
-------
2308 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
As will be noted from the amendatory language these proposed amendments, are
only for the purpose of securing statutory authority to do that which is now being
done by regulation for which there is no apparent warrant of law.
In addition to the proposed amendments, I am transmitting memoranda which
I believe fully set forth the purpose of the desired amendments.
Cordially yours,
J. M. JOHNSON,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
[p. 2]
1.13b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 83 (1938)
1.13b(3)(a) June 6: Passed House, p. 8226
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13b(3)(b) June 13: Passed Senate, p. 8942
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13c 1946 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3, §§101-104
May 16,1946,11 Fed. Beg. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Section 101. Functions transferred to the United States Coast
Guard.— (a) There are hereby transferred to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard those functions of the bureau, offices, and boards speci-
fied in the first sentence of section 104 of this plan, and of the Secre-
tary of Commerce, which pertain to approval of plans for the
construction, repair, and alteration of vessels; approval of materials,
equipment, and appliances; classification of vessels; inspection of ves-
sels and their equipment and appliances; issuance of certificates of
inspection, and of permits indicating the approval of vessels for oper-
ations which may be hazardous to life or property; administration of
load line requirements; enforcement of other provisions for the safety
of life and property on vessels; licensing and certificating of officers,
pilots, and seamen; suspension and revocation of licenses and certifi-
cates; investigation of marine casualties; enforcement of manning
requirements, citizenship requirements, and requirements for the
mustering and drilling of crews; control of log books; shipment, dis-
charge, protection, and welfare of merchant seamen; enforcement of
duties of shipowners and officers after accidents; promulgation and
enforcement of rules for lights, signals, speed, steering, sailing, passing,
anchorage, movement, and towlines of vessels and lights and signals
on bridges; numbering of undocumented vessels; prescription and en-
forcement of regulations for outfitting and operation of motorboats;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2309
licensing of motorboat operators; regulation of regattas and marine
parades; all other functions of such bureau, offices, and boards which
are not specified in section 102 of this plan; and all other functions of
the Secretary of Commerce pertaining to those functions of the agen-
cies abolished under section 104 of this plan which are not specified
in section 102 of this plan, including the remission and mitigation of
fines, penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws governing
these functions and those incurred under the Act of December 17,
1941, 55 Stat. 808, as amended.
(b) The functions relating to the award of numbers to undocu-
mented vessels vested by law in the Collectors of Customs are hereby
transferred to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
SEC. 102. Functions transferred to Bureau of Customs.—There are
hereby transferred to the Commissioner of Customs those functions
of the bureau, offices, and boards specified in the first sentence of sec-
tion 104 of this plan, and of the Secretary of Commerce, which pertain
to registry, enrollment, and licensing of vessels, including the issu-
ance of commissions to yachts, the assignment of signal letters, and
the preparation of all reports and publications in connection there-
with; measurement of vessels, administration of tonnage duties, and
collection of tolls; entry and clearance of vessels and aircraft, regula-
tion of vessels in the coasting and fishing trades, and limitation of the
use of foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of the United
[p. 1097]
States; recording of sales, conveyances, and mortgages of vessels;
protection of steerage passengers; all other functions of such bureau,
offices, and boards which were performed by the Bureau of Customs
on behalf thereof immediately prior to the effective date of Executive
Order No. 9083 of February 28, 1942 (7 F.R. 1609); and the power to
remit and mitigate fines, penalties and forfeitures incurred under the
laws governing these functions.
SEC. 103. Powers of the Secretary of the Treasury.—The functions
transferred by sections 101 and 102 of this plan may be performed
through such officers and employees of the United States Coast Guard
and the Bureau of Customs, respectively, as may be designated by the
Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Commissioner of Customs,
respectively, and shall be performed subject to the direction and
control of the Secretary of the Treasury except as otherwise required
by law with respect to the United States Coast Guard whenever it
operates as a part of the Navy.
SEC. 104. Abolition of agencies.—The Bureau of Marine Inspection
and Navigation, the office of the director thereof, the offices of super-
vising inspectors, principal traveling inspectors, local inspectors,
-------
2310 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
assistant inspectors, shipping commissioners, deputy shipping com-
missioners, and the Board of Supervising Inspectors, the Boards of
Local Inspectors, the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, and the
Marine Boards are hereby abolished. The Secretary of the Treasury
shall provide for winding up those affairs of the said abolished
agencies which are not otherwise disposed of herein.
[p. 1098]
1.13d CUSTOMS SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 1954
September 1,1954, P.L. 83-768, Title V, §501(a), 68 Stat. 1140
TITLE V—CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. (a) The parenthetical matter first appearing in the sec-
ond sentence of section 4197 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(U.S.C., 1952 edition, title 46, sec. 91), is amended to read as follows:
" (other than a licensed yacht or an undocumented American pleasure
vessel not engaged in any trade nor in any way violating the customs
or navigation laws of the United States)".
*******
[p. 1140]
1.13d(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
H.B. REP. No. 2453, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954)
CUSTOMS SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 1954
JULY 22, 1954.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. REED of New York, from the Committee on Ways and Means
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10009]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 10009) to provide for the review of customs tariff schedules,
to improve precedures for the tariff classification of unenumerated
articles, to repeal or amend obsolete provisions of the customs laws,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2311
PURPOSE
H.R. 10009 is intended to continue the program of customs simpli-
fication and management improvement in accordance with the recom-
mendation of the President's message to the Congress on foreign
economic policy of March 30, 1954. This bill, the Customs Simpli-
fication Act of 1954, is a further development and continuation of
the program initiated by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953.
The present bill will accomplish the following purposes:
1. Begin the work necessary to bring about a revision of the tariff
classification schedules, a job which has not been done since the
enactment of the Tariff Act of 1930, and also the procedures for the
classification of unenumerated articles pending an overall revision
of the tariff;
2. Make certain procedural changes in the Antidumping Act, 1921,
which will permit more efficient consideration and determination of
dumping cases;
3. Eliminate certain inconsistencies in the present law relating to
the application of duties to products of our insular possessions;
4. Repeal a number of obsolete provisions relating to the customs
service; and
[p. 1]
5. Adopt a number of procedural changes designed to permit the
Bureau of Customs to enforce the customs laws more effectively.
GENERAL STATEMENT
H.R. 9476 was introduced in this session of Congress based on
suggestions by the Treasury Department and designed to carry out
certain recommendations of the President's message of March 30 on
foreign economic policy. This committee held extensive public
hearings on H.R. 9476. After consideration in executive session,
H.R. 10009 was introduced to embody the committee's decisions on
the questions involved.
The committee was gratified to note the statement of the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury during the public hearings that the enact-
ment of the Customs Simplification Act of 1953, sponsored by your
committee during the last session of Congress, has been largely
instrumental in bringing about a substantial decrease in the backlog
of uncompleted customs work. This reversed a trend which had been
uninterrupted since the end of the war. The committee believes
that the enactment of this bill will aid the Treasury Department and
the Bureau of Customs further to increase efficiency.
[P-2]
-------
2312 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.13d(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
S. REP. No. 2326, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954)
CUSTOMS SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 1954
AUGUST 6 (legislative day, AUGUST 5), 1954.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MILLIKIKT, from the Committee on Finance submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10009]
The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
10009) to provide for the review of customs tariff schedules, to im-
prove procedures for the tariff classification of unenumerated articles,
to repeal or amend obsolete provisions of the customs laws, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
[p. 1]
TITLE V CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 501
Section 501 of the bill would amend existing provisions of law so as
to exempt undocumented pleasure vessels of the United States from
the present requirements of entry and clearance and to remove the
present requirement that yachts of over 15 gross tons make formal
entry upon arrival from foreign ports .
*******
[p. 6]
1.13d(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 100 (1954)
1.13d(3) (a) July 26: Passed House, p. 12036
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13d(3)(b) Aug. 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14264
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.13d(3)(c) Aug. 16: House concurs in Senate amendments, p. 14631
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2313
1.14 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT,
43 U.S.C. §1331 ET. SEQ. (1953)
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161(i)(2)J
§ 1331. Definitions
When used in this subchapter—
(a) The term "outer Continental Shelf" means all submerged
lands lying seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath
navigable waters as defined in section 1301 of this title, and of
which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and
are subject to its jurisdiction and control;
(b) The term "Secretary"-means the Secretary of the Interior;
(c) The term "mineral lease" means any form of authorizaton
for the exploration for, or development or removal of deposits of,
oil, gas, or other minerals; and
(d) The term "person" includes, in addition to a natural per-
son, an association, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or
a private, public, or municipal corporation. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345,
§ 2, 67 Stat. 462.
§ 1332. Congressional declaration of policy; jurisdiction; con-
struction
(a) It is declared to be the policy of the United States that the
subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the
United States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control, and
power of disposition as provided in this subchapter.
(b) This subchaoter shall be construed in such manner that
the character as high seas of the waters above the outer Con-
tinental Shelf and the right to navigation and fishing therein shall
not be affected. Aug. 7,1953, c. 345, § 3, 67 Stat. 462.
§ 1333. Laws and regulations governing lands—Constitution
and United States laws; laws of adjacent States; publication of
projected States lines; restriction on State taxation and jurisdic-
tion
(a) (1) The Constitution and laws and civil and political juris-
diction of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed
of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed
structures which may be erected thereon for the purpose of ex-
ploring for, developing, removing, and transporting resources
therefrom, to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf
were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a
State: Provided, however, That mineral leases on the outer Con-
tinental Shelf shall be maintained or issued only under the pro-
visions of this subchapter.
-------
2314 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(2) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent
with this subchapter or with other Federal laws and regulations
of the Secretary now in effect or hereafter adopted, the civil and
criminal laws of each adjacent State as of August 7, 1953 are
declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the
subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial
islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be
within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended sea-
ward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf, and the
President shall determine and publish in the Federal Register
such projected lines extending seaward and defining each such
area. All of such applicable laws shall be administered and en-
forced by the appropriate officers and courts of the United States.
State taxation laws shall not apply to the outer Continental Shelf.
(3) The provisions of his section for adoption of State law as
the law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis
for claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on behalf of any State
for any purpose over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Con-
tinental Shelf, or the property and natural resources thereof or
the revenues therefrom.
Jurisdiction of United States district courts
(b) The United States district courts shall have original juris-
diction of cases and controversies arising out of or in connection
with any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for
the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting
by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the na-
tural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental
Shelf, and proceedings with respect to any such case or con-
troversy may be instituted in the judicial district in which any
defendant resides or may be found, or in the judicial district of
the adjacent State nearest the place where the cause of action
arose.
Applicability of Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act; definitions
(c) With respect to disability or death of an employee result-
ing from any injury occurring as the result of operations de-
scribed in subsection (b) of this section, compensation shall be
payable under the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act. For the purposes of the extension
of the provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act under this section—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2315
(1) the term "employee' does not include a master or
member of a crew of any vessel, or an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof or of any State or
foreign government, or of any political subdivision thereof;
(2) the term "employer" means an employer any of whose
employees are employed in such operations; and
(3) the term "United States" when used in a geographical
sense includes the outer Continental Shelf and artificial
islands and fixed structures thereon.
Applicability of National Labor Relations Act
(d) For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, any unfair labor practice, as defined in such Act, oc-
curring upon any artificial island or fixed structure referred to
in subsection (a) of this section shall be deemed to have occurred
within the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest the place
of location of such island or structure.
Coast Guard regulations; marking of islands and structures;
offenses and penalties
(e) (1) The head of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall have authority to promulgate and enforce such
reasonable regulations with respect to lights and other warning
devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the pro-
motion of safety of life and property on the islands and structures
referred to in subsection (a) of this section or on the waters
adjacent thereto, as he may deem necessary.
(2) The head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may mark for the protection of navigation any such
island or structure whenever the owner has failed suitably to
mark the same in accordance with regulations issued hereunder,
and the owner shall pay the cost thereof. Any person, firm, com-
pany, or corporation who shall fail or refuse to obey any of the
lawful rules and regulations issued hereunder shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $100 for each
offense. Each day during which such violation shall continue
shall be considered a new offense.
Prevention of obstruction to navigation by Secretary of the Army
(f) The authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent ob-
struction to navigation in the navigable waters of the United
States is extended to artificial islands and fixed structures located
on the outer Continental Shelf.
-------
2316 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Provisions as non-exclusive
(g) The specific application by this section of certain provisions
of law to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf
and the artificial islands and fixed structures referred to in sub-
section (a) of this section or to acts or offenses occurring or
committed thereon shall not give rise to any inference that the
application to such islands and structures, acts, or offenses of any
other provision of law is not intended. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 4,
67 Stat. 462.
§ 1334. Administration of leasing—Rules and regulations;
amendment; cooperation with State agencies; violation and penal-
ties; compliance with regulations as condition of lease
(a) (1) The Secretary shall administer the provisions of this
subchapter relating to the leasing of the outer Continental Shelf,
and shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out such provisions. The Secretary may at any time pre-
scribe and amend such rules and regulations as he determines to
be necessary and proper in order to provide for the prevention of
waste and conservation of the natural resources of the owner Con-
tinental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein,
and, notwithstanding any other provisions herein, such rules and
regulations shall apply to all operations conducted under a lease
issued or maintained under the provisions of this subchapter. In
the enforcement of conservation laws, rules, and regulations the
Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the conservation agen-
cies of the adjacent States. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing provisions of this section, the rules and regulations
prescribed by the Secretary thereunder may provide for the as-
signment or relinquishment of leases, for the sale of royalty oil
and gas accruing or reserved to the United States at not less than
market value, and, in the interest of conservation, for unitization,
pooling, drilling agreements, suspension of operations or produc-
tion, reduction of rentals or royalties, compensatory royalty agree-
ments, subsurface storage of oil or gas in any of said submerged
lands, and drilling or other easements necessary for operations or
production.
(2) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any rule
or regulation prescribed by the Secretary for the prevention of
waste, the conservation of the natural resources, or the protection
of correlative rights shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000 or by imprison-
ment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and im-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2317
prisonment, and each day of violation shall be deemed to be a
separate offense. The issuance and continuance in effect of any
lease, or of any extension, renewal, or replacement of any lease
under the provisions of this subchapter shall be conditioned upon
compliance with the regulations issued under this subchapter and
in force and effect on the date of the issuance of the lease if the
lease is issued under the provisions of section 1337 of this title, or
with the regulations issued' under the provisions of section
1335 (b) (2) of this title if the lease is maintained under the pro-
visions of section 1335 of this title.
Cancellation of lease; judicial review
(b) (1) Whenever the owner of a nonproducing lease fails to
comply with any of the provisions of this subchapter, or of the
lease, or of the regulations issued under this subchapter and in
force and effect on the date of the issuance of the lease if the
lease is issued under the provisions of section 1337 of this title,
or of the regulations issued under the provisions of section
1335 (b) (2) of this title, if the lease is maintained under the pro-
visions of section 1335 of this title, such lease may be canceled by
the Secretary, subject to the right of judicial review as provided
in section 1337(j) of this title, if such default continues for the
period of thirty days after mailing of notice by registered letter
to the lease owner at his record post office address.
(2) Whenever the owner of any producing lease fails to comply
with any of the provisions of this subchapter, or of the lease,
or of the regulations issued under this subchapter and in force
and effect on the date of the issuance of the lease if the lease is
issued under the provisions of section 1337 of this title, or of the
regulations issued under the provisions of section 1335 (b) (2)
of this title, if the lease is maintained under the provisions of
section 1335 of this title, such lease may be forfeited and canceled
by an appropriate proceeding in any United States district court
having jurisdiction under the provisions of section 1333 (b) of
this title.
Pipeline rights-of-way; forfeiture of grant
(c) Rights-of-way through the submerged lands of the outer
Continental Shelf, whether or not such lands are included in a
lease maintained or issued pursuant to this subchapter, may be
granted by the Secretary for pipeline purposes for the transporta-
tion of oil, natural gas, sulphur, or other mineral under such regu-
lations and upon such conditions as to the application therefor
and the survey, location and width thereof as may be prescribed
-------
2318 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
by the Secretary, and upon the express condition that such oil
or gas pipelines shall transport or purchase without discrimina-
tion, oil or natural gas produced from said submerged lands in the
vicinity of the pipeline in such proportionate amounts as the ^ed-
eral Power Commission, in the case of gas, and the Interstate
Commerce Commission, in the case of oil, may, after a full hear-
ing with due notice thereof to the interested parties, determine
to be reasonable, taking into account, among other things, conser-
vation and the prevention of waste. Failure to comply with the
provisions of this section or the regulations and conditions pre-
scribed thereunder shall be ground for forfeiture of the grant in
an appropriate judicial proceeding instituted by the United
States in any United States district court having jurisdiction un-
der the provisions of section 1333 (b) of this title. Aug. 7, 1953,
c. 345, § 5, 67 Stat. 464.
§ 1335. Validation and maintenance of prior leases—Require-
ments for Validation
(a) The provisions of this section shall apply to any mineral
lease covering submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf
issued by any State (including any extension, renewal, or replace-
ment thereof heretofore granted pursuant to such lease or under
the laws of such State) if—
(1) such lease, or a true copy thereof, is filed with the
Secretary by the lessee or his duly authorized agent within
ninety days from August 7, 1953, or within such further
period or periods as provided in section 1336 of this title or
as may be fixed from time to time by the Secretary;
(2) such lease was issued prior to December 21, 1948, and
would have been on June 5, 1950, in force and effect in ac-
cordance with its terms and provisions and the law of the
State issuing it had the State had authority to issue such
lease;
(3) there is filed with the Secretary, within the period or
periods specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, (A)
a certificate issued by the State official or agency having
jurisdiction over such lease stating that it would have been
in force and effect as required by the provisions of paragraph
(2) of this subsection, or (B) .in the absence of such certifi-
cate, evidence in the form of affidavits, receipts, canceled
checks, or other documents that may be required by the
Secretary, sufficient to prove that such lease would have been
so in force and effect;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2319
(4) except as otherwise provided in section 1336 of this
title hereof, all rents, royalties, and other sums payable un-
der such lease between June 5, 1950, and August 7, 1953,
which have not been paid in accordance with the provisions
thereof, or to the Secretary or to the Secretary of the Navy,
are paid to the Secretary within the period or periods spe-
cified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, and all rents,
royalties, and other sums payable under such lease after
August 7, 1953, are paid to'the Secretary, who shall deposit
such payments in the Treasury in accordance with section
1338 of this title;
(5) the holder of such lease certifies that such lease shall
continue to be subject to the overriding royalty obligations
existing on August 7,1953;
(6) such lease was not obtained by fraud or misrepresen-
tation ;
(7) such lease, if issued on or after June 23, 1947, was
issued upon the basis of competitive bidding;
(8) such lease provides for a royalty to the lessor on oil
and gas of not less than 12i/2 per centum and on sulphur of
not less than 5 per centum in amount or value of the produc-
tion saved, removed, or sold from the lease, or, in any case
in which the lease provides for a lesser royalty, the holder
thereof consents in writing, filed with the Secretary, to the
increase of the royalty to the minimum herein specified;
(9) the holder thereof pays to the Secretary within the
period or periods specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection
an amount equivalent to any severance, gross production, or
occupation taxes imposed by the State issuing the lease on
the production from the lease, less the State's royalty interest
in such production, between June 5, 1950, and August 7, 1953
and not heretofore paid to the State, and thereafter pays to
the Secretary as an additional royalty on the production from
the lease, less the United States' royalty interest in such pro-
duction, a sum of money equal to the amount of the sever-
ance, gross production, or occupation taxes which would
have been payable on such production to the State Issuing
the lease under its laws as they existed on August 7, 1953;
(10) such lease will terminate within a period of not more
than five years from August 7, 1953 in the absence of pro-
duction or operations for drilling, or, in any case in which the
lease provides for a longer period, the holder thereof consents
-------
2320 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in writing, filed with the Secretary, to the reduction of such
period so that it will not exceed the maximum period herein
specified; and
(11) the holder of such lease furnishes such surety bond,
if any, as the Secretary may reauire and complies with such
other reasonable requirement' '"he Secretary may deem
necessary to protect the intej the United States.
Conduct of operations unc sulphur rights
(b) Any person holding a mint se, which as determined
by the Secretary meets the requiren. d of subsection (a) of this
section, may continue to maintain such lease, and may conduct
operations thereunder, in accordance with (1) its provisions as to
the area, the minerals covered, rentals and, subject to the provi-
sions of paragraphs (8)-(10) of subsection (a) of this section, as
to royalties and as to the term thereof and of any extensions, re-
newals, or replacements authorized therein or heretofore author-
ized by the laws of the State issuing such lease, or, if oil or gas
was not being produced in paying quantities from such lease on
or before December 11, 1950, or if production in paying quantities
has ceased since June 5, 1950, or if the primary term of such
lease has expired since December 11, 1950, then for a term from
August 7, 1953 equal to the term remaining unexpired on Decem-
ber 11, 1950, under the provisions of such lease or any extension
renewals, or replacements authorized therein, or heretofore au-
thorized by the laws of such State, and (2) such regulations as the
Secretary may under section 1334 of this title prescribe within
ninety days after making his determination that such lease meets
the requirements of subsection (a) of this section: Provided, how-
ever, That any rights to sulphur under any lease maintained un-
der the provisions of this subsection shall not extend beyond the
primary term of such lease or any extension thereof under the
provisions of this subsection unless sulphur is being produced in
paying quantities or drilling, well reworking, plant' construction,
or other operations for the production of sulphur, as approved by
the Secretary, are being conducted on the area covered by such
lease on the date of expiration of such primary term or extension:
Provided further, That if sulphur is being produced in paying
quantities on such date, then such rights shall continue to be
maintained in accordance with such lease and the provisions of
this subchapter: Provided further, That, if the primary term of
a lease being maintained under this subsection has expired prior
to August 7, 1953 and oil or gas is being produced in paying
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2321
quantities on such date, then such rights to sulphur as the lessee
may have under such lease shall continue for twenty-four months
from August 7,1953 and as long thereafter as sulphur is produced
in paying quantities, or drilling, well working, plant construction,
or other operations for the production of sulphur, as approved by
the Secretary, are being conducted on the area covered by the
lease.
Non-waiver of United States claims
(c) The permission granted in subsection (b) of this section
shall not be construed to be a waiver of such claims, if any, as
the United States may have against the lessor or the lessee or
any other person respecting sums payable or paid for or under
the lease, or respecting activities conducted under the lease, prior
to August 7, 1953.
Judicial review of determination
(d) Any person complaining of a negative determination by
the Secretary of the Interior under this section may have such
determination reviewed by the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia by filing a petition for review within
sixty days after receiving notice of such action by the Secretary.
Lands beneath navigable waters
(e) In the event any lease maintained under this section covers
lands beneath navigable waters, as that term is used in sub-
chapters I and II of this chapter, as well as lands of the outer
Continental Shelf, the provisions of this section shall apply to such
lease only insofar as it covers lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 6, 67 Stat. 465.
§ 1336. Controversies over jurisdiction; agreements; payments;
final settlement or adjudication; approval of notice concerning oil
and gas operations in Gulf of Mexico
In the event of a controversy between the United States and a
State as to whether or not lands are subject to the provisions of
this subchapter, the Secretary is authorized, notwithstanding the
provisions of section 1335 (a) and (b) of this title, and with the
concurrence of the Attorney General of the United States, to
negotiate and enter into agreements with the State, its political
subdivision or grantee or a lessee thereof, respecting operations
under existing mineral leases and payment and impounding of
rents, royalties, and other sums payable thereunder, or with the
State, its political subdivision or grantee respecting the issuance
or nonissuance of new mineral leases pending the settlement or
-------
2322 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
adjudication of the controversy. The authorization contained in
the preceding sentence of this section shall not be construed to
be a limitation upon the authority conferred on the Secretary in
other sections of this subchapter. Payments made pursuant to
such agreement, or pursuant to any stipulation between the
United States and a State, shall be considered as compliance with
section 1335 (a) (4) of this title. Upon the termination of such
agreement or stipulation by reason of the final settlement or ad-
judication of such controversy, if the lands subject to any mineral
lease are determined to be in whole or in part lands subject to
the provisions of this subchapter, the lessee, if he has not already
done so, shall comply with the requirements of section 1335 (a)
of this title, and thereupon the provisions of section 1335 (b) of
this title shall govern such lease. The notice concerning "Oil and
Gas Operations in the Submerged Coastal Lands of the Gulf of
Mexico" issued by the Secretary on December 11, 1950 (15 F.R.
8835), as amended by the notice dated January 26, 1951 (16 F.R.
953), and as supplemented by the notices dated February 2, 1951
(16 F.R. 1203), March 5, 1951 (16 F.R. 2195), April 23, 1951 (16
F.R. 3623), June 25, 1951 (16 F.R. 6404), August 22, 1951 (16
F.R. 8720), October 24, 1951 (16 F.R. 10998), December 21, 1951
(17 F.R. 43), March 25, 1952 (17 F.R. 2821), June 26, 1952 (17
F.R. 5833), and December 24, 1952 (18 F.R. 48) ; respectively is
approved and confirmed. Aug. 7,1953, c. 345, § 7, 67 Stat. 467.
§ 1337. Grant of leases by Secretary—Oil and gas leases; award
to highest bidder; method of bidding.
(a) In order to meet the urgent need for further exploration
and development of the oil and gas deposits of the submerged
lands of the outer Continental Shelf, the Secretary is authorized
to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder by competitive
bidding under regulations promulgated in advance, oil and gas
leases on submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf which
are not covered by leases meetings the requirements of section
1335 (a) of this title. The bidding shall be (1) by sealed bids, and
(2) at the discretion of the Secretary, on the basis of a cash
bonus with a royalty fixed by the Secretary at not less than 12%
per centum in amount or value of the production saved, removed
or sold, or on the basis of royalty, but at not less than the per
centum above mentioned, with a cash bonus fixed by the Secretary.
Terms and provisions of oil and gas leases
(b) An oil and gas lease issued by the Secretary pursuant to
this section shall (1) cover a compact area not exceeding five
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2323
thousand seven hundred and sixty acres, as the Secretary, may
determine, (2) be for a period of five years and as long thereafter
as oil or gas may be produced' from the area in paying quantities,
or drilling or well reworking operations as approved by the Sec-
retary are conducted thereon, (3) require the payment of a
royalty of not less than 121/2 per centum, in the amount or value
of the production saved, removed, or sold from the lease, and (4)
contain such rental provisions and such other terms and provi-
sions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering the
area for lease.
Sulphur leases; award to highest bidder; method of bidding
(c) In order to meet the urgent need for further exploration
and development of the sulphur deposits in the submerged lands
of the outer Continental Shelf, the Secretary is authorized to
grant to the qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on
a basis of competitive bidding sulphur leases on submerged lands
of the outer Continental Shelf, which are not covered by leases
which include sulphur and meet the requirements of section
1335 (a) of this title, and which sulphur leases shall be offered for
bid by sealed bids and granted on separate leases from oil and
gas leases, and for a separate consideration, and without priority
or preference accorded to oil and gas lessees on the same area.
Terms and provisions of sulphur leases
(d) A sulphur lease issued by the Secretary pursuant to this
section shall (1) cover an area of such size and dimensions as the
Secretary may determine, (2) be for a period of not more than
ten years and so long thereafter as sulphur may be produced from
the area in paying quantities or drilling, well reworking, plant
construction, or other operations for the production of sulphur, as
approved by the Secretary, are conducted thereon, (3) require
the nayment to the United States of such royalty as may be
specified in the lease but not less than 5 per centum of the gross
production or value of the sulphur at the wellhead, and (4) con-
tain such rental provisions and such other terms and provisions
as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe at the time of
offering the area for lease.
Other mineral leases; award to highest bidder; terms and conditions
(e) The Secretary is authorized to grant to the qualified per-
sons offering the highest cash bonuses on a basis of competitive
bidding leases of any mineral other than oil. gas, and sulnhur in
any area of the outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for
-------
2324 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such mineral upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and con-
ditions as the Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering
the area for lease.
Publication of notices of sale and terms of bidding
(f) Notice of sale of leases, and the terms of bidding, authorized
by this section shall be published at least thirty days before the
date of sale in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated
by the Secretary.
Disposition of revenues
(g) All moneys paid to the Secretary for or under leases
granted pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the Treasury
in accordance with section 1338 of this title.
Issuance of lease as non-prejudicial to ultimate settlement
or adjudication of controversies
(h) The issuance of any lease by the Secretary pursuant to this
subchapter, or the making of any interim arrangements by the
Secretary pursuant to section 1336 of this title shall not prejudice
the ultimate settlement or adjudication of the question as to
whether or not the area involved is in the outer Continental Shelf.
Cancellation of leases for fraud
(i) The Secretary may cancel any lease obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation.
Judicial review of cancellation of lease; petition within sixty days
(j) Any person complaining of a cancellation of a lease by the
Secretary may have the Secretary's action reviewed in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia by filing a
petition for review within sixty days after the Secretary takes
such action. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 8, 67 Stat. 468.
§ 1338. Disposition of revenues
All rentals, royalties, and other sums paid to the Secretary or
the Secretary of the Navy under any lease on the outer Con-
tinental Shelf for the period from June 5, 1950, to date, and there-
after shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States and
credited to miscellaneous receipts. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 9, 67
Stat. 469.
§ 1339. Refunds; filing time limitation; certification of repay-
ment; necessity of report to Congress
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section,
when it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary that any
person has made a payment to the United States in connection
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2325
with any lease under this subchapter in excess of the amount he
was lawfully required to pay, such excess shall be repaid without
interest to such person or his legal representative, if a request for
repayment of such excess is filed with the Secrtary within two
years after the making of the payment, or within ninety days
after August 7, 1953. The Secretary shall certify the amounts of
all such repayments to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is au-
thorized and directed to make such repayments out of any moneys
in the special account established under section 1338 of this title
and to issue his warrant in settlement thereof.
(b) No refund of or credit for such excess payment shall be
made until after the expiration of thirty days from the date upon
which a report giving the name of the person to whom the re-
fund or credit is to be made, the amount of such refund or credit,
and a summary of the facts upon which the determination of the
Secretary was made is submitted to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for transmittal
to the appropriate legislative committee of each body, respectivly:
Provided, That if the Congress shall not be in session on the date
of such submission or shall adjourn prior to the expiration of
thirty days from the date of such submission, then such payment
or credit shall not be made until thirty days after the opening
day of the next succeeding session of Congress. Aug. 7, 1953,
c. 345, § 10, 67 Stat. 469.
§ 1340. Geological and geophysical explorations
Any agency of the United States and any person authorized by
the Secretary may conduct geological and geophysical explora-
tions in the outer Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with
or endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or
granted pursuant to this subchapter, and which are not unduly
harmful to aquatic life in such area. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 11, 67
Stat. 469.
§ 1341. Reservation of lands and rights—Withdrawal of un-
leased lands by President
(a) The President of the United States may, from time to
time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the
outer Continental Shelf.
First refusal of mineral purchases
(b) In time of war, or when the President shall so prescribe,
the United States shall have the right of first refusal to purchase
-------
2326 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
at the market price all or any portion of any mineral produced
from the outer Continental Shelf.
National security clause
(c) All leases issued under this subchapter, and leases, the
maintenance and operation of which are authorized under this
subchapter, shall contain or be construed to contain a provision
whereby authority is vested in the Secretary, upon a recommen-
dation of the Secretary of Defense, during- a state of war or na-
tional emergency declared by the Congress or the President of
the United States after August 7, 1953, to suspend operations
under any lease; and all such leases-shall contain or be construed
to contain provisions for the payment of just compensation to the
lessee whose operations are thus suspended.
National defense areas; suspension of operations;
extension of leases
(d) The United States reserves and retains the right to desig-
nate by and through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval
of the President, as areas restricted from exploration and opera-
tion that part of the outer Continental Shelf needed for national
defense; and so long as such designation remains in effect no ex-
ploration or operations may be conducted on any part of the sur-
face of such area except with the concurrence of the Secretary of
Defense; and if operations or production under any lease thereto-
fore issued on lands within any such restricted area shall be
suspended, any payment of rentals, minimum royalty, and royalty
prescribed by such lease likewise shall be suspended during such
period of suspension of operation and production, and the term
of such lease shall be extended by adding thereto any such suspen-
sion period, and the United States shall be liable to the lessee
for such compensation as is required to be paid under the Con-
stitution of the United States.
Source materials essential to production of fissionable materials
(e) All uranium, thorium, and all other materials determined
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 5 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, to be peculiarly essential
to the production of fissionable material, contained, in whatever
concentration, in deposits in the subsoil or seabed of the outer
Continental Shelf are hereby reserved for the use of the United
States.
Helium ownership; rules and regulations governing extraction
(f) The United States reserves and retains the ownership of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2327
and the right to extract all helium, under such rules and regula-
tions as shall be presented by the Secretary, contained in gas
produced from any portion of the outer Continental Shelf which
may be subject to any lease maintained or granted pursuant to
this subchapter, but the helium shall be extracted from such gas
so as to cause no substantial delay in the delivery of gas pro-
duced to the purchaser of such gas. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 12,
67 Stat. 469.
§ 1342. Prior claims as unaffected
Nothing herein contained shall affect such rights, if any, as
may have been acquired under any law of the United States by
any person in lands subject to this subchapter and such rights,
if any, shall be governed by the law in effect at the time they
may have been acquired: Provided, however, That nothing herein
contained is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpre-
tation, or construction by the Congress that the law under which
such rights may be claimed in fact applies to the lands subject to
this subchapter or authorizes or compels the granting of such
rights in such lands, and that the determination of the applica-
bility or effect of such law shall be unaffected by anything herein
contained. Aug. 7, 1953, c. 345, § 14, 67 Stat. 470.
§ 1343. Annual report by Secretary to Congress
As soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall submit to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives a report detailing the
amounts of all moneys received and expended in connection with
the administration of this subchapter during the preceding fiscal
year \ug. 1,1953, c. 345, § 15, 67 Stat. 470.
-------
2328 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.14a OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT
August 1,1953, P.L. 83-212, §§2-15, 67 Stat. 462
AN ACT To provide for the jurisdiction of the United States over the submerged
lands of the outer Continental Shelf, and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to lease such lands for certain purposes.
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 "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act".
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.—When used in this Act—
(a) The term "outer Continental Shelf" means all submerged lands
lying seaward and outside of the area of lands beneath navigable
waters as defined in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (Public
Law 31, Eighty-third Congress, first session), and of which the sub-
soil and seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to its
jurisdiction and control;
(b) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior;
(c) The term "mineral lease" means any form of authorization for
the exploration for, or development or removal of deposits of, oil,
gas, or other minerals; and
(d) The term "person" includes, in addition to a natural person, an
association, a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a private,
public, or municipal corporation.
SEC. c. JURISDICTION OVER OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— (a) It is
hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that the subsoil
and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf appertain to the United
States and are subject to its jurisdiction, control, and power of
disposition as provided in this Act.
(b) This Act shall be construed in such manner that the character
as high seas of the waters above the outer Continental Shelf and the
right to navigation and fishing therein shall not be affected.
SEC. 4. LAWS APPLICABLE TO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— (a) (1)
The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the
United States are hereby extended to the subsoil and seabed of the
outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands and fixed structures
which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, devel-
oping, removing, and transporting resources therefrom, to the same
extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive
Federal jurisdiction located within a State: Provided, however, That
mineral leases on the outer Continental Shelf shall be maintained or
issued only under the provisions of this Act.
(2) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent
with this Act or with other Federal laws and regulations of the
Secretary now in effect or hereafter adopted, the civil and criminal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2329
laws of each adjacent State as of the effective date of this Act are
hereby declared to be the law of the United States for that portion
of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial
islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within
the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the
outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf, and the President shall
determine and publish in the Federal Register such projected lines
extending seaward and defining each such area. All of such ap-
plicable laws shall be administered and enforced by the appropriate
officers and courts of the United States. State taxation laws shall
not apply to the outer Continental Shelf.
(3) The provisions of this section for adoption of State law as the
law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis for
claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on behalf of any State for any
[p. 462]
purpose over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf,
or the property and natural resources thereof or the revenues
therefrom.
(b) The United States district courts shall have original jurisdic-
tion of cases and controversies arising out of or in connection with
any operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the
purpose of exploring for, developing, removing or transporting by
pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural
resources of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf,
and proceedings with respect to any such case or controversy may be
instituted in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or
may be found, or in the judicial district of the adjacent State nearest
the place where the cause of action arose.
(c) With respect to disability or death of an employee resulting
from, any injury occurring as the result of operations described in
subsection (b), compensation shall be payable under the provisions
of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. For
the purposes of the extension of the provisions of the Longshoremen's
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act under this section—
(1) the term "employee" does not include a master or member
of a crew of any vessel, or an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof or of any State or foreign govern-
ment, or of any political subdivision thereof;
(2) the term "employer" means an employer any of whose
employees are employed in such operations; and
(3) the term "United States" when used in a geographical
sense includes the outer Continental Shelf and artificial islands
and fixed structures thereon.
-------
2330 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(d) For the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, any unfair labor practice, as defined in such Act, occurring
upon any artificial island or fixed structure referred to in subsection
(a) shall be deemed to have occurred within the judicial district of
the adjacent State nearest the place of location of such island or
structure.
(e) (1) The head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall have authority to promulgate and enforce such reason-
able regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices,
safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of
safety of life and property on the islands and structures referred to
in subsection (a) or on the waters adjacent thereto, as he may deem
necessary.
(2) The head of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may mark for the protection of navigation any such island
or structure whenever the owner has failed suitably to mark the same
in accordance with regulations issued hereunder, and the owner shall
pay the cost thereof. Any person, firm, company, or corporation who
shall fail or refuse to obey any of the lawful rules and regulations
issued hereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined
not more than $100 for each offense. Each day during which such
violation shall continue shall be considered a new offense.
(f) The authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent obstruc-
tion to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States is
hereby extended to artificial islands and fixed structures located on
the outer Continental Shelf.
(g) The specific application by this section of certain provisions
of law to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and the
artificial islands and fixed structures referred to in subsection (a) or
to acts or offenses occurring or committed thereon shall not give rise
to any inference that the application to such islands and structures,
acts, or offenses of any other provision of law is not intended.
[p. 463]
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF LEASING OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF.— (a) (1) The Secretary shall administer the provisions of this
Act relating to the leasing of the outer Continental Shelf, and shall
prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out
such provisions. The Secretary may at any time prescribe and amend
such rules and regulations as he determines to be necessary and
proper in order to provide for the prevention of waste and conserva-
tion of the natural resources of the outer Continental Shelf, and the
protection of correlative rights therein, and, notwithstanding any
other provisions herein, such rules and regulations shall apply to all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2331
operations conducted under a lease issued or maintained under the
provisions of this Act. In the enforcement of conservation laws,
rules, and regulations the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with
the conservation agencies of the adjacent States. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary thereunder may provide for
the assignment or relinquishment of leases, for the sale of royalty
oil and gas accruing or reserved to the United States at not less
than market value, and, in the interest of conservation, for unitization,
pooling, drilling agreements, suspension of operations or production,
reduction of rentals or royalties, compensatory royalty agreements,
subsurface storage of oil or gas in any of said submerged lands, and
drilling or other easements necessary for operations or production.
(2) Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any rule or
regulation prescribed by the Secretary for the prevention of waste,
the conservation of the natural resources, or the protection of correla-
tive rights shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable
by a fine of not more than $2,000 or by imprisonment for not more
than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each day
of violation shall be deemed to be a separate offense. The issuance
and continuance in effect of any lease, or of any extension, renewal,
or replacement of any lease under the provisions of this Act shall be
conditioned upon compliance with the regulations issued under this
Act and in force and effect on the date of the issuance of the lease if
the lease is issued under the provisions of section 8 hereof, or with the
regulations issued under the provisions of section 6 (b), clause (2),
hereof if the lease is maintained under the provisions of section 6
hereof.
(b) (1) Whenever the owner of a nonproducing lease fails to com-
ply with any of the provisions of this Act, or of the lease, or of the
regulations issued under this Act and in force and effect on the date
of the issuance of the lease if the lease is issued under the provisions
of section 8 hereof, or of the regulations issued under the provisions
of section 6 (b), clause (2), hereof, if the lease is maintained under
the provisions of section 6 hereof, such lease may be canceled by the
Secretary, subject to the right of judicial review as provided in section
8 (j), if such default continues for the period of thirty days after
mailing of notice by registered letter to the lease owner at his record
post office address.
(2) Whenever the owner of any producing lease fails to comply
with any of the provisions of this Act, or of the lease, or of the regu-
lations issued under this Act and in force and effect on the date of the
issuance of the lease if the lease is issued under the provisions of
section 8 hereof, or of the regulations issued under the provisions of
-------
2332 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
section 6 (b), clause (2), hereof, if the lease is maintained under the
provisions of section 6 hereof, such lease may be forfeited and can-
celed by an appropriate proceeding in any United States district court
having jurisdiction under the provisions of section 4 (b) of this Act.
(c) Rights-of-way through the submerged lands of the outer Con-
[p. 464]
tinental Shelf, whether or not such lands are included in a lease main-
tained or issued pursuant to this Act, may be granted by the Secretary
for pipeline purposes for the transportation of oil, natural gas, sul-
phur, or other mineral under such regulations and upon such condi-
tions as to the application therefor and the survey, location and
width thereof as may be prescribed by the Secretary, and upon the
express condition that such oil or gas pipelines shall transport or pur-
chase without discrimination, oil or natural gas produced from said
submerged lands in the vicinity of the pipeline in such proportionate
amounts as the Federal Power Commission, in the case of gas, and the
Interstate Commerce Commission, in the case of oil, may, after a full
hearing with due notice thereof to the interested parties, determine to
be reasonable, taking into account, among other things, conservation
and the prevention of waste. Failure to comply with the provisions
of this section or the regulations and conditions prescribed thereunder
shall be ground for forfeiture of the grant in an appropriate judicial
proceeding instituted by the United States in any United States dis-
trict court having jurisdiction under the provisions of section 4 (b)
of this Act.
SEC. 6. MAINTENANCE OF LEASES ON OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.—
(a) The provisions of this section shall apply to any mineral lease
covering submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf issued by
any State (including any extension, renewal, or replacement thereof
heretofore granted pursuant to such lease or under the laws of such
State) if—
(1) such lease, or a true copy thereof, is filed with the Secre-
tary by the lessee or his duly authorized agent within ninety
days from the effective date of this Act, or within such further
period or periods as provided in section 7 hereof or as may be
fixed from time to time by the Secretary;
(2) such lease was issued prior to December 21, 1948, and
would have been on June 5, 1950, in force and effect in ac-
cordance with its terms and provisions and the law of the State
issuing it had the State had authority to issue such lease;
(3) there is filed with the Secretary, within the period or
periods specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection, (A) a
certificate issued by the State official or agency having jurisdic-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2333
tion over such lease stating that it would have been in force
and effect as required by the provisions of paragraph (2) of this
subsection, or (B) in the absence of such certificate, evidence
in the form of affidavits, receipts, canceled checks, or other docu-
ments that may be required by the Secretary, sufficient to prove
that such lease would have been so in force and effect;
(4) except as otherwise provided in section 7 hereof, all rents,
royalties, and other sums payable under such lease between June
5, 1950, and the effective date of this Act, which have not been
paid in accordance with the provisions thereof, or to the Secretary
or to the Secretary of the Navy, are paid to the Secretary within
the period or periods specified in paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, and all rents, royalties, and other sums payable under such
lease after the effective date of this Act, are paid to the Secretary,
who shall deposit such payments in the Treasury in accordance
with section 9 of this Act;
(5) the holder of such lease certifies that such lease shall con-
tinue to be subject to the overriding royalty obligations existing
on the effective date of this Act;
(6) such lease was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation;
(7) such lease, if issued on or after June 23, 1947, was issued
upon the basis of competitive bidding;
[p. 465]
(8) such lease provides for a royalty to the lessor on oil and
gas of not less than 12% per centum and on sulphur of not less
than 5 per centum in amount or value of the production saved,
removed, or sold from the lease, or, in any case in which the
lease provides for a lesser royalty, the holder thereof consents in
writing, filed with the Secretary, to the increase of the royalty
to the minimum herein specified;
(9) the holder thereof pays to the Secretary within the period
or periods specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection an
amount equivalent to any severance, gross production, or occu-
pation taxes imposed by the State issuing the lease on the produc-
tion from the lease, less the State's royalty interest in such
production, between June 5, 1950, and the effective date of this
Act and not heretofore paid to the State, and thereafter pays to
the Secretary as an additional royalty on the production from the
lease, less the United States' royalty interest in such production,
a sum of money equal to the amount of the severance, gross
production, or occupation taxes which would have been payable
on such production to the State issuing the lease under its laws
as they existed on the effective date of this Act;
-------
2334 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(10) such lease will terminate within a period of not more
than five years from the effective date of this Act in the absence
of production or operations for drilling, or, in any case in which
the lease provides for a longer period, the holder thereof consents
in writing, filed with the Secretary, to the reduction of such
period so that it will not exceed the maximum period herein
specified; and
(11) the holder of such lease furnishes such surety bond, if
any, as the Secretary may require and complies with such other
reasonable requirements as the Secretary may deem necessary
to protect the interests of the United States.
(b) Any person holding a mineral lease, which as determined by
the Secretary meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section,
may continue to maintain such lease, and may conduct operations
thereunder, in accordance with (1) its provisions as to the area, the
minerals covered, rentals and, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(8), (9) and (10) of subsection (a) of this section, as to royalties and
as to the term thereof and of any extensions, renewals, or replace-
ments authorized therein or heretofore authorized by the laws of the
State issuing such lease, or, if oil or gas was not being produced in
paying quantities from such lease on or before December 11, 1950, or
if production in paying quantities has ceased since June 5, 1950, or if
the primary term of such lease has expired since December 11, 1950,
then for a term from the effective date hereof equal to the term re-
maining unexpired on December 11, 1950, under the provisions of such
lease or any extensions, renewals, or replacements authorized therein,
or heretofore authorized by the laws of such State, and (2) such
regulations as the Secretary may under section 5 of this Act prescribe
within ninety days after making his determination that such lease
meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section: Provided,
however, That any rights to sulphur under any lease maintained
under the provisions of this subsection shall not extend beyond the
primary term of such lease or any extension thereof under the provi-
sions of such subsection (b) unless sulphur is being produced in pay-
ing quantities or drilling, well reworking, plant construction, or other
operations for the production of sulphur, as approved by the Secre-
tary, are being conducted on the area covered by such lease on the
date of expiration of such primary term or extension: Provided
further, That if sulphur is being produced in paying quantities on
such date, then such rights shall continue to be maintained in ac-
[p. 466]
cordance with such lease and the provisions of this Act: Provided
further, That if the primary term of a lease being maintained under
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVK HISTORY 2335
subsection (b) hereof has expired prior to the effective date of this
Act and oil or gas is being produced in paying quantities on such
date, then such rights to sulphur as the lessee may have under such
lease shall continue for twenty-four months from the effective date
of this Act and as long thereafter as sulphur is produced in paying
quantities, or drilling, well working, plant construction, or other
operations for the production of sulphur, as approved by the Secre-
tary, are being conducted on the area covered by the lease.
(c) The permission granted in subsection (b) of this section shall
not be construed to be a waiver of such claims, if any, as the United
States may have against the lessor or the lessee or any other person
respecting sums payable or paid for or under the lease, or respecting
activities conducted under the lease, prior to the effective date of this
Act.
(d) Any person complaining of a negative determination by the
Secretary of the Interior under this section may have such determina-
tion reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia by filing a petition for review within sixty days after
receiving notice of such action by the Secretary.
(e) In the event any lease maintained under this section covers
lands beneath navigable waters, as that term is used in the Sub-
merged Lands Act, as well as lands of the outer Continental Shelf, the
provisions of this section shall apply to such lease only insofar as it
covers lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
SEC. 7. CONTROVERSY OVER JURISDICTION.—In the event of a contro-
versy between the United States and a State as to whether or not
lands are subject to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary is author-
ized, notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of
section 6 of this Act, and with the concurrence of the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States, to negotiate and enter into agreements with
the State, its political subdivision or grantee or a lessee thereof,
respecting operations under existing mineral leases and payment and
impounding of rents, royalties, and other sums payable thereunder, or
with the State, its political subdivision or grantee, respecting the issu-
ance or nonissuance of new mineral leases pending the settlement or
adjudication of the controversy. The authorization contained in the
preceding sentence of this section shall not be construed to be a limi-
tation upon the authority conferred on the Secretary in other sections
of this Act. Payments made pursuant to such agreement, or pursu-
ant to any stipulation between the United States and a State, shall be
considered as compliance with section 6 (a) (4) hereof. Upon the
termination of such agreement or stipulation by reason of the final
settlement or adjudication of such controversy, if the lands subject
to any mineral lease are determined to be in whole or in part lands
-------
2336 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
subject to the provisions of this Act, the lessee, if he has not already
done so, shall comply with the requirements of section 6 (a), and
thereupon the provisions of section 6 (b) shall govern such lease.
The notice concerning "Oil and Gas Operations in the Submerged
Coastal Lands of the Gulf of Mexico" issued by the Secretary on
December 11, 1950 (15 F. R. 8835), as amended by the notice dated
January 26, 1951 (16 F. R. 953), and as supplemented by the notices
dated February 2, 1951 (16 F. R. 1203), March 5, 1951 (16 F. R. 2195),
April 23, 1951 (16 F. R. 3623), June 25, 1951 (16 F. R. 6404), August
22, 1951 (16 F. R. 8720), October 24, 1951 (16 F. R. 10998), December
21, 1951 (17 F. R. 43), March 25, 1952 (17 F. R. 2821), June 26, 1952
(17 F. R. 5833), and December 24, 1952 (18 F. R. 48), respectively, is
hereby approved and confirmed.
[p. 467]
SEC. 8. LEASING OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— (a) In order to
meet the urgent need for further exploration and development of the
oil and gas deposits of the submerged lands of the outer Continental
Shelf, the Secretary is authorized to grant to the highest responsible
qualified bidder by competitive bidding under regulations promul-
gated in advance, oil and gas leases on submerged lands of the outer
Continental Shelf which are not covered by leases meeting the
requirements of subsection (a) of section 6 of this Act. The bidding
shall be (1) by sealed bids, and (2) at the discretion of the Secretary,
on the basis of a cash bonus with a royalty fixed by the Secretary
at not less than 12J/2 per centum in amount or value of the produc-
tion saved, removed or sold, or on the basis of royalty, but at not
less than the per centum above mentioned, with a cash bonus fixed
by the Secretary.
(b) An oil and gas lease issued by the Secretary pursuant to this
section shall (1) cover a compact area not exceeding five thousand
seven hundred and sixty acres, as the Secretary may determine, (2)
be for a period of five years and as long thereafter as oil or gas may be
produced from the area in paying quantities, or drilling or well re-
working operations as approved by the Secretary are conducted
thereon, (3) require the payment of a royalty of not less than 12V2
per centum, in the amount or value of the production saved, removed,
or sold from the lease, and (4) contain such rental provisions and
such other terms and provisions as the Secretary may prescribe at
the time of offering the area for lease.
(c) In order to meet the urgent need for further exploration and
development of the sulphur deposits in the submerged lands of the
outer Continental Shelf, the Secretary is authorized to grant to the
qualified persons offering the highest cash bonuses on a basis of com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2337
petitive bidding sulphur leases on submerged lands of the outer Con-
tinental Shelf, which are not covered by leases which include
sulphur and meet the requirements of subsection (a) of section 6 of
this Act, and which sulphur leases shall be offered for bid by sealed
bids and granted on separate leases from oil and gas leases, and for a
separate consideration, and without priority or preference accorded
to oil and gas lessees on the same area.
(d) A sulphur lease issued by the Secretary pursuant to this sec-
tion shall (1) cover an area of such size and dimensions as the
Secretary may determine, (2) be for a period of not more than ten
years and so long thereafter as sulphur may be produced from the
area in paying quantities or drilling, well reworking, plant construc-
tion, or other operations for the production of sulphur, as approved
by the Secretary, are conducted thereon, (3) require the payment
to the United States of such royalty as may be specified in the lease
but not less than 5 per centum of the gross production or value of the
sulphur at the wellhead, and (4) contain such rental provisions and
such other terms and provisions as the Secretary may by regulation
prescribe at the time of offering the area for lease.
(e) The Secretary is authorized to grant to the qualified persons
offering the highest cash bonuses on a basis of competitive bidding
leases of any mineral other than oil, gas, and sulphur in any area of
the outer Continental Shelf not then under lease for such mineral
upon such royalty, rental, and other terms and conditions as the
Secretary may prescribe at the time of offering the area for lease.
(f) Notice of sale of leases, and the terms of bidding, authorized
by this section shall be published at least thirty days before the date
of sale in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the
Secretary.
(g) All moneys paid to the Secretary for or under leases granted
pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the Treasury in accord-
ance with section 9 of this Act.
[p. 468]
(h) The issuance of any lease by the Secretary pursuant to this
Act, or the making of any interim arrangements by the Secretary
pursuant to section 7 of this Act shall not prejudice the ultimate settle-
ment or adjudication of the question as to whether or not the area
involved is in the outer Continental Shelf.
(i) The Secretary may cancel any lease obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation.
(j) Any person complaining of a cancellation of a lease by the
Secretary may have the Secretary's action reviewed in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia by filing a petition
-------
2338 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for review within sixty days after the Secretary takes such action.
SEC. 9. DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.—All rentals, royalties, and other
sums paid to the Secretary or the Secretary of the Navy under any
lease on the outer Continental Shelf for the period from June 5, 1950,
to date, and thereafter shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
United States and credited to miscellaneous receipts.
SEC. 10. REFUNDS.— (a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b)
hereof, when it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary that any
person has made a payment to the United States in connection with
any lease under this Act in excess of the amount he was lawfully
required to pay, such excess shall be repaid without interest to such
person or his legal representative, if a request for repayment of such
excess is filed with the Secretary within two years after the making
of the payment, or within ninety days after the effective date of this
Act. The Secretary shall certify the amounts of all such repayments
to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is authorized and directed to
make such repayments out of any moneys in the special account estab-
lished under section 9 of this Act and to issue his warrant in settle-
ment thereof.
(b) No refund of or credit for such excess payment shall be made
until after the expiration of thirty days from the date upon which a
report giving the name of the person to whom the refund or credit is
to be made, the amount of such refund or credit, and a summary of the
facts upon which the determination of the Secretary was made is sub-
mitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives for transmittal to the appropriate legislative commit-
tee of each body, respectively: Provided, That if the Congress shall
not be in session on the date of such submission or shall adjourn prior
to the expiration of thirty days from the date of such submission, then
such payment or credit shall not be made until thirty days after the
opening day of the next succeeding session of Congress.
SEC. 11. GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATIONS.—Any agency
of the United States and any person authorized by the Secretary may
conduct geological and geophysical explorations in the outer Conti-
nental Shelf, which do not interfere with or endanger actual opera-
tions under any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this Act, and
which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.
SEC. 12. RESERVATIONS.— (a) The President of the United States
may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the un-
leased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
(b) In time of war, or when the President shall so prescribe, the
United States shall have the right of first refusal to purchase at the
market price all or any portion of any mineral produced from the
outer Continental Shelf.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2339
*
(c) All leases issued under this Act, and leases, the maintenance
and operation of which are authorized under this Act, shall contain or
[p. 469]
be construed to contain a provision whereby authority is vested in the
Secretary, upon a recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, dur-
ing a state of war or national emergency declared by the Congress or
the President of the United States after the effective date of this Act,
to suspend operations under any lease; and all such leases shall con-
tain or be construed to contain provisions for the payment of just
compensation to the lessee whose operations are thus suspended. •
(d) The United States reserves and retains the right to designate
by and through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the
President, as areas restricted from exploration and operation that part
of the outer Continental Shelf needed for national defense; and so
long as such designation remains in effect no exploration or operations
may be conducted on any part of the surface of such area except with
the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense; and if operations or
production under any lease theretofore issued on lands within any
such restricted area shall be suspended, any payment of rentals,
minimum royalty, and royalty prescribed by such lease likewise shall
be suspended during such period of suspension of operation and
production, and the term of such lease shall be extended by adding
thereto any such suspension period, and the United States shall be
liable to the lessee for such compensation as is required to be paid
under the Constitution of the United States.
(e) All uranium, thorium, and all other materials determined pur-
suant to paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 5 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1946, as amended, to be peculiarly essential to the
production of fissionable material, contained, in whatever concentra-
tion, in deposits in the subsoil or seabed of the outer Continental Shelf
are hereby reserved for the use of the United States.
(f) The United States reserves and retains the ownership of and
the right to extract all helium, under such rules and regulations as
shall be prescribed by the Secretary, contained in gas produced from
any portion of the outer Continental Shelf which may be subject to
any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this Act, but the helium
shall be extracted from such gas so as to cause no substantial delay
in the delivery of gas produced to the purchaser of such gas.
SEC. 13. NA.VAL PETROLEUM RESERVE EXECUTIVE ORDER REPEALED.—
Executive Order Numbered 10426, dated January 16, 1953, entitled
"Setting Aside Submerged Lands of the Continental Shelf as a Naval
Petroleum Reserve", is hereby revoked.
SEC. 14. PRIOR CLAIMS NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing herein contained
-------
2340 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
shall affect such rights, if any, as may have been acquired under any
law of the United States by any person in lands subject to this Act
and such rights, if any, shall be governed by the law in effect at the
time they may have been acquired: Provided, however, That nothing
herein contained is intended or shall be construed as a finding, inter-
pretation, or construction by the Congress that the law under which
such rights may be claimed in fact applies to the lands subject to this
Act or authorizes or compels the granting of such rights in such lands,
and that the determination of the applicability or effect of such law
shall be unaffected by anything herein contained.
SEC. 15. REPORT BY SECRETARY.—As soon as practicable after the
end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a report
detailing the amounts of all moneys received and expended in connec-
tion with the administration of this Act during the preceding fiscal
year.
[p. 470]
1.14a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 413, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953)
AMENDING SUBMERGED LANDS ACT
MAY 12, 1953.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. REED of Illinois, from the Committee on the Judiciary submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5134]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 5134) to amend the Submerged Lands Act, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF H.R. 5134
The provisions contained in H.R. 5134 are substantially identical
with the provisions of title III in the bill H.R. 4198 as it originally
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2341
passed the House on April 1, 1953. These provisions had been con-
sidered by the Committee on the Judiciary during the course of its
hearings and executive sessions on over 40 bills dealing with the
overall question of the submerged lands.
When the bill, H.R. 4198, was considered by the Senate, it was
amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting
new provisions which were similar to those contained in titles I and
II of the House version. The Senate amendment, however, omitted
title III.
H.R. 4198 is cited as the Submerged Lands Act and contains two
titles. Title I contains the basic definitions of various terms used
throughout the bill. Title II deals with the rights and claims by the
States to the lands and resources beneath navigable waters within
State boundaries.
Title III as contained in the bill, H.R. 4198, as it passed the House,
dealt with the seabed and the natural resources therein of the outer
Continental Shelf seaward and beyond State boundaries and recog-
nizes that that area and the resources therein appertain to the United
[p. 1]
States and are subject to its jurisdiction and control. These same
provisions are now contained in this bill, H.R. 5134.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 5134 is to amend the Submerged Lands
Act in order that the area in the outer Continental Shelf beyond
boundaries of the States may be leased and developed by the Federal
Government. At the present time the Submerged Lands Act merely
established that the seabed and subsoil in the outer Continental Shelf
beyond State boundaries appertained in the United States and was
subject to its jurisdiction and control.
There are no provisions for the leasing and development of the area
by the Federal Government nor are provisions made for the exchange
of State leases for Federal leases in the same area.
This bill contains provisions to accomplish those very objectives.
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OUTSIDE STATE BOUNDARIES
What is the Continental Shelf?
Continental shelves have been denned as those slightly submerged
portions of the continents that surround all the continental areas of
the earth. They are a part of the same continental mass that forms
the lands above water. They are that part of the continent tem-
porarily (measured in geological time) overlapped by the oceans.
The outer boundary of each shelf is marked by a sharp increase in the
-------
2342 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
slope of the sea floor. It is the point where the continental mass
drops off steeply toward the ocean deeps. Generally, this abrupt
drop occurs where the water reaches a depth of 100 fathoms or 600
feet, and, for convenience, this depth is used as a rule of thumb in
defining the outer limits of the shelf.
Along the Atlantic coast, the maximum distance from the shore to
the outer edge of the shell is 250 miles and the average distance is
about 70 miles. In the Gulf of Mexico, the maximum distance is 200
miles and the average is about 93 miles. The total area of the shelf
off the United States is estimated to contain about 290,000 square
miles, or an area larger than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky combined. The area of the
shelf off Alaska is estimated to contain 600,000 square miles, an area
almost as large as Alaska itself.
That part of the shelf which lies within historic State boundaries, or
3 miles in most cases, is estimated to contain about 27,000 square
miles or less than 10 percent of the total area of the shelf. The
principal purpose of title III is to authorize the leasing by the
Federal Government of the remaining 90 percent of the shelf.
Necessity for legislation
Representatives of the Federal departments, the States, and the off-
shore operators all urged the importance and necessity for the enact-
ment of legislation enabling the Federal Government to lease for oil
and gas operations the vast areas of the Continental Shelf outside of
State boundaries. They were unanimously of the opinion, in which
this committee agrees, that no law now exists whereby the Federal
Government can lease those submerged lands, the development and
operation of which are vital to our national economy and security. It
[p. 2]
is, therefore, the duty of the Congress to enact promptly a leasing
policy for the purpose of encouraging the discovery and development
of the oil potential of the Continental Shelf.
The committee is also of the opinion that legislative action is neces-
sary in order to confirm and give validity to Presidential Proclama-
tion 2667 of September 8, 1945, wherein the President, by Executive
declaration asserted, in behalf of the United States, jurisdiction,
control, and power of disposition over the natural resources of the
subsoil and seabed of the Continental Shelf. Many other nations
have made assertions to a similar effect with respect to their conti-
nental shelves, and the committee believes it proper and necessary
that the Congress make such an assertion in behalf of the United
States.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2343
H.R. 5134 does not vest in the States the power to take or dispose
of the natural resources of the parts of the Continental Shelf outside
the original boundaries of the States. That power is vested by H.R.
4198 in the Secretary of the Interior even though some States have
extended their boundaries as far as the outer edge of the shelf. Sec-
tion 9 (a) of H.R. 5134 asserts as against the other nations of the
world the claim of the United States to the natural resources in the
Continental Shelf. This Nation's claim to the natural resources was
strengthened by the earlier action of some of the States in leasing, and
consequently bringing about the actual use and occupancy of the
Continental Shelf. The benefits flowing to the United States from
such State action was recognized by the Supreme Court in the Loui-
siana case, for it said:
So far as the issues presented here are concerned, Louisiana's enlargement of
her boundary emphasizes the strength of the claim of the United States to this
part of the ocean and the resources of the soil under that area, including oil.
Under the provisions of section 9(a), the Secretary of the Interior
is given discretionary power to administer the provisions of this title
and to adopt such regulations as are not inconsistent with Federal law
for the entire area.
ANALYSIS QF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill, H.R. 5134, amends section 2 of the Sub-
merged Lands Act by adding thereto four new paragraphs. Subsec-
tion (i) defines the term "outer Continental Shelf" as those submerged
lands which lie outside of seaward of lands beneath navigable waters
as defined in section 2 of that act, and of which the subsoil and natural
resources appertain to the United States. The term "Secretary" is
defined as the Secretary of the Interior. The term "lease" is also
defined, as is also the term "Mineral Leasing Act."
The above terms are added to section 2 of the Submerged Lands
Act since they refer exclusively to the area in the outer Continental
Shelf beyond State boundaries.
Section 2 of the bill further amends the Submerged Lands Act by
striking out therefrom sections 9, 10, and 11. Section 9 of the Sub-
merged Lands Act constitutes a legislative confirmation of jurisdic-
tion over the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil of the
Continental Shelf seaward of the original State boundaries, which
was asserted in the Presidential proclamation of 1945. The need for
this section is obviated by the addition of title III which deals spe-
cifically with the same area, particularly with regard to the new
matter set forth in section 9 (a) of the bill H.R. 5134. Section 10
[p. 3]
of the Submerged Lands Act is also made unnecessary by the new
-------
2344 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
matter being added to the act as specifically contained in section 19.
The provisions of section 11 which is stricken from the Submerged
Lands Act by this bill are exactly the same as contained in section
21 of H.R. 5134. In this regard the bill merely transposes the
section from one title to another title and is a clarifying amendment
to that extent.
Title III relates solely to the outer Continental Shelf outside of
State boundaries.
Section 9 (a) constitutes a legislative confirmation of the jurisdic-
tion of the United States over the natural resources of the subsoil
and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf outside State boundaries.
It makes applicable to that area Federal laws and authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to administer the provisions of this title and
to adopt such rules and regulations as are not inconsistent with
Federal laws to apply therein.
The Secretary of the Interior is also given the discretionary power
to adopt the laws of coastal States, if the State so provides, to be appli-
cable to that portion of the area which would be within the boundaries
of the State should such boundaries be extended seaward to the outer
margin of the Continental Shelf. In this regard, the Secretary deter-
mines and publishes the lines limiting each such area.
Provision is made, however, that State taxation laws cannot apply
in these areas. But provision is made for reimbursement of abutting
States for the reasonable cost of the administration of such laws.
The further provision is made that this act should be construed so
that the character of these waters above the shelf as high seas and
the right of free navigation and navigational servitude shall not be
affected. Under subsection (b), provision is made that the oil and
gas deposits in the area should be controlled and disposed of in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this act.
Section 10 provides for the leasing of the outer Continental Shelf
area. Under subsection (a) the Secretary of the Interior may, when
there is a demand for the purchase of leases, offer for sale on com-
petitive sealed bidding oil and gas leases on the unleased areas of the
outer Continental Shelf. The sale of the leases are to be made to the
responsible and qualified bidder bidding the highest cash bonuses per
leasing unit. Thirty-day notice of sale is to be given by the Secretary
which shall describe the tract to be leased, the minimum bonus per
acre acceptable for each leasing unit, the amount of royalty, the rental
per acre per annum, and the time and place for opening the bids in
public.
Subsection (b) requires the leasing units to be reasonably compact
in form and to contain not more than 640 acres if located within the
known geologic structure of a producing oil or gas field, and not more
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2345
than 2,560 acres if outside a known geologic structure of a producing
oil or gas field.
Subsection (c) fixes the term of the lease as a primary term of 5
years which shall continue so long thereafter as oil or gas is produced
in paying quantities therefrom. Further provision is made that each
lease shall contain a provision requiring the exercise of reasonable
diligence in the operation of the lease and to conduct his operations in
a sound and efficient oilfield practice so as to prevent waste therein.
Subsection (d) provides that on or after the discovery of gas or oil,
the royalty shall be fixed at a minimum at 12 Vz percent in the amount
[p. 4]
or value of the production saved, removed, or sold from the leasing
unit, and in any event a minimum of $1 per acre per annum in lieu of
rental for each lease year commencing after discovery, in addition to
any taxes imposed by Congress. It further imposes conditions for
operations under the lease with regard to the renewal of drilling opera-
tions and the payments due thereunder.
Subsection (e) provides that if at the end of the primary term oil
or gas is not being produced in paying quantities on the leasing
unit and drilling operations are started not less than 180 days before
the end of the primary term, and such operations have been and are
being diligently prosecuted, and all other obligations have been per-
formed by the lessee, the lease shall remain in force so long as these
conditions are continued.
Under subsection (f) provision is made for the cancellation of any
lease for the failure to comply with the provisions of this title. It
requires the Secretary to give the lessee 20 days notice by registered
mail at his last known address of the claim defaults. If, at the end of
that period, the defaults are not cured, the Secretary may proceed
to cancel the lease, and the person complaining may have such action
reviewed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. These provisions would cover a situation where the lease
or any interest therein is owned or controlled directly or indirectly
in violation of any of the provisions of this act, and a person so own-
ing or controlling can be compelled to dispose of such interest in
appropriate court or proceeding.
Under subsection (g) nine provisions of the Federal Mineral
Leasing Act are made applicable insofar as they are not inconsistent
with the terms of this act.
Under subsection (h) the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to use his discretion regarding the use of facilities available • in
adjacent States and their leasing agencies. It is further provided that
a lease may contain such of the terms and provisions as are consistent
-------
2346 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
with the provisions of the act which the Secretary may prescribe.
The Secretary of the Interior is also empowered to delegate his
authority herein to officers and employees of the Department of the
Interior, and he may authorize subdelegation to the extent he deems
proper.
Under subsection (i) the Secretary of the Interior may deny an
application for a lease should it appear that any interest therein would
be owned or controlled by the citizen of another country wherein a
similar privilege is denied to citizens or corporations of this country.
If such a condition arises after the granting of a lease, it may be
canceled, but in no event can it be held for more than 2 years should
such interest have been acquired by design, will, judgment, or decree.
Provision is also made that such lands cannot be leased in any way
that violates the antitrust laws.
Subsection (j) permits the Secretary to invalidate any lease ob-
tained by fraud or misrepresentation subject to the right of judicial
review.
Section 11 of this title deals with the exchange of existing State
leases in the outer Continental Shelf for Federal leases. The commit-
tee is of the opinion that the holders of these State leases are entitled
as a matter of equity and right to the issuance by the Federal Govern-
ment of exchange leases for the State leases in accordance with the
provisions set forth herein.
Under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized and directed to
issue a lease in exchange for a lease covering lands in these areas
which
[p. 5]
was issued prior to December 21, 1948, and would have been
in force and effect on June 5, 1950, had the issuing State such para-
mount rights and dominion over the areas as it had assumed when
it issued the lease. Such an exchange lease shall be from the effective
date thereof for a term equal to the unexpired term. Provision is
made that the leases shall be in accordance with the terms and provi-
sions except as modified in regard to the payment of additional
royalties as later set forth. Provision is made that if oil and gas was
not being produced under the old lease on or before December 11,
1950, the new lease shall be for a term from the effective date hereof
equal to the term remaining unexpired on December 11, 1950, under
the terms and conditions of the old lease and it shall cover the same
resources and same portion of the area as the old lease and shall
provide for payment to the United States of the same rentals, royal-
ties, and other payments as set forth in the old lease. However, a
sum may be charged as an additional royalty equal to any severance
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2347
tax charged by an abutting State in addition to any taxes imposed by
Congress. These leases may also contain such other terms and
provisions as the Secretary may prescribe so long as they are con-
sistent with the terms of this act. If fraud or misrepresentation was
involved in a lease it shall not be accepted for exchange. Refusal
on the part of the Secretary to so exchange the lease is subject to
judicial review in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
Subsection (b) provides that no exchange lease shall issue unless
(1) the application, accompanied by a copy of the old lease, is filed
with the Secretary of the Interior within 6 months from the effective
date of this act or as later provided in section 18 hereof or as the
Secretary may fix from time to time; (2) the applicant must state that
the lease applied for shall be subject to the same royalty obligations
as the lease issued by the State in addition to any taxes imposed by
Congress; (3) the applicant pays the United States all rentals, royal-
ties, and other sums payable after June 5, 1950, which have not been
paid to the lessor or to the Secretary of the Interior under the old
lease; (4) furnishes surety bond as the Secretary may require and
complies with such reasonable requirements as the Secretary deems
necessary to protect the interest of the United States; and (5) files
with the Secretary a certificate issued by the State official or agency
having jurisdiction which shows that the old lease was in force and
effect in accordance with its terms and provisions in the laws of the
issuing State on the applicable date as set forth in subsection (a) of
this section. In the absence of such certificate the applicant may file
other evidence setting forth such facts.
Subsection (c) provides that where a lease overlaps the areas
under State control and those in the outer Continental Shelf beyond
State boundaries, the provisions of this section shall be applicable
only to the lease insofar as it covers the lands of the outer Con-
tinental Shelf.
Section 12 provides that all rentals, royalties, and other sums
payable under any lease on the outer Continental Shelf from the
period of June 5, 1950, to date and thereafter shall be deposited in
the Treasury of the United States.
Section 13 merely provides for the jurisdiction and venue in a
United States district court in legal proceedings involving a lease or
the rights thereunder in the outer Continental Shelf.
Section 14 authorizes refunds to be paid when the Secretary de-
termines that an excess of the amount lawfully required to be paid
[p. 6]
has been paid. Such request for repayments must be filed within 2
-------
2348 L
DATE DUF
years after the issuance cu ..K. lease or tne making of the payment.
Section 15 provides a waiver of liability for a State or its political
subdivision for past operations in the outer Continental Shelf prior
to June 5, 1950. It is the opinion of the committee that under this
section the waiver is limited to proprietary claims of the United
States in these areas, but in no case shall the waivers be effective if
it is determined that fraud has been practiced in obtaining or operat-
ing under the lease.
Section 16 deals with the powers reserved to the United States.
Subsection (a) provides that in time of war or for necessary national
defense, or when so prescribed by Congress or the President, the
United States retains in addition to all other rights it may have under
the law, the right of first refusal to buy any of the oil or gas being
produced from the area, to terminate any lease or to suspend opera-
tions under any lease, in which event the United States shall become
the owner of the wells, fixtures, and improvements located in the area
for which it shall pay just compensation. In the event operations
are suspended under any lease, the United States shall be liable for
such compensation as it must pay under the Constitution of the
United States. Also, the payment of rentals and royalties, shall like-
wise be suspended during any period wherein operations are sus-
pended and the term of the suspended lease shall be extended by
adding to it any suspension period. Subsection (b) provides that the
Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the President, shall have
the power to prohibit any operations in those areas of the shelf which
are needed for navigational purposes, or for the purpose of national
defense. Subsection (c) provides for the retention of the ownership
and the right to extract helium from all gas produced on the outer
Continental Shelf under such rules and regulations as prescribed by
the Secretary.
Section 17 relates to the exploration of the area and recognizes the
right of any person, subject to applicable provisions of law, as well
as any agency of the United States to conduct geological or geo-
physical explorations in the outer Continental Shelf area so long as
they do not interfere with or endanger any lease issued pursuant to
this act.
Section 18 sets forth in detail the interpleader and interim arrange-
ments involving legal determinations regarding leases and actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Title IV contains three general provisions which are set forth as a
separate title for perfecting and clarifying purposes only.
Section 19 revokes the Executive Order No. 10426, dated January
16, 1953, which set aside the submerged lands of the Continental
Shelf as a petroleum reserve. That order had been revoked insofar
.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE -1974 O- 469-5 16 (Vol. 4)
1
V, Library
230 South Dcaroorn eo
Chicago, ** 60o
------- |