THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
55
LLJ
CD
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
wnp
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
55
\
UJ
CD
JANUARY 1913
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library ^^
230 South Dearborn Street ->''
Chicago, Illinois 60604
,r WlLLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
tj Administrator
Ifotr ' -.1 -,, .-.^
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price $27.25 per 7-part set. Sold hi sets only.
Stock Number 5500-0068
'%>ii'«ij *»••-
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that once
the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can generate.
Environmentally, the fire has been lit.
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public concern-
ing the environment, we are experiencing a new American Revolu-
tion, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began with the
industrial revolution is over and things will never be quite the same
again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudgingly at times, but
inexorably into an age when social, spiritual and aesthetic values
will be prized more than production and consumption. We have
reached a point where we must balance civilization and nature
through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new ethic.
It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due regard is
given to the environmental consequences of actions by public and
private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompasses
basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing standards;
monitoring; and making delicate risks—benefit decisions aimed at
creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a shield
behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The greatest dis-
service the Environmental Protection Agency could do to American
industry is to be a poor regulator. Ihe environment would suf-
fer, public trust would diminish and instead of free enterprise,
environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise and
well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent to
regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as bsing for the "public
convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism make it
essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-founded
but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not faith, is
de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings, the
citizen should have access to the information available to the agency.
EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information,
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any interested party. With
this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal Authority was produced
not only for internal operations of EPA, but as a service to the public,
as we strive together to lead the way, through the law, to preserving
the earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental units
with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were cited
in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, requested
that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a re-
search tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has bsen established
to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task
of developing a better environment.
LANE WARD, J.D.,
Assistant Director 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 personnsl of
the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set out by the
President in creating the Agency. This work is not intended and
should not be used for legal citations or any use other than as ref-
erence of a general nature. The author disclaims all responsibility
for liabilities growing out of the use of these materials contrary to
their intended purpose. Moreover, it should be noted that portions
of the Congressional Record from the 92nd Congress were extracted
from the "unofficial" daily version and are subject to subsequent
modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legisla-
tive history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.
To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal Compilation
is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
WATER
The chapter labeled "Water" and color coded blue contains the
legal authority of the Agency as it applies to water pollution abate-
ment. It is well to note that any law which is applicable to more than
one chapter of the compilation will appear in each of the chapters;
however, its legislative history will be cross referenced into the
"General" chapter where it is printed in full.
SUBCHAPTERS:
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compila-
tion by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative His-
tory begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
vn
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
Thiisly, any l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws comprising
the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legislative his-
tory. The legislative history in each case consists of the House Report,
Senate Report, Conference Report (where applicable), the Con-
gressional Record beginning with the time the bill was reported from
committee.
Example: 1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as
amended, 26 U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities,
December 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat.
667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP.
No. 91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House,
pp. 22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and
passed Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-
37322, 37631-37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference
report, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees
to conference report, pp. 40820,
40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legisla-
tive history, but indicates the procedure where only one 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),59Stat. 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.G. 11613.
All functions of the Secretary of the
Interior and the Department of the Inte-
rior administrative to the Federal Water
Quality Administration, all functions
which were transferred to the Secretary
of the Interior by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of
1966, and all functions vested in the Sec-
retary of the Interior of the Department
of the Interior by the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act were transferred to
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency by Reorg. Plan No. 3
of 1970.
Direct reference made to the Water
Quality Administration at the Depart-
ment of the Interior by E.O. 11490,
§§703(3), 1102(1), 1103(2), etc., this
administration being transferred to EPA
through Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
in section 1153 regarding the preserva-
tion of fish and wildlife.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
XI
STATUTES
SOURCE
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h) (1970).
Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
Airport and Airway Development
Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c) (4),
(e) (1970).
Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§661-
666c (1965).
The Act at §109 (h) requires the Secre-
tary of Transportation to consult with
the appropriate agency dealing with
water pollution, in this case, the Admin-
istrator of EPA, before promulgating
guidelines for any proposed project on
any federal aid system.
The section cited in the Act refers di-
rectly to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the Federal certifying
authority requirement filing to the Sec-
retary of the Interior in the case of
water pollution, both functions being
transferred through Reorg. Plan
Direct reference made to water pollution
and the appropriate agency to deal with
same in the Act.
The sections of the Act provide a tax re-
lief on industrial development bonds for
sewage or solid waste disposal facility
and water pollution control facilities, at
the section cited.
E.G. 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, 1971,
P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 1981. 45
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP. No.
91-1668, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 46
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. REP. No.
91-1430, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 47
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1794; 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 49
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) :
(a) Dec. 10: Passed House, p. 40926; 50
(b) Dec. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 41317,
41322-41323, 43330; 50
(c) Dec. 22: House agrees to conference report, p.
43391; 52
(d) Dec. 28: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
43706, 43709. 53
1.2 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
§1151 etseq. (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. 6384-6365; 211
(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317. 213
1.2d Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, July 9, 1956, P.L.
84-660, 70 Stat. 498. 213
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 543,
84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 227
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R, REP. No.
1446, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 250
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2479, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1956). 272
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), June 17: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 8623, 8627; 292
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), June 13: Amended and passed
House; House insists on its amendments and
asks for conference, pp. 10278, 10281; 293
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), June 14: Senate disagrees to
House amendments and agrees to conference, pp.
10323, 10327; 293
(d) Vol. 102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in House and agreed to, pp. 11149, 11154; 295
(e) Vol.102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in Senate, and agreed to, pp. 11075-11076. 296
1.2e Alaska's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
25, 1959, P.L. 86-70, §28 (a), (b), 73 Stat. 148. 297
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 369, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). 297
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 331, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). 300
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed House, p.
9478; 302
(b) June 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 9676; 302
(c) June 11: House concurs in Senate amendments,
with amendment, p. 10570; 302
(d) June 12: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 10594. 302
1.2f Hawaii's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
12, 1960, P.L. 86-624, §23(a), 74 Stat. 417. 302
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 303
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 305
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960):
(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10355; . 307
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14684; 307
(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 15009. 307
1.2g The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1931, July 20,
1961, P.L. 87-88, 75 Stat. 204. 307
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
306, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 316
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 353,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 368
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 675, 87th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 398
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961):
(a) May 3, Debated in House, pp. 7140-7162;
7165-7172; 415
(b) May 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
7195-7196; 483
(c) June 22: Amended and passed Senate; Senate
insisted on its amendments and asks for confer-
ence, p. 11074; 484
(d) July 13: Conference report submitted to House
and agreed to, pp. 12471; 12475-12496; 485
(e) July 13: Conference report submitted to Senate
and agreed to, pp. 12565-12567. 528
1.2h The Water Quality Act of 1965, October 2, 1955, 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, H.R. REP. No.
2021, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 824
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 1367,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 944
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2289, 89th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1005
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (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; 1964
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), March 25: House agreed to con-
ference report, pp. 9325-9334. 1976
(5) Message from the President of the United States
"Conservation and Water Management," H.R. REP.
Doc. No. 273, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1997
1.21 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, December 31, 1970, P.L.
91-611, Title I, §§120, 123, 84 Stat. 1823. . 2017
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). . 2020
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1422, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2023
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1782,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2024
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Passed House, pp. 40139; 40143; 40145-
40147; 40149; 2029
(b) Dec. 9: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40594,
40598 . 2033
(c) Dec. 18: House agreed to conference report, pp.
42509, 42512; .. 2034
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agreed to conference report, pp.
42724. 2035
1.2m Extension of Authorized Funds for Federal Water Pollu-
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. 13539-
13640; 2158
(b) Aug. 19: Considered and passed Senate, p. 19991. 2158
1.4 Advances ot' Pubi.c Moneys, Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946). 2158
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155 (g) (3) (A) ]
1.4a Act of January 31, 1823, January 31, 1823, Chapter 9, §1,
3 Stat. 723. 2158
(1) House Committee on Public Expenditures, H.R. REP.
No. 100, 17th Cong., 1st Sess. (1822).' 2159
(2) Semite Committee on Finance, 17th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1823).2 2159
(3) Annals of Congress (1822-23):
(a) Dec. 9, 17: Debated, amended, passed House, pp.
336-338, 391-394; 2159
(b) Jan. 21, 23: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
147-150; 2163
(c) Jan. 27: House concurs in Senate amendments,
pp. 699-700. 2163
1.4b To Authorize Certain Administrative Expenses in the
Government Services, and for Other Purposes, August 2,
1946, P.L. 79-600, §11, 60 Stat. 809. 2163
(1) Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart-
ments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1946). 2163
(2) Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart-
ments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2165
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946):
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, p. 6168; 2166
(b) June 17: Amended and passed Senate, p. 9190; 2166
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 10186. 2166
1.5 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Purchases
and Contracts for Supplies or Services for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Government Sales and Contracts to Sell
and to Government Corporations, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5
(1958). 2166
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155 (g) (3) (A) ]
(See, "General 1.14a-1.14c(2) (b)" for legislative history)
1.6 Courts of Appeals, Certiorari; Appeal; Certified Questions, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948). 2167
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1157 (g) (2) ]
1.6a An Act to Codify, Revise and Amend the Laws Relating to
i Document in Dept. of Interior Library, but in nonreproducible condition.
2 Report unpublished.
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
the Judiciary, March 3, 1911, P.L. 61-475, §§239, 240, 36
Stat. 1157. 2168
1.6b Act to Amend the Judicial Code and to Further Define
the Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeal and of the
Supreme Court and for Other Purposes, February 13,1925,
P.L. 68-415, §1, 43 Stat. 933-939. 2168
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 362,
68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924). 2174
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1075, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. (1925). 2178
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 66 (1925):
(a) Feb. 2: Amended and passed House, p. 2880; 2188
(b) Feb. 3: Amended and passed Senate, p. 2928; 2188
(c) Feb. 4: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 3005. 2189
1.6c An Act in Reference to Writs of Error, January 31, 1928,
P.L. 70-10, §1, 45 Stat. 54. 2191
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
370, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (1928). 2191
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 69 (1928):
(a) Jan. 14: Passed Senate, p. 1486; 2192
(b) Jan. 25: Passed House, p. 2040. 2192
1.6d 1934 Amendments to 1893 Act, Jum' 7, 1934, P.L. 73-298,
48 Stat. 926. 2192
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 917,
73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2193
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1748, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2194
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) May 10: Passed Senate, p. 8479; 2196
(b) June 5: Passed House, p. 10537. 2197
1.7 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5 (1964). 2198
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1158 (g) ]
(See, "General 1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history)
1.8 Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as amended, 5
U.S.C. §5703 (1966). 2202
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1159(a) (2) (B), 1160(c) (4), (i) ]
(See, "General 1.15a-1.15d (3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.9 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty Between Canada and the United
States and the Water Utilization Treaty of 1944 Between Mexico
and the United States, 36 Stat. 2448 (1909), 59 Stat. 1219 (1944). 2203
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1160 (d) (2)]
1.9a Congressional Record, Vol. 91 (1945), April 18: Senate
advises and consents to treaty and supplementary proto-
col, pp. 3480-3492. 2247
1.10 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as amended,
18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). 2273
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1160 (f) (2), (k) (1); 1163 (g) (3)]
(See, "General 1.16a-1.16a(3) (c)" for legislative history)
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
1.11 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,
Article XXIV, 15 U.S.T. 1612, 1613 (1958). 2274
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (a) (9)]
l.lla Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960), May 26: Ratifica-
tion Advised by Senate, pp. 11187, 11189-11192. 2274
1.12 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, Article IV, as amended, 17 U.S.T. 1528 (1954). 2278
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (b) (2) (A) ]
1.12a Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964), Feb. 2: Ratifica-
tion Advised by Senate, pp. 3471-3472, 3496. 2294
1.13 Granting Clearances, as amended, 46 U.S.C. §91 (1954). 2295
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (b) (5) ]
1.13a Customs Enforcement Act of 1935, August 5, 1935, P.L.
74-238, Title II, §209, 49 Stat. 526. 2297
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. REP. No.
868, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). 2297
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 1036, 74th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). 2300
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1935):
(a) June 11: Amended and passed House, p. 9077; 2302
(b) July 26: Passed Senate, p. 11939. 2302
1.13b 1938 Amendments to §§91, 92 of Title 46 U.S.C., June 16,
1938, P.L. 75-656, §1, 52 Stat. 758. 2302
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 2521, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1938). 2304
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 2020,
75th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1938). 2306
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 83 (1938):
(a) June 6: Passed House, p. 8226; 2308
(b) June 13: Passed Senate, p. 8492. 2308
1.13c 1946 Reorganization Plan No. 3, §§101-104, May 16, 1946,
11 Fed. Reg. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097. 2308
1.13d Customs Simplification Act of 1954, September 1, 1954,
P.L. 83-768, Title V, §501 (a), 68 Stat. 1140. 2310
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. REP. No.
2453, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 2310
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 2326, 83rd
Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 2312
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 100 (1954):
(a) July 26: Passed House, p. 12036; 2312
(b) Aug. 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14264; 2312
(c) Aug. 16: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 14631.1 2312
1.14 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.
(1953). 2313
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (i) (2)]
1.14a Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, August 7, 1953, P.L.
82-212, §§2-15, 67 Stat. 462. 2328
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
413, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 2340
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
Page
VOLUME V
(2) Senate Committee on Interior arid Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No, 411, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 2349
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1031, 83rd
Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 2434
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 99 (1953):
(a) May 13: Amended and passed House, pp. 4881-
4895; 2450
(b) June 26: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7250-
7265; 2481
(c) July 29: House agrees to conference report, p.
10420; 2514
(d) July 30: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
10471-10476, 10478-10482, 10488-10490, 10492-
10500. 2514
1.15 Administrative Procedure, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§551-559, 701-
705 (1968). 2556
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1162(b), 1163(e) ]
1.15a Act to Enact Title 5, United States Code, September 6,
1966, P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 381-388, 392-393. 2570
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2581
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 1380,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2591
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 112 (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p. 22954; 2600
(b) Vol. 113 (1986), July 25: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 17010; 2600
(c) Vol. 113 (1966), Aug. 11: House concurs in Sen-
ate amendments, p. 19077 2600
1.15b To Amend Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, June
5, 1967, P.L. 90-23, §1, 81 Stat. 54. 2601
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H R. REP. No.
125, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2604
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 248,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2611
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 3: Passed House, pp. 8109-8110; 2620
(b) May 19: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 13253-
13254; 2621
(c) May 25: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 14056. . 2621
1.15c Act to Amend Title 5, 10, and 37, United States Code to
Codify Recent Laws, October 22, 19S8, 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. (1988). 2623
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) Sept. 16: Amended and passed House, pp. 26929-
26930; . 2624
(b) Oct. 11: Passed Senate, p. 30832. 2624
1.16 Higher Education General Provisions, Definitions, as amended,
20 U.S.C. §1141 (1970). 2625
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1169(1) (B) ]
1.16a Higher Education Act of 1965, November 8, 1965, P.L.
89-329, Title XII, §801, 79 Stat. 1269. 2627
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 621, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2628
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 673, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2629
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1178, 89th
Cong, 1st Sess. (1965). 2630
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Aug. 26: Debated, amended and passed House,
p. 21925; 2632
(b) Sept. 2: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
pp.22714-22717; . 2633
(c) Oct. 20: House agrees to conference report, p.
27678; 2633
(d) Oct. 20: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27595-27596. 2633
1.16b Higher Education Amendments of 1968, October 16, 1968,
P.L. 90-575, Title II, §§251, 293, 294, 82 Stat. 1042,1043, 1050,
1051. 2633
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 1387, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2636
(2) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 1649, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2644
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1919, 90th
Cong, 2d Sess. (1968). . 2647
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) July 15: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21272; 2651
(b) July 25: Amended and passed House, p. 23374; 2651
(c) Sept. 26: House agrees to conference report, pp.
28329, 28336-28337, 28339; 2651
(d) Oct. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
28975, 28982, 28983, 28985. . .. . 2651
1.16c Higher Education Act Amendments of 1970, April 13,1970,
P.L. 91-230, Title VIII, §806 (b), 84 Stat. 192. 2651
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor H.R. REP.
No. 91-114, 91st Cong, 1st Sess. (1969). 2652
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 91-634, 91st Cong, 2d Sess. (1970). 2653
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-937, 91st
Cong, 2d Sess. (1970). 2654
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol.115 (1969), April 23: Considered and passed
House, p. 10098; . . ... 2655
-------
CONTENTS xxv
Page
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 19: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 4141; 2655
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), April 1: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, p. 9999; 2655
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: House agreed to con-
ference report, p. 10623. 2655
1.17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et
seq. (1970). 2656
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1165a(a), (b)]
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a(4) (e)" for legislative history)
1.18 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243, 246
(1970). 2663
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ae (3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.19 The Water Resource Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1962,
etseq. (1971). 2681
1.19a Water Resources Planning Act, July 22, 1965, P.L. 89-80,
79 Stat. 244. 2705
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 169, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2709
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 68, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2736
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 603, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2748
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 25: Passed Senate, pp. 3621, 3626; 2764
(b) March 31: Amended and passed House, pp. 6406,
6412; 2766
(c) April 9: Senate request conference, p. 7676; 2766
(d) April 13: House appoints conferees, pp. 7926; 2766
(e) July 13: House agrees to conference report, pp.
16540, 16553-16554; 2767
(f) July 14: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
16733-16735. 2769
1.19b Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, December 31, 1970, P.L.
91-611, Title II, §§209, 221, 84 Stat. 1829, 1831. 2773
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2774
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
1422, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2777
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1782, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2778
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Amended and passed House, p. 40148; 2780
(b) Dec. 19: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40593-
40599, 40613, 40619-40620; 2782
(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report, pp.
42509-42510, 42513-42514; 2782
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
42724, 42727, 42728. 2786
1.19c Water Resources Planning Act Amendments of 1971, June
17, 1971, P.L. 92-27, 85 Stat. 77. 2787
-------
xxvi CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 92-197, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2787
(2) Ssnate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 92-139, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2791
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp.
H3981-H3982; 2795
(b) June 7: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S8377-S8378. 2796
1.20 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended,
40 App. U.S.C. §§212, 214 (1971). 2798
1.20a Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, March
9, 1965, P.L. 89-4, §§212, 214, 79 Stat. 16, 17. 2800
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 13,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2802
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
51, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2807
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 1715;* 2809
(b) March 3: Passed House, p. 4030.* 2809
1.20b 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 2, May 10, 1966, 80 Stat.
1608. 2809
1.20c To Revise and Extend the Appalachian Regional De-
velopment Act of 1965, and to Amend the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965, October 11, 1967,
P.L. 90-103, Title I, §§114,116, 81 Stat. 262, 263. 2812
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 159,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2814
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
548, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2820
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 706, 90th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2829
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 26, 27: Debated, amended and passed Sen-
ate, p. 10964; 2831
(b) Sept. 13, 14: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 25286, 25288-25290, 25316-25317, 25578-
25579, 25618-25620; 2832
(c) Sept. 28: House agrees to conference report, p.
27183; 2832
(d) Sept. 29: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27327-27328. 2832
1.20d 1969 Amendments to the Appalachian Regional Develop-
ment Act, November 25, 1969, P.L. 91-123, Title I, §107,
83 Stat. 215. 2833
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-336, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2834
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
291, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2835
* Denotes pertinent section is not discussed—page number provided only as complete
legislative history.
-------
CONTENTS xxvii
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-614, 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2837
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) July 8: Passed Senate, p. 18556;* 2838
(b) July 15: Amended and passed House, p. 19607;* 2838
(c) Nov. 5: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
33031;* . 2838
(d) Nov. 19: House agrees to conference report, p.
34890.* 2838
1.20e Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of
1970, May 21, 1970, P.L. 91-258, Title I, §52 (b) (5), 84 Stat.
235. 2838
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, HR. REP. No. 91-601, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969). 2839
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 91-565,
91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). • 2840
(3) Senate Finance Committee, S. REP. No. 91-706, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2840
(4) Committee of Conference, 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. 15133;* 2842
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), May 13: House agrees to con-
ference report, p. 15297.* 2842
1.20f Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of
1971, August 5, 1971, P.L. 92-65, Title II, §210, 85 Stat. 171. 2842
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 92-
273, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2843
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
92-372, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2844
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) July 21: Passed Senate, p. S11769;* 2846
(b) July 28: Passed House, p. H7328;* 2846
(c) July 30: Senate agrees to House amendments, p.
S12558.* 2846
1.21 The Disaster Relief Act, 40 U.S.C. §4401, et seq. (1970). 2847
(See, "General 1.8a-1.8a(4) (f)" for legislative history)
1.22 Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §1653 (f) (1968). 2867
(See, "General 15a-1.5a(3) (f)" for legislative history)
1.23 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h) (1970). 2868
(See, "General 1.6a-1.6d(3) (f)" for legislative history)
1.24 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969). 2871
(See, "General 1.4a-1.4a(5) (c)" for legislative history)
1.25 Airport and Airway Development Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f),
1716 (c) (4), (e) (1970). 2875
(See, "General 1.7a-1.7a(4) (d)" for legislative history)
-------
xxviii CONTENTS
Page
1.26 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §103 (1969). 2878
(See, "General 1.9a-1.9d(4) (d)" for legislative history)
1.27 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
§§661-666c (1965). 2880
1.27a To Promote the Conservation of Wildlife, Fish and Game,
and for Other Purposes, March 10, 1934, P.L. 73-121, 48
Stat. 401. 2889
(1) Senate Special Committee on Conservation of Wild-
life Resources, S. REP. No. 244, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess.
(1934). 2891
(2) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No. 850,
73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2892
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) Feb. 6: Passed Senate, pp. 2010-2011; 2893
(b) March 5: Passed House, pp. 3725-3726. 2895
1.27b Reorganization Plan No. II, §4(e), (f), 53 Stat. 1433. 2899
(1) Message from the President of the United States,
H.R. DOC. No. 288, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939). 2900
1.27c 1940 Reorganization Plan No. Ill, §3, 54 Stat. 1232. 2901
(1) Message from the President of the United States,
H.R. DOC. No. 681, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1940). 2902
1.27d To Amend the Act of March 10, 1934, August 14, 1946,
P.L. 79-732, 60 Stat. 1080. 2903
(1) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No. 1944,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2907
(2) Senate Committee on Agriculture, S. REP. No. 1698,
79th Cong, 2d Sess. (1946). 2912
(3) Senate Committee on Agriculture, S. REP. No. 1748,
79th Cong, 2d Sess. (1946). 2916
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946):
(a) May 7: Passed House, pp. 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 Sass. (1985). 2980
(2) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 254, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2983
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 538, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2984
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) April 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7891; 2985
(b) May 18: Amended and passed House, p. 10881; 2985
(c) June 23: House agrees to conference report, p.
14464; . 2985
(d) June 25: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
14814.* . 2985
1.28 Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.
§3136(1965). 2986
1.28a Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965,
August 26, 1965, P.L. 89-138, §106, 79 Stat. 554. 2986
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 193,
89th Cong., 1st Sess, (1965).* 2987
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
539, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) .* 2988
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
p. 12183;* 2988
(b) Aug. 12: Debated, amended, and passed House,
pp. 20250-20251; 2988
(c) Aug. 16: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 20571.* 2988
1.28b Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, 80 Stat. 1608. 2989
(1) Message from the President of the United States, H.R.
DOC. No. 388, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2991
1.29 River and Harbor Act of 1910, 33 U.S.C. §421. 2994
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371 (b) ]
1.29a River and Harbor Act of 1910, June 23, 1910, P.L. 61-245,
36 Stat. 593. . . 2995
-------
xxx CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 1120, 61st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1910). 2996
(2) Committee on Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1613, 61st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1910) .* 3003
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 45 (1910):
(a) May 2: Amended and passed House, p. 5672;* 3003
(b) May 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 6119;* 3003
(c) June 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
8219;* 3003
(d) June 17: House agrees to conference report, p.
8439.* 3003
1.30 Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§441-
451 (1958) . 3003
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371.]
l.SOa. New York Harbor Act of 1888, June 29, 1888, P.L. 50-496,
25 Stat. 209. 3010
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 224,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 3012
(2) House Committee on Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1963,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 3015
(3) CongresJonal Record, Vol. 19, (1888):
(a) March 21, April 6: Debated, amended and
passed Senate, pp. 2300-2301, 2775;* 3015
(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4889-4890; . 3015
(c) June 14: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 5239.* . 3018
l.SOb River and Harbor Act of 1894, August 18, 1894, P.L.
53-299, §§3, 5, 28 Stat. 360 3018
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R.
REP. No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894) .* 3023
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 519,
53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894).* . 3023
(3) Committee of Conference, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894), pp. 8173-8175.* 3023
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894):
(a) May 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4376, 4430; 3023
(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414;* 3024
(c) Aug. 6: Senate agreed to conference report, p.
8230;* . 3024
(d) Aug. 6: House agreed to conference report, p.
8251.* . . 3024
1.30c 1908 Amendments to 1894 Act, May 28, 1908, P.L. 60-
152, §8, 35 Stat. 426. 3024
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 1672, 60th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1908). 3028
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, 60th Cong., 1st
Sess., Congressional Record, Vol. 42 (1908), p. 6963.* 3030
-------
CONTENTS xxxi
Page
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 42 (1908):
(a) May 25: Considered and passed House, pp.
6901-6905; . . . 3030
(b) May 26: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
6963-6972.* 3034
l.SOd 1909 Amendments to 1908 Act, February 16, 1909, P.L.
60-231, 35 Stat. 623. . 3034
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 2102, 60th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1909). 3035
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 43 (1909):
(a) Feb. 10: Amended and passed House, p. 2149;* 3036
(b) Feb. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 2195-2196.* 3036
l.SOe Repealing Certain Obsolete Provisions of Law Relating
to the Naval Service, June 29, 1949, P.L. 81-144, 63 Stat.
300. . 3036
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.30f 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 passed House, pp. 16021-
16022.* . 3052
(b) Aug. 18: Passed Senate, p. 18033.* 3052
1.31 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended,
16 U.S.C. §1005 (1972). 3052
1.31a Rural Development Act of 1972, August 30, 1972, P.L.
92-419, §201 (g), 86 Stat. 669. 3053
(1) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No.
92-835, 92d Cong., 2d Sees. (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 Sess. (1972). 3068
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 23: Considered and passed House;* 3068
(b) April 19, 20: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, in lieu of S. 3462,* 3068
(c) July 27: House agreed to conference report;* 3068
-------
xxxii CONTENTS
Page
(d) Aug. 17: Senate agreed to conference report.* 3068
1.32 Reefs for Marine Life Conservation, 16 U.S.C. §1220 (1972). 3069
1.32a Commerce Department Maritime Programs, August 22,
1972, P.L. 92-402, §3 (b), 86 Stat. 617. 3069
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-934, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972).* . 3070
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
841, 92d Cong., 2d 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). 3D77
1.33a Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of
1966, Amendments, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-583,
§307(3) (f), 86 Stat. 1286. 3087
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
753, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 3099
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-1049, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972). . 3104
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1544,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 3111
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) April 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S6654-S6673; 3112
(b) Aug. 2: Considered and passed, House, amended,
in lieu of H.R. 14146;* 3142
(c) Oct. 12: House and Senate agreed to conference
report.* 3142
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2.1 E.O. 11490, Assigning of Emergency Preparedness Functions to
Federal Agencies and Departments, October 30, 1969, 34 Fed.
Reg. 17567. 3145
2.2 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970, 35 Fed.
Reg. 2573. 3197
2.3 E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality, March 5,1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247. 3203
2.4 E.O. 11548, Delegating Functions of the President Under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, July 20,1970,
35 Fed. Reg. 11677. 3207
2.5 E.O. 11574, Administration of the Refuse Act Permit Program,
December 23, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 19627. 3211
2.5a Statement by the President on Signing an Executive
Order Providing for the Establishment of a Federal Permit
-------
CONTENTS xxxiii
Page
Program to Regulate the Discharge of Waste into the
Waters of the United States, Weekly Compilation of Presi-
dential Documents, December 23, 1970, p. 1724. 3212
2.5b Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: House dis-
cussion of the Refuse Act Permit Program, pp. 1754-1763. 3213
2.5c Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: Ssnate dis-
cussion of the 1899 Refuse Act, pp. 1673; 1679-1684; 3233
2.6 E.O. 11575, Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970,
December 31,1970, 36 Fed. Reg. 37. 3244
2.7 E.O. 11578, Ohio River Basin Commission, January 13, 1971, 36
Fed. Reg. 683. 3246
2.8 E.O. 11613, Membership of Environmental Protection Agency
on the Established River Basin Commissions, August 2, 1971,
36 Fed. Reg. 14299. 3248
2.9 E.O. 11331, Establishment of Pacific Northwest River Basins
Commission, March 6, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 3875, as amended by
E.O. 11613, Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299. 3249
2.10 E.O.11345, Establishment of the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
April 20, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 6329, as amended by E.O. 11613,
Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299; E.O. 11646, Feb. 8, 1972, 37
Fed. Reg. 2925. 3251
2.11 E.O. 11359, Establishment of the Souris-Red-Rainy River Basin
Commission, June 20, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 8851, as amended
by E.O. 11613, Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299; E.O. 11635, Dec.
9, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 23615. . . 3253
2.12 E.O. 11371, Establishment of the New England River Basins
Commission, September 6, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 12903, as amended
by E.O. 11528, Apr. 24, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 6695; E.O. 11613,
Aug. 2, 1971. 3255
2.13 E.O. 11658, Establishment of the Missouri River Basin Commis-
sion, March 22, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 6045. 3257
2.14 E.O. 11659, Establishment of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Commission, March 22, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 6047. 3259
3. REGULATIONS
3.1 Grants for Water Pollution Control, Environmental Protection
Agency, 18 C.F.R. §§501.1-601.125 (1971). 3261
3.2 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§20.1-20.10 (1971).
3.3 Water Pollution Control Planning, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.001-35.002, 35.150 (1972).
3.4 Water Quality Management Planning Grants, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.200-35.240 (1972).
3.5 Water Pollution Control and Interstate Program Grants, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.551-35.575 (1972).
3.6 Grants for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Works,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.800-35.850
(1972). . .
3.7 Grants for Construction of Treatment Works—Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.910 (1972).
-------
xxxiv CONTENTS
Page
3.8 Standard Setting Conferences, Hearings and Notification of
Alleged Violators of Water Quality Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.24 (1972).
3.9 Public Hearings Under Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§106.1-108.13
(1972).
3.10 Filing of Reports with the Administrator by Persons Whose
Alleged Activities Result in Discharges Causing or Contributing
to Water Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§107.1-107.7 (1971).
3.11 Criteria for State, Local, and Regional Oil Removal Contingency
Plans, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§109.1-
109.6 (1971).
3.12 Discharge of Oil, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§110.1-110.9 (1971).
3.13 Water Quality Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§120.1-120.11 (1972).
3.14 Revision of Water Quality Standards, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§122.1-122.14 (1971).
3.15 State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License
or Permit, Enrivronment Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §123
(1972).
3.16 Marine Sanitation Device Standards, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§140.1-140.5 (1972).
3.17 Control of Pollution by Oil and Hazardous Substances, Dis-
charge Removal, Department of Transportation, 33 C.F.R.
§§153.01-153.105 (1970).
3.18 Corps of Engineers Regulations Under Refuse Act, Permit for
Discharge or Disposal Into Navigable Waters, 33 C.F.R. §§209.10-
209.13 (1971).
3.19 Drinking Water Standards, Public Health Service, 42 C.F.R.
§§72.201-72.207 (1971).
3.20 Financial Responsibility for Oil Pollution Cleanup, Federal
Maritime Commission, 46 C.F.R §§542.1-542.9 (1971).
3.21 Delegation of Authority With Respect to the Administration of
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, Department of Trans-
portation, 49 C.F.R. §1.46 (1971).
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
4.1 EPA Annual Report on National Requirements and Costs of
Water Pollution Control, as required by 33 U.S.C. §1175 (a) as
amended (1970). 3267
4.1a Cost of Clean Water, Vol. I, Municipal Investment Needs,
Vol. II, Cost Effectiveness and Clean Water, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, March 1971. . 3267
4.1b Economics of Clean Water, Vol. I & II, Environmental
Protection Agency, February 1972. . 3391
4.2 Selected Reports:
4.2a Federal Laws Affecting Rivers and Harbors Works, A
Lecture Given by Judge G. W. Koonce, O.C.E. Before the
Company Officers Class, the Engineering School, Ft.
Humphreys, Va., April 23,1926. 3517
-------
CONTENTS xxxv
Page
VOLUME VII
4.2b Our Waters and Wetlands: How the Corps of Engineers
Can Help Prevent Their Destruction and Pollution, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, H.R. REP. No. 91-917,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 3533
4.2c Qui tam Actions and the 1899 Refuse Act, Citizen Law-
suits Against Polluters of the Nations Waterways, House
Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources of
the Committee on Government Operations, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 3556
4.2d Clean Water for the 1970's, a Status Report, U S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion, June 1970. 3592
4.3 National Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Contingency
Plan, Council on Environmental Quality, August 20, 1971. 3706
4.4 Guidelines for Litigation Under the Refuse Act Permit Program,
Department of Justice, April 7, 1972. , , 3720
4.5 Water Quality Standards Summaries:
4.5a "Standards for Temperature," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, March 1971. 3722
4.5b "Standards for Disinfection," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, May 1971. 3732
4.5c "Standards for Mercury and Heavy Metals," Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality
Standards, May 1971. 3739
4.5d "Standards for Radioactive Materials," Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards,
May 1971. 3747
4.5e "Standards for Phosphates," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, June 1971. 3750
4.5f "Standards for Mixing Zones," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, 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
-------
-------
1.1 RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1899
33 U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411 (1899)
§ 403. Obstruction of navigable waters generally; wharves; piers,
etc.; excavations and filling in
The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by
Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the
United States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or
commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir,
breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, road-
stead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the
United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor
lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army;
and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to
alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any
port, roadstead, haven, habor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or
inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of
any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the
Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the same.
Mar. 3, 1899, c. 425, § 10, 30 Stat. 1151.
§ 407. Deposit of refuse in navigable waters generally
It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit, or cause,
suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either
from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any
kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or
mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description
whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and
passing therefrom in a liquid state, into any navigable water of
the United States, or into any tributary of any navigable water
from which the same shall float or be washed into such navigable
water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer, or
procure to be deposited material of any kind in any place on the
bank of any navigable water, or on the bank of any tributary of
any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be washed
into such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or
by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or
may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing herein
contained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the operations in
connection with the improvement of navigable waters or con-
struction of public works, considered necessary and proper by the
United States officers supervising such improvement or public
work: And provided further, That the Secretary of the Army,
-------
4 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers anchorage
and navigation will not be injured thereby, may permit the de-
posit of any material above mentioned in navigable waters, within
limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him,
provided application is made to him prior to depositing such ma-
terial; and whenever any permit is so granted the conditions
thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any violation thereof
shall be unlawful.
Mar. 3,1899, c. 425, § 13, 30 Stat. 1152.
§ 411. Penalty for wrongful deposit of refuse; use of or injury
to harbor improvements, and obstruction of navigable waters
generally
Every person and every corporation that shall violate, or that
shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of the
provisions of sections 407, 408, and 409 of this title shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $2,500 nor less than $500, or by imprisonment (in
the case of a natural person) for not less than thirty days nor more
than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the dis-
cretion of the court, one-half of said fine to be paid to the person
or persons giving information which shall lead to conviction.
Mar. 3,1899, c. 425, § 16, 30 Stat. 1153.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
l.la RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1886
August 5, 1886, P.L. 49-929, §§2, 3, 24 Stat. 329
SEC. 2. That in places where harbor-lines have not been estab-
lished, and where deposits of debris of mines or stamp works can
be made without injury to navigation, within lines to be established
by the Secretary of War, said officer may, and is hereby authorized to,
cause such lines to be established; and within such lines such deposits
may be made, under regulations to be from time to time prescribed
by him.
SEC. 3. It shall not be lawful to cast, throw, empty, or unlade, or
cause, suffer, or procure to be cast, thrown emptied, or unladen, either
from or out of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft, or
from the shore, pier, wharf, or mills of any kind whatever, any ballast,
stone, slate, gravel, earth, slack, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings,
sawdust, slag, or cinders, or other refuse or mill-waste of any kind, into
New York Harbor: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall ex-
[p. 329]
tend, or be construed to extend, to the casting out, unlading, or throw-
ing out of any ship or vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft, any
stones, rocks, bricks, lime, or other materials used, or to be used, in or
toward the building, repairing, or keeping in repair any quay, pier,
wharf, weir, bridge, building, or other work lawfully erected or to be
erected on the banks or sides of said harbor, or to the casting out un-
loading or depositing of any material excavated for the improvement
of navigable waters, into such places and in such manner as may be
deemed by the United States officer supervising the improvement of
such harbor most judicious and practicable and for the best interests of
such improvement.
[p. 330]
-------
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
l.la(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
H.R. REP. No. 1448, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886)
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL.
MARCH 31, 1886.—Recommitted to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany bill H. R. 7480.]
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors bsg leave to report to the
House the accompanying bill, "making appropriations for the con-
struction, repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and har-
bors, and for other purposes," and to recommend the passage of the
same.
*******
[p. 1]
OBSTRUCTING BRIDGES AND CAUSEWAYS
Your committee have also recommended legislation touching the re-
moval of bridges, causeways, and other structures which interfere
with the free and convenient navigation of rivers and harbors, and
providing that hereafter the drawings and description of such pro-
posed works shall first be submitted to the Secretary of War for his
approval.
[p. 5]
-------
8 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.la(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
H.R. REP. No. 1565, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886)
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL.
APRIL 7,1886.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany bill H. R. 7480.]
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors beg leave to report back to
the House the accompanying bill (H.R. 7480) "making appropriations
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain works on
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," with sundry amendments,
and to recommend the passage of the same.
*******
[p. 1]
OBSTRUCTING BRIDGES AND CAUSEWAYS
Your committee have also recommended legislation touching the re-
moval of bridges, causeways, and other structures which interfere
with the free and convenient navigation of rivers and harbors, and
providing that hereafter the drawings and description of such pro-
posed works shall first be submitted to the Secretary of War for his
approval.
[p. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
l.la(3) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 1391, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
JUNE 28, 1886.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. McMiLLAN, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the fol-
lowing
REPORT
[To accompany bill H. R. 7480.]
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H.R.
7480) "making appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes," has considered the same, and submits the following
report:
The bill as it came to the Senate appropriated the sum of $15,182,200.
The Senate committee made certain amendments reducing the ap-
propriation made by the House bill $585,500, and made other amend-
ments increasing the bill as it came to the Senate, $3,480,775, making
the net increase by the Senate committee the sum of $2,895,275.
*******
[P-1]
l.la(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 17 (1886)
l.la(4)(a) May 6: Amended and passed House, pp. 4243-4247
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL
The CHAIRMAN. The House is in
Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and resumes the
consideration of the unfinished business,
being the bill (H. R. 7480) making ap-
propriations for the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public
works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I offer the
amendment which I send to the desk, it
being considered that the vote has been
taken on the former amendment.
The Clerk read the proposed amend-
ment, as follows:
Provided, That no survey shall be made
under this section until all the improvements
of rivers and harbors now in progress at the
Government expense upon which estimates
have been furnished by engineers to complete
the work shall have been completed in ac-
cordance therewith.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair under-
stands the point of no quorum is with-
-------
10
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
drawn, and the motion to strike out the
thirteenth section is disagreed to.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Yes, sir; and in
offering the other amendment I desire to
submit some remarks, not extended
however, upon it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
proceed.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. The amendment
which I have offered provides that all the
improvements on which the engineers
have furnished estimates to complete
the works now in progress shall be fin-
ished before the surveys incorporated in
the present bill shall be made. It is not
contended, Mr. Chairman, that the sur-
veys in the section under consideration
are not worthy of being made. For the
purposes of this discussion, I will admit
that they are of interstate importance,
and pass that question. The statement
made by the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. WHEELER] as well as the chairman
of the committee that these surveys often
develop the fact that some of the rivers
and harbors named were not of such
importance as to warrant expenditure
upon them, and that therefore these
surveys were of great value to the coun-
try, is true, sir, in a qualified sense.
When we are ready to increase the num-
ber of improvements all over this coun-
try then it will probably be wise to order
the preliminary examination contem-
plated by this section.
But I do protest that so long as the
works are not completed which are al-
ready commenced no further surveys
should be made. And why should we
refuse to make these surveys at this
time? Because, sir, this is simply a sly
method of increasing greatly the number
of items in the next bill. A goodly num-
ber of the surveys of one year become
the improvements of the next.
An examination of the river and har-
bor acts which have passed this House
since the year 1879 discloses the fact that
a large number of all the surveys that
are provided for in each act are incor-
porated in the next bill as new improve-
ments and thus swell the expenditure of
money for that year. An examination of
the act of 1879 discloses the fpct that it
directed ninety-seven surveys. Of those
ninety-seven surveys thirty-four weJ-e
embraced in the next act, which passed
Congress in 1880, as improvements, and
money appropriated to commence the
work. That is, 35 per cent of the surveys
of 1879 received appropriation in 1880.
In the act of 1880 there were one hun-
dred and twenty-four surveys directed,
and in the act of 1881 forty-one of those
surveys were put in as new improve-
ments and money appropriated to begin
the work. That is, 33 per cent, of the
surveys of 1880 received appropriations
in the act of 1881,
The act of 1881 directed that in the
ensuing year eighty-three surveys of
rivers and harbors should be made, and
the act of 1882 made appropriations to
begin work on twenty-seven of those
rivers and harbors. That is, over 32 per
csnt. of the surveys of 1881 received ap-
propriations in the act of 1882.
The bill of 1883 failed to pass, and
hence surveys that were included in the
bill of 1882 had to secure admission to
the bill of 1884. Now, then, the act of
1882 directed that one hundred and
thirty-five surveys of rivers and harbors
should be made; and in 1884 we find that
the bill which passed made appropria-
tions to begin the work on the thirty-
four of those one hundred and thirty-five
rivers and harbors. In other words, 25
per cent, of the surveys of 1882 crept
into the bill of 1884.
The bill of 1885 was defeated in this
House. Consequently many of the sur-
veys provided for in the act of 1884 have
been forced into this one. And I find
that out of the one hundred and thirty-
one surveys provided for in the act of
1884 there have been incorporated into
this bill some twenty-six. Thus it is that
about 20 per cent, of the surveys pro-
vided for in the act of 1884 are incorpo-
rated in this bill, and we are asked to
make appropriations for the same.
The average number of the surveys
ordered each year since 1879 which have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
11
found place in the succeeding appropria-
tion bill as new improvements is some-
[p. 4243]
thing over 29 per cent. In this bill as it
came from the Committee on Rivers and
Harbors there were ninety-eight surveys
provided for. The consideration of the
bill in Committee of the Whole has in-
creased the number to one hundred and
twenty-seven; so that the bill as it now
stands provides for one hundred and
twenty-seven surveys to be made during
the next year at the discretion of the
Secretary of War. Now, sir, taking the
average percentage of increase in the
number of the improvements year after
year since 1879, resulting from these sur-
veys, it will make in the next appropria-
tion bill an addition of thirty-seven river
and harbor items to be provided for as
new improvements.
If we could complete the works that
we have in hand this would be wise
enough, assuming that the rivers and
harbors named here for survey are of a
national character; but when we com-
plete by this bill only five out of the
sixty-three works recommended by the
engineers for completion it will be
readily seen that this section has not the
harmless character claimed for it by the
friends of the bill. It will be readily seen
that this very section providing for
numerous surveys is made year by year
the means of swelling the river and har-
bor bill unduly and loading the Govern-
ment down more and more with unfin-
ished contracts and incomplete works.
I say here and now that this is the time
and place to stop. Every man on this
floor should support this amendment.
Every man in this House who feels some-
thing more than a national interest in
this bill, who feels a local interest in the
appropriations for his district, should re-
spond to this call and vote to stop these
additions to the river and harbor bill
until such time as the works already
recommended for completion shall be
finished.
If you can be moved in no other way,
the narrow interests of your share in this
bill should arouse you. If you continue
this system of increasing the improve-
ments before completing those already in
progress, the effect upon the appropria-
tions for your districts will be that you
must each year accept a less and less
percentage of the estimates of the
engineers to carry on your local works.
Every man here who is interested in
the expenditure of the people's money
upon business principles should take a
stand for this amendment, and should aid
in rejecting this section so prolific of bad
consequences, this section which will
certainly hatch out in the next river and
harbor bill at least thirty-seven more
such items demanding appropriations.
When the amendment was offered
striking out these surveys the chairman
of the committee stated than there was
not $50,000 included in this bill for new
items. I say to you gentlemen, from a
careful computation, that there are more
than $200,000 in it for absolutely new
items. There are $173,000 in the bill for
items which were included in the last act
as surveys. So you can see something of
the sweeping extent of the increase. But
this is only the beginning. The policy of
river and harbor committees as to these
new works has always been to ask for
only a small appropriation for a new im-
provement the first year, and thus to lead
the Government in gradually until it is
involved in carrying on the works at
these various places, and when it is once
fairly committed to them, then excessive
appropriations can be demanded and
we are compelled to yield.
Now, gentlemen, I say that business
sense, good business management, de-
mands that this should be checked, and
checked right here at this time. And
there is no better way to do it than to
stop putting in these surveys, which is
simply an insidious way of getting the
Government committed to more and
more of these improvements year by
year. I say to you gentlemen who
guard the avenues to the Treasury that
it is your business to stand up at this
-------
12
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
time and stop this work. The people will
not always bear this treatment meekly.
The honest men are in the majority
among the people. This has grown to a
great abuse, and I tell you "when this
snow melteth there shall come a flood."
I tell you here and now that this system
can not be carried much further. The
time is near at hand when it will break
down in this House with a crash that
will shake half the members out of their
seats.
[p. 4244]
Mr. SPOONER.
I had hoped that in the progress of the
consideration of this bill some of the un-
worthy projects it contained might be
eliminated. But so far as we have pro-
ceeded that hope seems to have been un-
founded; and earnestly as I favor the
improvement of our water ways and a
reasonably liberal provision for the de-
mands of commerce, I can not see my
way to honorably and consistently vote
for a bill containing such provisions as
this one now does.
* * * * *
There are other projects for appropri-
ations contained in this bill which it
seems to me are entirely unworthy, or
disproportioned in cost to any benefit
which may be expected from the work.
*****
Mr. EVERHART. Mr. Chairman, it is
proper to commend the liberal conduct of
the committee in the House; but, without
disparaging their motives or their labors,
we may not be indifferent to the defects
of the measure they have introduced.
The report is but a syllabus, with brief
statement and scant argument; alludes to
the engineer's estimates and some local
demands only to say they were not com-
plied with; admits some errors, depre-
cates criticism, and in some part disarms
it. But the appropriations are remark-
able for their number, diversity, and
amount.
It appears that no spot or object is too
grand or too insignificant to be ignored.
The salt water and the fresh, the seacoast
and the tow-path, the banks of the great
lakes and the beds of little streams,
leveed cities and sinecure ports, shoals
where the mussels bury, and sloughs
like, perhaps, "the Serbonian bog, where
armies whole have sunk," receive in
various degrees the care and bounty of
the bill. And yet it is clear that the
distribution is not always equitably
averaged and applied.
Fifteen millions of dollars is "a good
round sum" to be taken from the public
purse; and yet this committee
"The Gordian knot of it will unloose,
Familiar as their garter."
They pour it out with the exuberance
and generosity of some high power; and
it falls upon the favored places as freely
as the golden shower of Jupiter on
Danae. Nor is the sum in every instance
directed by adequate importance or
necessity. It is unrestricted by unpro-
nounceable names, by obscurity of situa-
tion, by dearth of water, by mass of
obstruction, by difficulty of distance, or
by lack of people.
Bayous are to be improved where the
alligator wallows and the pelican feeds;
and inlets where King Frost holds his
carnival in palaces of ice; and shores
which seem as remote and fabulous as
those of Calypso or Atlantis.
There is nothing, Mr. Chairman, which
seems too incredible to be embraced
within the limits of this bill.
[p. 4245]
Mr. EVERHART. Mr. Chairman, I
was saying that the scope and purpose
of the bill are extraordinary. Every sort
of information and construction seems to
have been employed in order to extend
this committee's jurisdiction. Channels,
beset with mud or rocks or rapids, are to
be deepened or widened, without the
ultimate possibilities of commerce.
Canals are to be bought, or built, or
seized, or accepted, and tunnels are to be
pierced, bridges to be sprung, dikes and
dams to be constructed, for the apparent
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
13
relief of particular States or riparian
owners. Enormous experiments, which
hitherto have failed, are to be repeated
with aggravated cost on the "Father of
Waters," with no assurance of better
benefits to navigation.
Mr. STONE, of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I can not vote for this bill. I desire
briefly to explain why I can not do so.
The bill appropriates $15,000,000 to
improve the rivers and harbors of the
country. It is not the amount I object
to, but the application of it. To my mind
the proposed appropriation would be a
waste of the public moneys. There is
nothing for which I would more cheer-
fully vote the most liberal appropriations
than for the improvement of our great
rivers and important harbors. Appro-
priations of this character should be
made for the purpose of improvement,
and not for the mere purpose of expendi-
ture; and the improvement itself should
be made only where the work is national
in its character and beneficial in some
broad sense to the commerce of the
country, and not for the purpose of serv-
ing some personal end or advancing some
local interest. Take harbors like those at
Boston, New York, Baltimore, Savannah,
Charleston, Galveston, San Francisco,
Chicago, and others, where the com-
merce of this and other countries is
brought by land and sea and accumu-
lates, seeking transportation abroad or
to the interior, and I can see the com-
manding necessity for expanding what-
ever sums are necessary for putting such
harbors and the approaches to them in
the highest state of improvement.
Take the Ohio, Missouri, and Missis-
sippi Rivers, pouring their floods down
through half of the States of the Union,
with half the very largest cities in the
country upon their banks, and furnish-
ing to half our commerce a broad natural
track-way to the sea, and I can under-
stand the importance and the wisdom of
expending whatever sums may be neces-
sary, almost without regard to limit, in
improving and perfecting navigation on
their waters. But those improvements
ought to be made with some sort of sys-
tem, with a view to completion and of
achieving some positive and permanent
effect.
Five hundred thousand dollars ex-
pended on the Missouri River is $500,000
thrown away. It would present the
paradox of niggardly extravagance. It
would result in no practical good to the
commerce of the Missouri Valley. I
would cheerfully vote to appropriate five
millions for the improvement of that
river, or whatever sum might be neces-
sary to make it what it can be and ought
to be made. And so with all these great
rivers and harbors. I believe in doing
the work thoroughly and in a manner
commensurate with its importance. It
can not all be done in a day or a year,
nor all done at once. But the work
should be begun and prosecuted upon
some plan which contemplates perma-
nency and completion, and the appropri-
ations should be made and applied with
that end in view. Cheap transportation
is one of the crying needs of the hour.
There is no disguising the fact that the
profits of production are absorbed in the
extortions incident to interior transpor-
tation. I believe the remedy lies, to a
very great extent, in putting our great
navigable rivers in such condition as to
make them in fact the highways of com-
merce. But, sir, no good is accomplished
for commerce or the people by making
inadequate appropriations for these im-
portant streams such as that proposed in
this bill, which gives to such rivers as
the Missouri and the Ohio the-pittance of
$500,000, to be scattered for hundreds and
thousands of miles along those streams
in constructing insufficient works, tempo-
rary in character, resulting in no present
good snd utterly without practical value.
It is simply a waste of public money. I
can think of nothing that would justify it.
Unless the people interested in these
great enterprises are strong enough to
put men in Congress who will take high
ground on the subject, and make the
-------
14
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
improvement of these waters truly a na-
tional work, to be inaugurated and car-
ried forward on a scale equal to the
demands of such a work, then I see no
hope of making these waters useful to
the commerce of the country. I am told
it can not be done now. I am given to
understand that a reasonable and sen-
sible river and harbor appropriation bill
would be an impracticable and alto-
gether hopeless measure of legislation.
I am given to understand that before
Representatives in Congress will vote for
a great national work of vital importance
to millions of people, or will vote for any
river and harbor appropriation what-
ever, they must have some inducement
offered them in the form of an appropria-
tion for their own immediate districts or
neighborhoods.
* * # * #
Mr. Chairman, I shall be astonished if
this bill commands the approval of the
House, though out of the four hundred
rivers, harbors, bayous, and creeks pro-
vided for I suppose a large majority of
the members on this floor, in the classic
language of the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. HEPBURN], "have pork in the bar-
rel." As I have said, there are many
harbors I would gladly vote needful ap-
propriations and liberal appropriations
to improve; but when I am invited to
appropriate public moneys to improve
everything called a harbor, whether on
the lakes or the salt seas, * * * my cour-
age is not equal to the task.
I can not support such a bill. In my
judgment, the best and wisest thing to
do is to reject such legislation. In the
way of practical results this immense
expenditure would accomplish substan-
tially nothing, so far as benefiting the
general commerce of this country is con-
cerned, but would be extravagant,
wasteful, and demoralizing, I shall vote
against it; I hope it will be defeated; and
I shall wait impatiently for a better day
for better results.
The committee accordingly rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. McCREARY reported that the Com-
mittee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 7480) making appropriation
for the construction, repair, and preser-
[p. 4246]
vation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes, had
directed him to report the same back
with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that as amended the
bill do pass.
[p. 4247]
l.la(4)(b) July 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7035, 7037
THE RIVER AND HARBOR BILL.
Senate resumed the consideration of
the bill (H. R. 7480) making appropria-
tions for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempers. The
pending question is the amendment of
the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. MC-
MILLAN].
Mr. KENNA. I offer an amendment
to come in at the end of the first section.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia will be read.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to
insert, as a new section, the following:
If, in the judgment of the Secretary of
War, the public interests will be subserved by
the withholding of the amount appropriated
for any improvement provided for in this act
for the current year he may do so in his dis-
cretion, and shall report such fact, and the
reasons therefor, to the next session of Con-
gress.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend the
amendment by striking out the words
"Secretary of War" and inserting "Presi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
15
dent of the United States."
Mr. KENNA. I have no objection to
that modification. I inserted "Secretary
of War" simply because the early part
of the bill directs the expenditures to be
under the Secretary of War.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I know, but this
question of withholding is a much more
important one.
Mr. KENNA. I have no objection to
the modification.
Mr. PLUMB. I move to lay the
amendment on the table.
Mr. KENNA. I hope the Senator will
withdraw that motion until I explain it
in a minute.
Mr. PLUMB. I withdraw the motion.
Mr. KENNA. It is the opinion as de-
veloped hereof, I think, quite a majority
of the Senate that under the discretion
of the executive department that might
be done which can be done under this
amendment. I should like to leave it
beyond any controversy, and for that
reason offer the amendment.
It will be observed that the amend-
ment does not vest the executive depart-
ment with discretion to suspend these
appropriations or the prosecution of any
particular work indefinitely. It does
allow it for the current year; but even if
the suspension is made for the current
year, the fact of the suspension or with-
holding and the reasons therefor are to
be reported to the next session of Con-
gress in December.
[p. 7035]
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Minnesota moves that the
Senate insist on its amendment to the
river and harbor bill and ask for a con-
ference.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 7037]
l.la(4)(c) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by Senate, p. 7906
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.la(4)(d) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by House, p. 7934
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lb NEW YORK HARBOR ACT OF 1888
June 29,1888, §1, 25 Stat. 209
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Vnited States of America in Congress assembled, That ths placing,
discharging, or depositing, by any process or in any manner, of refuse,
dirt, ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any other
matter of any kind, other than that flowing from streets, sewers, and
passing therefrom in a liquid state, in the tidal waters of the harbor
of New York, or its adjacent or tributary waters, or in those of Long
Island Sound, within the limits which shall be prescribed by the
-------
16
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
supervisor of the harbor, is hereby strictly forbidden, and every such
act is made a misdemeanor, and every person engaged in or who
shall aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of this section, shall,
upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
such fine to be not less than two hundred and fifty dollars nor more-
than two thousand five hundred dollars, and the imprisonment to be
not less than thirty days nor more than one year, either or both
united, as the judge before whom conviction is obtained shall decide,
one half of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving infor-
mation which shall lead to conviction of this misdemeanor.
l.l.b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 224, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888)
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lb(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 1963, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888)
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lb(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 19 (1888)
l.lb(3)(a) March 21: Debated, amended and passed Senate, p. 2300
NEW YORK HARBOR.
The bill (S. 1241) to prevent obstruc-
tive and injurious deposits within the
harbor and adjacent waters of New
York City, by dumping or otherwise, and
to punish and prevent such offenses, and
making other provisions in connection
therewith, was considered as in Com-
mittee of the Whole.
The bill was reported from the Com-
mittee on Commerce with amendments.
The first amendment, was in section 1,
line 8, after the word "waters," to insert
"within the limits which shall be pre-
scribed by the supervisor of the harbor;"
so as to make the section read:
That the placing, discharging, or deposit-
ing, by any process or in any manner, of
refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredg-
ings, sludge, acid, or any other matter of
any kind, other than that flowing from streets,
sewers, and passing therefrom in a liquid
state, in the tidal waters of the harbor of
New York, or its adjacent or tributary waters,
within the limits which shall be prescribed
by the supervisor of the harbor, is hereby
strictly forbidden, and every such act is
made a misdemeanor, and every person en-
gaged in or who shall aid, abet, authorize,
or instigate a violation of this section shall
upon conviction, be punishable by fine or im-
prisonment, or both, such fine to be not less
than $250 nor more than $2,500, and the im-
prisonment to be not less than thirty days
nor more than one year, either or both
united, as the judge before whom conviction
is obtained shall decide.
The amendment was agreed to.
*****
[p. 2300]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
17
l.lb(3)(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House, pp. 4889-4890
DEPOSITS IN NEW YORK HARBOR.
Mr. COX. I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union be discharged from
the further consideration of Senate bill
1241, to prevent obstructive and inju-
rious deposits in the harbor and adjacent
waters of New York. A similar bill has
been reported from the Committee on
Commerce of this House, and I now ask
unanimous consent that the Senate bill
be substituted for the House bill and be
put upon its passage.
The Senate bill was read, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the placing, dis-
charging, or depositing, by any process or in
any manner, of refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders,
mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any
other matter of any kind, other than that
flowing from streets, sewers, and passing
therefrom in a liquid state, in the tidal
waters of the harbor, of New York, or its
adjacent or tributary waters within the limits
which shall be prescribed by the supervisor
of the harbor, is hereby strictly forbidden,
and every such act is made a misdemeanor,
and every person engaged in or who shall aid,
abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of
this section, shall, upon conviction, be pun-
ishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
such fine to be not less than $250 nor more
than $2,500, and the imprisonment to be not
less than thirty days nor more than one year,
either or both united, as the judge before
whom conviction is obtained shall decide
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
the point of order, for the purpose of
trying to learn something about this bill.
I do not want to object at this time, but
I would like to know what committee
reported this bill.
Mr. COX. A bill for this purpose has
been reported by my colleague [Mr.
BRYCE] from the Committee on Com-
merce. Several times in several Con-
gresses this measure substantially has
been reported. The Senate bill which I
ask to have substituted is almost iden-
tical with the House bill reported by my
colleague. A bill almost similar with
this—introduced by myself—passed this
House in the Forty-seventh Congress.
It was upon a river and harbor bill, and
was eliminated from it in the Senate as
being rather incongruous upon that bill.
Mr. ROGERS. Has it passed the
Senate?
Mr. COX. It has.
Mr. ROGERS. What committee re-
ported it there?
Mr. COX. The Committee on Com-
merce.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me make another
inquiry: What court has jurisdiction of
the offenses described in the bill?
Mr. SPINOLA. Any district court of
the United States.
Mr. COX. I will state for the informa-
tion of the House that a Federal bill, like
this, is rendered necessary, because these
waters come within the jurisdiction of
two States—New Jersey and New York;
and unless we have Federal jurisdiction
over them we can never protect the har-
bor from the continual dumping that is
shoaling it to its ruin. The Committees
on Commerce of the House and of the
Senate have approved and reported this
bill.
Mr. BLANCHARD. In what respect
does the Senate bill, which the gentle-
man proposes to substitute, differ from
the House bill?
Mr. COX. It does not differ except in
the situation—the Senate has passed the
bill and we have not.
[p. 4889]
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, what I
am most interested in with reference to
this bill is a point which has recently
come before the Judiciary Committee of
the House and has had a most careful
consideration by it. It is the question
whether or not Congress has constitu-
tional power to confer upon the courts of
the United States criminal jurisdiction
over the inland waters of the country.
-------
18
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
If we have complete jurisdiction it must
extend, I take it, to every navigable river
of the United States upon which there is
any interstate commerce. It certainly
goes this far, if it does not extend to all
the navigable waters. Now, I regard
this as an exceedingly doubtful power.
Our Government has now been in ex-
istence a hundred years, and we have
never until the present Congress under-
taken to exercise criminal jurisdiction
over the Great Lakes.
Mr. COX. This bill has reference to
maritime cases—to Federal waters.
Mr. ROGERS. I am referring to crim-
inal jurisdiction. The maritime juris-
diction of the United States extends over
the Great Lakes, of course.
Several MEMBERS. No doubt of that.
Mr. COX. This bill only proposes to
extend jurisdiction over tidewater.
Mr. ROGERS. But you say "the har-
bor of New York or its adjacent or trib-
utary waters or those of Long Island
Sound."
Mr. COX. Those are tide-waters. The
tide runs nearly a hundred miles up the
Hudson, certainly as far as Poughkeepsie.
Mr. ROGERS. I do not profess to be
very familiar with the geography of that
part of the country, and upon the as-
surance of the gentleman from New
York I withdraw my objection to the
consideration of the bill.
There being no objection, the House
proceeded to the consideration of the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Several
amendments to this bill have been re-
ported by the Committee on Commerce.
The amendments reported by the
Committee on Commerce were read, as
follows:
After the word "waters," in line 8,
section 1, insert "or in those of Long
Island Sound."
At the end of section 1, add "one-half of
said flne to be paid to the person or persons
giving information which shall lead to convic-
tion of this misdemeanor."
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there
be no objection, the question on these
amendments will be taken in gross.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. BUCHANAN. My observation
has been that the prescribing of min-
imum terms of imprisonment very often
prevents conviction. I therefore move
to amend section 1 by striking out, in
line 17, the words "less than thirty days
nor"; so that the clause will read "and
the imprisonment not to be more than
one year," etc.
Mr. ROGERS and others. That is
right.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COX. I now call the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered;
and under the operation thereof the bill
as amended was ordered to a third read-
ing, was accordingly read the third time,
and passed.
Mr. COX moved to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed; and also
moved that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there
be no objection, House bill No. 8947, now
on the Calendar, and similar in substance
to the Sanate bill just passed, will be laid
on the table.
There was no objection, and it was
ordered accordingly.
[p. 4890]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 19
l.lb(3)(c) June 14: Senate concurs in House amendments, p. 5239
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lc RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1890
September 19,1890, P.L. 51-907, §6, Stat. 453
SEC. 6. That it shall not be lawful to cast, throw, empty, or unlade,
or cause, suffer, or procure to be cast, thrown, emptied, or unladen,
either from or out of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other
craft, or from the shore, pier, wharf, furnace, manufacturing establish-
ments, or mills of any kind whatever, any ballast, stone, slate, gravel,
earth, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings, sawdust, slag, cinders,
ashes, refuse, or other waste of any kind, into any port, road, road-
stead, harbor, haven, navigable river, or navigable waters of the
United States which shall tend to impsde or obstruct navigation, or
to deposit or place or cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited or
placed, any ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck, filth,
slabs, edgings, sawdust, or other waste in any place or situation on
the bank of any navigable waters where the same shall be liable to
be washed into such navigable waters, either by ordinary or high
tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall
or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing herein
contained shall extend or be construed to extend to the casting out,
unlading, or throwing out of any ship or vessel, lighter, barge,
boat, or other craft, any stones, rocks, bricks, lime, or other mate-
rials used, or to be used, in or toward the building, repairing, or
[p. 453]
keeping in repair any quay, pier, wharf, weir, bridge, building, or
other work lawfully erected or to be erected on the banks or sides of
any port, harbor, haven, channel, or navigable river, or to the cast-
ing out, unlading, or depositing of any material excavated for the im-
provement of navigable waters, into such places and in such manner
as may be deemed by the United States officer supervising said im-
provement most judicious and practicable and for the best interests
of such improvements, or to prevent the depositing of any substance
above mentioned under a permit from the Secretary of War, which
he is hereby authorized to grant, in any place designated by him
where navigation will not be obstructed thereby.
[p. 454]
-------
20 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.lc(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
H.R. REP. No. 1488, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890)
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL.
APRIL 18, 1890.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Illinois, from the Committee on Rivers and
Harbors, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9486.]
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, to whom were referred the
annual reports of the Chief of Engineers and subordinate engineers in
charge of the improvement of rivers and harbors, and also of sundry
petitions and bills relating to the same, beg leave to report to the
House the accompanying bill, making appropriations for the construc-
tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes, and to recommend the passage of
the same.
The aggregate amount of appropriations recommended in the bill is
$20,932,445, and is based upon estimates amounting, in the aggregate,
to about $39,535,033, as follows:
Estimates of the Chief of Engineers of the amounts that can be
profitably expended in the fiscal year, ending June 30, 1891 $35,210,800
Estimates of new projects considered by the committee, for which
appropriations have been recommended, but which are not included
in the estimates of the Chief of Engineers 4,324,233
Total 39,535,033
*******
[P. 1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
21
l.lc(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 1378, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 18, 1890.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. FRYE, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9486.]
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H.R.
9486) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preser-
vation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes, has considered the same, and submits the following report:
The House bill appropriates $19,973,945.
Your committee have recommended certain amendments reducing
the appropriations made in said bill $691,700, and certain others in-
creasing to the amount of $4,380,450, making a proposed net increase
of $3,688,750.
[p. 1]
l.lc(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
51s( Cong., 1st Sess., Congressional Record, Vol. 21 (1890), p. 9558
Amendment numbered 159: That the
House recede from its disagreement to
the amendment of the Senate numbered
159, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: Strike out the
matter proposed and in lieu thereof in-
sert the following additional sections, to
be numbered sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11:
"SEC. 6. That it shall not be lawful to
cast, throw, empty, or unlade, or cause,
suffer, or procure to be cast, thrown,
emptied, or unladen, either from or out
of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge, boat,
or other craft, or from the shore, pier,
wharf, furnace, manufacturing estab-
lishments, or mills of any kind whatever,
any ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth,
rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs, edgings, saw-
dust, slag, cinders, ashes, refuse, or other
waste of any kind, into any port, road,
roadstead, harbor, haven, navigable
river, or navigable waters of the United
States which shall tend to impede or
obstruct navigation, or to deposit or place
or cause, suffer, or procure to be de-
posited or placed, any ballast, stone,
slate, gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck, filth,
slabs, edgings, sawdust, or other waste
in any place or situation on the bank of
any navigable waters where the same
shall be liable to be washed into such
navigable waters, either by ordinary or
high tides, or by storms or floods, or
otherwise, whereby navigation shall or
-------
22
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may be impeded or obstructed: Pro-
vided, That nothing herein contained
shall extend or be construed to extend
to the casting out, unlading, or throwing
out of any ship or vessel, lighter, barge,
boat, or other craft, any stones, rocks,
bricks, lime, or other materials used, or
to be used, in or toward the building, re-
pairing, or keeping in repair any quay,
pier, wharf, weir, bridge, building, or
other work lawfully erected or to be
erected on the banks or sides of any port,
harbor, haven, channel, or navigable
river, or to the casting out, unlading, or
depositing of any material excavated for
the improvement of navigable waters,
into such places and in such manner as
may be deemed by the United States of-
ficer supervising said improvement most
judicious and practicable and for the best
interests of such improvements, or to
prevent the depositing of any substance
above mentioned under a permit from
the Secretary of War, which he is hereby
authorized to grant, in any place desig-
nated by him where navigation will not
be obstructed thereby.
"SEC. 7. That it shall not be lawful to
build any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom,
dam, weir, breakwater, bulk-head, jetty,
or structure of any kind outside estab-
lished harbor-lines, or in any navigable
waters of the United States where no
harbor-lines are or may be established,
without the permission of the Secretary
of War in any port, roadstead, haven,
harbor, navigable river, or other waters
of the United States, in such manner as
shall obstruct or impair navigation,
commerce, or anchorage of said waters,
and it shall not be lawful hereafter to
commence the construction of any bridge,
bridge draw, bridge piers and abutments,
causeway, or other works over or in any
port, road, roadstead, haven, harbor,
navigable river or navigable waters of
the United States, under any act of the
Legislative Assembly of any State, until
the location and plan of such bridge or
other works have been submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of War, or to
excavate or fill, or in any manner to
alter or modify the course, location, con-
dition, or capacity of the channel of said
navigable water of the United States,
unless approved and authorized by the
Secretary of War: Provided, That this
section shall not apply to any bridge,
bridge draw, bridge piers and abutments
the construction of which has been here-
tofore duly authorized by law, or to be
so construed as to authorize the con-
struction of any bridge, draw-bridge,
bridge piers and abutments, or other
works, under an act of the Legislature of
any State over or in any stream, port,
roadstead, haven or harbor or other
navigable water not wholly within the
limits of such State.
"SEC. 8. That all wrecks of vessels and
other obstructions to the navigation of
any port, roadstead, harbor, or navigable
river, or other navigable waters of the
United States, which may have been per-
mitted by the owners thereof or the
parties by whom they were caused to
remain to the injury of commerce and
navigation for a longer period than two
months, shall be subject to be broken up
and removed by the Secretary of War,
without liability for any damage to the
owners of the same.
"SEC. 9. That it shall not be lawful
for any person or persons to take posses-
sion of or make use for any exclusive
purpose, or build upon, alter, deface, de-
stroy, injure, obstruct, or in any other
manner impair the usefulness of any
seawall, bulk-head, jetty, dike, levee,
wharf, pier, or other work built by the
United States in whole or in part, for the
preservation and improvement of any of
its navigable waters, or to prevent floods,
or as boundary marks, tide gauges, sur-
veying stations, buoys, or other estab-
lished marks, nor remove for ballast or
ether purposes any stone or other ma-
terial composing such works.
"Sec. 10. That the creation of any
obstruction, not affirmatively authorized
by law, to the navigable capacity of any
waters, in respect of which the United
States has jurisdiction, is hereby pro-
hibited. The continuance of any such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
23
obstruction, except bridges, piers, docks,
and wharves, and similar structures
erected for business, whether heretofore
or hereafter created, shall constitute an
offense, and each week's continuance of
any such obstruction shall be deemed a
separate offense. Every person and
every corporation which shall be guilty
of creating or continuing any such un-
lawful obstruction in this act mentioned,
or who shall violate the provisions of the
last four preceding sections of this act,
shall be deemed guilty of a misde-
meanor, and on conviction thereof shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding
$5,000, or by imprisonment (in the case
of a natural person) not exceeding one
year, or by both such punishments, in
the discretion of the court. The creating
or continuing of any unlawful obstruc-
tion in this act mentioned may be pre-
vented and such obstruction may be
caused to be removed by the injunction
of any circuit court exercising jurisdic-
tion in any district in which such ob-
struction may be threatened or may
exist; and proper proceedings in equity
to this end may be instituted under the
direction of the Attorney-General of the
United States.
"SEC. 11. That it shall be the duty of
officers and agents having the super-
vision, on the part of the United States,
of the works to progress for the preser-
vation and improvement of said navi-
gable waters, and, in their absence, of
the United States collectors of customs
and other revenue officers to enforce the
provisions of this act by giving informa-
tion to the district attorney of the United
States for the district in which any
violation of any provision of this act shall
have been committed: Provided, That
the provisions of this act shall not apply
to Torch Lake, Houghton County,
Michigan."
[p. 9558]
l.lc(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 21 (1890)
l.lc(4)(a) May 28: Passed House, p. 5412
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lc(4)(b) Aug. 15, 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 8607, 8684-
8685
Mr. EDMUNDS. Now, Mr. President,
I move, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, to add as a new section what
I send to the desk, as being apparently
the best place to put it in, as my friend
from Maine says.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is this
a separate section?
Mr. EDMUNDS. A distinct section, to
follow the last one just acted on, that
being the best place to put it in.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to
insert as a new section the following:
SEC. 6. Every obstruction, not affirmatively
authorized by law, to the navigable capacity
of any waters in respect of which the United
States has jurisdiction is hereby prohibited.
Each day's continuance of any such obstruc-
tion shall be deemed a separate offense.
Every person and every corporation which
shall be guilty of creating or continuing any
such obstruction in this section mentioned
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprison-
ment (in the case of a natural person) not
exceeding one year, or by both such punish-
ments in the discretion of the court. The cre-
ating or continuing of any obstruction in this
section mentioned may be prevented by the
injunction cf any circuit court exercising
jurisdiction in any district in which such
obstruction may be threatened or may exist;
and proper proceedings in equity to this end
-------
24
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may be instituted under the direction of the
Attorney-General of the United States.
Mr. HOAR. I assented to that amend-
ment in the Judiciary Committee, but a
suggestion now occurs to me which I
think ought to be considered. What is
the force of this phrase "every obstruc-
tion not affirmatively authorized by
law?" Does the Senator from Vermont
understand that the section as he has got
it will leave untouched ancient wharves
which perhaps have existed for two or
three centuries in some of our Atlantic
cities, which are obstructions to naviga-
tion? There is no affirmative law, but
they have whatever title they have got
by ancient prescription.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was
agreed that the amendments of the Com-
mittee on Commerce should be first con-
sidered. Is there objection to the
consideration of this amendment?
Mr. FRYE. I prefer myself that this
amendment should be considered at this
point, so that the penal sections of the
bill may be complete.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I am
perfectly willing to have this amendment
wait, in order that my friend from Mas-
sachusetts may consider it. But the
point that I think the Judiciary Commit-
tee had in view when they said "affirma-
tively authorized by law" was to put the
amendment in harmony with and under
the authority of the decisions of the
Supreme Court in the last case of the
Willamette River bridge, where the
court seem to declare that until Con-
gress had affirmatively exerted jurisdic-
tion anything that anybody might do,
like tumbling rocks from a railroad in
Kentucky at this day into a navigable
river that we are paying money to keep
open, could not be prevented; and un-
less we say "affirmatively authorized by
law," the court has said if it is not
affirmatively authorized or condemned
by law there is nobody who can punish
that company for obstructing that river.
If there be a case where some ancient
body has got a situation, that would be
a matter to consider, but I think, with
great respect to everybody, that in order
to meet what has been and what must
be the judgment of the Supreme Court
of the United States which decides
causes, whether we like their decisions
or not, and in order to accomplish the
general end we have in view it is neces-
sary to say "not affirmatively author-
ized by law."
If there be a case, as my friend from
Massachusetts suggests, where there is
no affirmative authority of law, that
ought to be excepted. I should be per-
fectly willing and glad to have the thing
wait until some suggestion can be made
in form to relieve that sort of thing, but
as the Supreme Court has now decided,
if I correctly understand the decision, if
we leave out the words "affirmatively
authorized by law," we shall find our-
selves in the next case that comes up in
this Kentucky River (which is the mat-
ter that was brought to the attention of
the Committee on the Judiciary), that
the railroad company which is now
tumbling its rocks into that navigable
stream, and we are paying money to get
them out again, can not be stopped ac-
cording to the view of the Supreme
Court as expressed; and so we use indus-
triously these words. It may be as my
friend from Massachusetts says; there
may be cases where there ought to be an
exception.
Mr. HOAR. I will move to amend the
Senator's amendment by inserting after
the words "not affirmatively authorized
by law" the words "not having existed
more than twenty years."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment to the amendment will be
stated.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I think, Mr. Presi-
dent, to save time, if my friend from
Massachusetts is willing, that this
amendment had better be passed by
until we can get it in a shape satisfactory
all around to cover just such cases as he
has suggested, and I ask therefore that
the amendment may be passed over for
the time being.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
25
Chair hears no objection to that. The
reading of the bill will be resumed.
Mr. SPOONER. The Senate two years
ago passed a bill on this subject and
again at this session. I had occasion not
long since to apply to the War Depart-
ment for some relief against obstructions
at the head of Lake Superior which were
to the great disadvantage of the Govern-
ment, made day by day, and I was ad-
vised that there was no power under the
law in the Government to prevent them.
Attention was called to the fact that this
bill, which, as I say, has twice passed the
Senate and been favorably reported in
the House, was the measure suggested
by the War Department as adapted to
the situation not only there, but else-
where in the United States.
There is, so far as I know, no reason
to anticipate that that bill will be acted
upon at this session, and I intend to offer
that bill as an amendment to this bill. I
send it to the desk that it may be printed
and lie upon the table.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Wisconsin gives notice of
an amendment proposed to be offered
hereafter to the bill, which will be
printed.
The reading of the bill was resumed.
The next amendment of the Committee
on Commerce was, in section 6, page 76,
line 25, after the word "be," to insert
"deemed;" in line 26, after the word
"shall," to strike out "pay" and insert
"be punished by;" and in the same sec-
tion, on page 77, before the word "im-
prisonment," to strike out "and undergo"
and insert "or;" so as to make the
section read:
SEC. 6. That section 12 of the river and har-
bor act of August 11, 1888, be amended and
re-enacted so as to read as follows"
"Where it is made manifest to the Secre-
tary of War that the establishment of harbor-
lines is essential to the preservation and
protection of harbors, he may. and is hereby
authorized to, cause such lines to be estab-
lished, beyond which no piers, wharves,
bulkheads, or other works shall be extended
or deposits made, except under such regula-
tions as may be prescribed from time to time
by him; and any person who shall willfully
violate the provisions of this section, or any
rule or regulation made by the Secretary of
War in pursuance of this section, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not
exceeding one year, at the discretion of the
court for each offense."
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If we have come to a
pause, I think I may now offer the
amendment from the Committee on the
Judiciary as modified by my friend from
Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR], inserting,
after the word "law," in line 2 of the
amendment, the words "and not having
existed more than twenty years," to re-
lieve ancient structures and so forth, and
I offer it, therefore, in the form I now
present it, with the suggestion that the
Senator from Massachusetts put in.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 76, after
section 5, it is proposed to insert as a new
section the following:
SEC. 6. Every obstruction, not affirmatively
authorized by law and not having existed
more than twenty years, to the navigable
capacity of any waters in respect of which
the United States has jurisdiction is hereby
prohibited. Each day's continuance of any
such obstruction shall be deemed a separate
offense Every person and every corporation
which shall be guiluy of creating or continu-
ing any such obstruction in this section men-
tioned shall be deemed guilty of a misde-
meanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or
by imprisonment (in the case of a natural
person) not exceeding one year, or by both
such punishments, in the discretion of i-he
court. The creating or continuing of any
obstruction in this section mentioned may be
prevented by the injunction of any circuit
court exercising jurisdiction in any district in
which such obstruction may be threatened or
may exist; and proper proceedings in equity
to this end may be instituted under the di-
rection of the Attorney-General of the United
States.
[p. 8607]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now recurs upon the second
proposition of the amendment, which
will be stated.
-------
26
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. SHERMAN. I raise the point of
order on that that it is general legislation
applying to all piers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sec-
ond proposition of the amendment will
be stated.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Thereafter no Government pier or dock
shall be leased to or permitted to be used
by private persons otherwise than in common
by all under such regulations as the Secretary
of War may prescribe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon
this amendment the Senator from Ohio
raises the point of order that it is gen-
eral legislation upon an appropriation
bill. The Chair holds that it is general
legislation, because while it applies to
this particular section it applies to all
other docks and piers, and is clearly, the
Chair thinks, general legislation, and
therefore it can not be received under
the rules.
The bill is still in Committee of the
Whole, and open to amendment.
Mr. SPOONER. I send to the desk
and offer the amendment of which I gave
notice yesterday, to come in after the
amendment proposed yesterday by the
Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS]
and adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Wiscon-
sin will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. After section 6 it is
proposed to insert the following as a new
section:
That it shall not be lawlul to cast, throw,
empty, or unlade, or cause, suffer, or procure
to be cast, thrown, emptied, or unladen, either
from or out of any ship, vessel, lighter, barge,
boat, or other craft, or from the shore, pier,
wharf, furnace, manufacturing establish-
ments, or mills of any kind whatever, any
ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth, rubbish,
wreck, fllth, slabs, edgings, sawdust, slag,
cinders, ashes, refuse, or other waste of any
kind into any port, road, roadstead, harbor,
haven, navigable rivers, or navigable waters
of the United States which shall tend to
impede or obstruct navigation, or to deposit
or place, or cause, suffer, or procure to be
deposited or placed, any ballast, stone, slate,
gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck, filth, slabs,
edgings, sawdust, or other waste in any place
or situation en the bank of any navigable
waters where the same shall be liable to be
washed into such navigable waters, either by
ordinary or high tide or by storms or floods,
or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or
may be impeded or obstructed: Provided,
That nothing herein contained shall extend or
be construed to extend to the casting out,
unlading, or throwing out of any ship or
vessel, lighter, barge, boat, or other craft
any stones, rocks, bricks, lime, or other ma-
terials used, or to be used, in or toward the
building, repairing, or keeping in repair any
quay, pier, wharf, weir, bridge, building, or
other work lawfully erected or to be erected
on the banks or sides of any port, harbor,
haven, channel, or navigable river, or to the
casting out, unlading, or depositing of any
material excavated for the improvement of
navigable waters into such places and in such
manner as may be deemed by the United
States officer supervising said improvement
most judicious and practicable and for the
best interests of such improvements, or to
prevent the depositing of any substance above
mentioned under a permit from the Secretary
of War, which he is hereby authorized to
grant, in any place designated by him where
navigation will not be obstructed thereby.
SEC. 2 That it shall not be lawful to build
any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, dam, weir,
breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other struc-
ture outside established harbor-lines without
the permission of the Secretary of War in any
port, roadstead, haven, harbor, navigable
river, or other waters of the United States in
such manner as shall obstruct or impair navi-
gation, commerce, or anchorage of said
waters; and it shall not be lawful hereafter
to commence the construction of any bridge,
bridge-draw, bridge piers and abutments,
causeway, or other works over or in any port,
road, roadstead, haven, harbor, navigable
river, or navigable waters of the United
States, under any act of the Legislative As-
sembly of any State, until the location and
plan of such bridge have been submitted to
and approved by the Secretary of War, or to
excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or
modify the course, location, condition, or
capacity of the channel of said navigable
waters of the United States, unless approved
and authorized by the Secretary of War:
Provided, That this section shall not apply
to any bridge, bridge-draws, bridge piers and
abutments, the construction of which has been
heretofore duly authorized by law, or be so
construed as to authorize the construction of
any bridge, draw-bridge, bridge piers and
abutments, or other works, under any act of
the Legislature of any State, over or in any
stream, port, roadstead, haven, or harbor, or
other navigable water not wholly within Ihe
limits of such State.
SEC 2. That it shall not be lawful to build
any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, dam, weir,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
27
breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other struc-
ture outside established harbor-lines without
the permission of the Secretary of War in any
port, roadstead, haven, harbor, navigable
river, or other waters of the United States in
such manner as shall obstruct or impair navi-
gation, commerce, or anchorage of said
waters; and it shall not be lawful hereafter
to commence the construction of any bridge,
bridge-draw, bridge piers and abutments,
causeway, or other works over or in any port,
road, roadstead, haven, harbor, navigable
river, or navigable waters of the United
States, under any act of the Legislative As-
sembly of any State, until the location and
plan of such bridge have been submitted to
and approved by the Secretary of War, or to
excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or
modify the course, location, condition, or
capacity of the channel of said navigable
waters of the United States, unless approved
and authorized by the Secretary of War:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to
any bridge, bridge-draws, bridge piers and
abutments, the construction of which has
been heretofore duly authorized by law, or
be so construed as to authorize the construc-
tion of any bridge, draw-bridge, bridge piers
and abutments, or other works, under any
act of the Legislature of any State, over or in
any stream, port, roadstead, haven, or harbor,
or other navigable water not wholly within
the limits of such State
SEC. 3. That all wrecks of vessels, and other
obstructions to the navigation of any port,
roadstead, harbor, or navigable river, or other
navigable waters of the United States, which
may have been permitted by the owners
thereof or the parties by whom they were
caused to remain to the injury of commerce
and navigation for a longer period than two
months, shall be subject to be broken up and
removed by the Secretary of War, without
liability for any damage to the owners of the
same.
SEC. 4. That it shall not be lawful for any
person or persons to take possession of or
make use for any exclusive purpose, build
upon, alter, deface, injure, obstruct, or in any
other manner impair the usefulness of any
sea-wall, bulk-head, jetty, dike, levee, walk,
pier, or other work built by the United States
for the preservation and improvement of any
of its navigable waters, or boundary marks,
tide-gauges, surveying stations, buoys, or
other established marks, nor remove for bal-
last or other purposes any stone or other ma-
terial composing such works.
SEC. 5. That every person, persons, or cor-
poration offending against the provisions of
this act shall, for each and every such offense,
forfeit and pay a penalty of $250, besides such
other sum as may be found, in any action for
the recovery of the penalty or penalties in-
curred under this act, to be the expense of
making good the damage incurred or of re-
moving to a proper place the things deposited
in violation of this act, such penalties to be
recovered by action in the name of the United
States in any district court within whose
jurisdiction such offense shall be committed,
or in any district wherein the defendant may
be found, said action to be instituted by the
district attorney for such district at the in-
stance of any person complaining.
SEC. 6 That any damage for injury done to
any property of the United States mentioned
in section 4 of this act by any vessel shall be
a lien upon such vessel, her machinery, ap-
parel, and furniture, the payment of which
may be enforced by the United States in a
suit instituted in the admiralty court of ihe
district wherein said injury was done, or in
the district where said vessel may be found.
SEC. 7. That it shall be the duty ol officers
and agents having the supervision, on the
part of the United States, of the works in
progress 'for the preservation and improve-
ment of said navigable waters, and, in their
absence of the United States collectors of
customs and other revenue officers, to enforce
the provisions of this law by giving informa-
tion to the district attorney of the United
States for the district in which any violation
of any provision of this act shall have been
committed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER].
[p. 8684]
Mr. FRYE. I call the Senator's atten-
tion to the fact that a very important
amendment, offered by the Senator from
Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], has been
adopted which will take care of just such
cases as the Senator mentions on the St.
Louis River.
Mr. SPOONER. As I understand the
amendment adopted on the motion of
the Senator from Vermont, it does not
take care of such cases. The amendment
offered by the Senator from Vermont
deals with existing obstructions, but
practices which will result necessarily
in an obstruction, which constitute in
themselves each day a trespass in a
sense, but which are not yet obstructions,
would not be covered, as I understand
it, by the amendment offered by the
Senator from Vermont. After they be-
come obstructions, not having been au-
-------
28
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
thorized by law and not having existed
for twenty years, they could be removed
under the proposition ingrafted upon the
bill yesterday on motion of the Senator
from Vermont.
What I wanted to accomplish was to
put it in the power of the War Depart-
ment all over the country where the
public money is being expended in im-
proving harbors and rivers, great or
small, to prevent, by prosecution or by
the remedy of injunction or such other
appropriate remedy, these daily tres-
passes which in the end are to constitute
obstructions and to cost the Government
a great deal of money to remove.
There have been, within my own rec-
ollection, a number of instances where
obstructions have been created in this
way. I called the attention of the War
Department to the trespass which was
inevitably to become an obstruction, and
they wrote me that there was now no
power under the law to prevent it, and
called my attention to the fact that the
Department had been for years back
urging the necessity of some legislation
that would protect our harbors and riv-
ers from obstructions to navigation and
commerce, and referring to the report in
favor of this bill and the recommenda-
tion for it. In fact it has passed the Sen-
ate, but has not yet passed the other
House.
Of course the power to make these
improvements involves the power to
protect them after they have been made,
and it is a very singular fact during all
the years the Government has been ex-
pending hundreds of millions of dollars
that this power which clearly exists in
Congress has lain dormant and unexer-^
cised. It seems to me proper that in. con-
nection with a bill appropriating such a
vast sum of public money—and there are
no unwise expenditures of public money
on the whole among these improvements
—there should be clearly in the War
Department power to protect them from
trespass and ultimate destruction.
If there are provisions in this amend-
ment which are objectionable, they may
be stricken out ht the conference com-
mittee, and they may make such changes
as will adapt the proposition to that
offered by the Senator from Vermont,
and make the whole harmonious; and
that was my purpose. But, if the Sena-
tor from Kentucky insists upon his point
of order, of course the amendment will
have to go out.
Mr. CARLISLE. I think under the
circumstances I must insist on the point
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair sustains the point of order, as the
amendment is clearly general legislation.
[p. 8685]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 29
l.lc(4)(c) Sept. 6: House agrees to conference report, p. 9822
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lc(4)(d) Sept. 8: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 9830
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1894
August 18,1894, P.L. 53-299, §§6, 7, 8, 9,28 Stat. 363
SEC. 6. That it shall not be lawful to place, discharge, or deposit, by
any process or in any manner, ballast, refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders,
mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any other matter of any kind
other than that flowing from streets, sewers, and passing therefrom in
a liquid state, in the waters of any harbor or river of the United
States, for the improvement of which money has been appropriated
by Congress, elsewhere than within the limits defined and permitted
by the Secretary of War; neither shall it be lawful for any person or
persons to move, destroy, or injure in any manner whatever any sea
wall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier, or other work built by
the United States, in whole or in part, for the preservation and im-
provement of any of its navigable waters, or to prevent floods, or
as boundary marks, tide gauges, surveying stations, buoys, or
other established marks; any and every such act is made a misde-
meanor, and every person knowingly engaged in or who shall know-
ingly aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of this section shall,
upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, such
fine to be not less than two hundred and fifty dollars nor more than
twenty-five hundred dollars, and the imprisonment to ba not less
than thirty days nor more than one year, either or both united, as
the judge before whom conviction is obtained shall decide, one-half
of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving information
which shall lead to conviction of this misdemeanor.
SEC. 7. That any and every master, pilot, and engineer, or person or
persons acting in such capacity, respectively, on board of any boat or
vessel who may willfully injure or destroy any work of the United
States contemplated in section six of this Act, or who shall knowingly
engage in towing any scow, boat, or vesssl loaded with any such pro-
hibited matter to any point or place of deposit or discharge in any
-------
30 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
harbor contemplated in section six of this Act, elsewhere than within
the limits defined and permitted by the Secretary of War, shall be
deemed guilty of a violation of this Act and shall, upon conviction, be
punishable as hereinbefore provided for offenses in violation of sec-
tion six of this Act, and shall also have his license revoked or sus-
pended for a term to be fixed by the judge before whom tried and
convicted.
SEC. 8. Any boat, vessel, scow or other craft used or employed in
violating any of the provisions of sections six and seven of this Act
shall be liable to the pecuniary penalties imposed thereby, and in
addition thereto to the amount of the damages done by said boat, ves-
sel, scow, or other craft, which latter sum shall be placed to the credit
of the appropriation for the improvement of the harbor in which the
damage occurred, and said boat, vessel, scow, or other craft may be
proceeded against summarily by way of libel in any district court of
the United States having jurisdiction thereof.
[p. 363]
SEC. 9. That whenever the Secretary of War grants to any person
or persons permission to extend piers, wharves, bulkheads, or other
works, or to make deposits in any tidal harbor or river of the United
States beyond any harbor lines established under authority of the
United States, he shall cause to be ascertained the amount of tide
water displaced by any such structure or by any such deposits, and
he shall, if he deem it necessary, require the parties to whom the per-
mission is given to make compensation for such displacement either
by excavating in some part of the harbor, including tide-water chan-
nels between high and low water mark, to such an extent as to create
a basin for as much tide water as may be displaced by such structure
or by such deposits, or in any other mode that may be satisfactory to
him: Provided, That all such dredging or other improvement shall be
carried on under the direction of the Secretary of War, and shall in
no wise injure any existing channels.
[p. 364]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 31
l.ld(l) 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)
DAMAGE TO HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
LETTER
FROM
THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR
TRANSMITTING
A communication from the Chief of Engineers, also a draft of a bill to
prevent damage to harbor improvements by vessels dumping rub-
bish and refuse material therein.
FEBRUARY 20, 1894.—Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and
ordered to be printed.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY,
Washington, D.C., February 15,1894.
SIR: I have the honor to invite attention to the accompanying copy
of a communication, dated the 12th instant, from Capt. O. M. Carter,
Corps of Engineers, in reference to damage done to Savannah Harbor
by vessels engaged in navigation.
It appears that these vessels inflict much injury by dumping rub-
bish and refuse material into the harbor, and by colliding with works
of improvement constructed by the United States, and that in the
opinion of the U.S. district attorney no action against such vessels
can be maintained under the existing law.
A draft of an act designed to remedy this defect in the law and to
make boats and vessels liable for injuries thus inflicted is submitted
by Capt. Carter and meets with my approval.
-------
32 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I beg to recommend that the papers be transmitted to the chairman
of Committee on Rivers and Harbors for his consideration.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
THOS. LINCOLN CASEY,
Brigadier General, Chief of Engineers.
Hon. DANIEL S. LAMONT,
Secretary of War.
[P.I]
[First indorsement.]
WAR DEPARTMENT, February 17, 1894.
Respectfully transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives for the consideration of the Committee on Rivers and Har-
bors.
JOSEPH B. DOE,
Acting Secretary of War.
UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
Savannah., Ga., February 12,1894.
GENERAL: Rubbish has been thrown into Savannah Harbor and the
works of improvement have been injured by vessels navigating the
river. These cases have been reported to the U.S. district attorney,
as provided in section 11 of the river and harbor act of 1890. The
district attorney declines to bring action against such vessels, stating
that the act allows him to proceed against persons and corporations,
and not against vessels; and, further, that if, by careless handling or
otherwise, a vessel injures Government work, the vessel is not re-
sponsible for any damages, as a local pilot and not the master of the
vessel is in charge.
It is quite important that there should be some effective method of
enforcing the prohibition relating to the depositing of refuse and the
injuring of works of improvement in navigable waters of the United
States. I have the honor, therefore, to transmit herewith a memoran-
dum based upon an act recently passed to prevent dumping, etc., in
New York Harbor, with the request that so much of it as may be
deemed proper may be sent to the chairman of the River and Harbor
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 33
Committee of the House of Representatives for incorporation into the
river and harbor bill now being framed by that committee.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
O. M. CARTER,
Captain, Corps of Engineers.
Brig. Gen. THOMAS L. CASEY,
Chief of Engineers, U.S.A.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House oj Representatives of the United States oj
America in Congress assembled, That it shall not be lawful to place, discharge, or
deposit, by any process or in any manner, ballast, refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, mud,
sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any other matter of any kind other than that flow-
ing from streets, sewers, and passing therefrom in a liquid state, in the waters of
any harbor of the United States, for the improvement of which money has been
appropriated by Congress, elsewhere than within the limits defined and permitted
by the Secretary of War; neither shall it be lawful for any person or persons to
move, destroy, or injure in any manner whatever any sea wall, bulkhead, jetty,
dike, levee, wharf, pier or other work built by the United States, in whole or in
part, for the preservation and improvement of any of its navigable waters, or to
prevent floods, or as boundary marks, tide gauges, surveying stations, buoys, or
other established marks; any and every such act is made a misdemeanor, and every
person engaged in or who shall aid, abet, authorize or instigate a violation of this
section, shall, upon conviction, be punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, such
fine to be not less than two hundred and fifty dollars nor more than twenty-five
hundred dollars, and the imprisonment to be not less than thirty days nor more
than one year, either or both united, as the judge before whom conviction is
obtained shall decide, one-half of said fine to be paid to the person or persons
giving information which shall lead to conviction of this misdemeanor.
[P-2]
SEC. 2. That any and every master, pilot, and engineer, or person or persons
acting in each capacity, respectively, on board of any boat or vessel who may
willfully injure or destroy any work of the United States contemplated in section
one of this act, or who shall knowingly engage in towing any scow, boat, or vessel
loaded with any such prohibited matter to any point or place of deposit or dis-
charge in any harbor contemplated in section one of this act, elsewhere than
within the limits defined and permitted by the Secretary of War, shall be deemed
guilty of a violation of this act, and shall, upon conviction, be punishable as here-
inbefore provided for offenses in violation of section one of this act, and shall also
have his license revoked or suspended for a term to be fixed by the judge before
whom tried and convicted.
SEC. 3. Any boat, vessel, scow, or other craft used or employed in violating any of
the provisions of this act shall be liable to the pecuniary penalties imposed thereby,
and in addition thereto to the amount of the damages done by said boat, vessel,
scow, or other craft, which latter sum shall be placed to the credit of the appropria-
tion for the improvement of the harbor in which the damage occurred, and said
boat, vessel, scow, or other craft may be proceeded against summarily by way of
libel in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.
[p. 3]
-------
34 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.l.d(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
H.R.-REP. No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894)
IMPROVEMENTS OF RIVERS AND HARBORS
MARCH 31, 1894.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. CATCHINGS, from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6518.]
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, to whom were referred the
annual reports of the Chief of Engineers and subordinate engineers,
and sundry bills, resolutions, and petitions relating to the improve-
ment of rivers and harbors, beg leave to report to the House the
accompanying bill, making appropriations for the construction,
completion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes, and to recommend the passage
of the same.
The aggregate amount of the appropriations recommended is
$9,431,689.56, and is based upon estimates amounting in the aggregate
to $38,770,611.
Of the total amount carried by the bill about 40 per cent, or
$3,688,939.56, is for the improvement of harbors and the remainder,
$5,742,750, for the improvement of rivers. For examinations, surveys,
and contingencies $125,000 are recommended, which are included in
the total for rivers.
No new projects are provided for in the bill, the committee believing
that, in view of the limits of the bill, it was best to appropriate only
for existing works.
Preliminary examinations of 116 additional works and surveys of
38 additional works have been recommended.
The committee have been in almost continuous session for the past
four months, during which time innumerable hearings have been
granted to Senators and Representatives and to delegations from all
parts of the country.
The committee have given the most careful and painstaking consid-
eration to the bill in all its parts, and recommend its passage.
[p-1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 35
l.ld(3) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 519, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894)
IMPROVEMENTS OF RIVERS AND HARBORS
JULY 11, 1894. Reported by Mr. RANSOM from the Committee on Commerce and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. RANSOM, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 6518.]
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld(4) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Congressional Record, Vol. 26, 1894), pp. 8173-8175
[No Revelant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld(5) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 26 (1894)
l.ld(5) (a) May 4: Amended and passed House, p. 4430
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld(5)(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld(5)(c) Aug. 6: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 8230
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ld(5)(d) Aug 6: House agrees to conference report, p. 8251
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
36 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Lie RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1899
March 3,1899, P.L. 55-425, §§10, 13, 16, 30 Stat. 1151
SEC. 10. That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively
authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters
of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful
to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom,
weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port,
roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the
United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor
lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it
shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or
modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, road-
stead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or inclosure
within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any naviga-
ble water of the United States, unless the work has been recom-
mended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary
of War prior to beginning the same.
[p. 1151]
SEC. 13. That it shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit,
or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited
either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any
kind, or from, the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill
of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever
other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom
in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States, or
into any tributary of any navigable water from which the same shall
float or be washed into such navigable water; and it shall not be
lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be deposited material
of any kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, or on
the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, where the same
shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordi-
nary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navi-
gation shall or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing
herein contained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the operations
in connection with the improvement of navigable waters or construc-
tion of public works, considered necessary and proper by the United
States officers supervising such improvement or public work: And
provided further, That the Secretary of War, whenever in the judg-
ment of the Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be
injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material above men-
tioned in navigable waters, within limits to be defined and under con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 37
ditions to be prescribed by him, provided application is made to him
prior to depositing such material; and whenever any permit is so
granted the conditions thereof shall be strictly complied with, and
any violation thereof shall be unlawful.
[p. 1152]
SEC. 16. That every person and every corporation that shall violate,
or that shall knowingly aid, abet, authorize, or instigate a violation of
the provisions of sections thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen of this Act
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding twenty-five hundred dollars nor less
than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment (in the case of a nat-
ural person) for not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or
by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court,
one-half of said fine to be paid to the person or persons giving informa-
tion which shall lead to conviction. And any and every master, pilot,
and engineer, or person or persons acting in such capacity, respec-
tively, on board of any boat or vessel who shall knowingly engage in
towing any scow, boat, or vessel loaded with any material specified in
section thirteen of this Act to any point or place of deposit or dis-
charge in any harbor or navigable water, elsewhere than within the
limits defined and permitted by the Secretary of War, or who shall will-
fully injure or destroy any work of the United States contemplated in
section fourteen of this Act, or who shall willfully obstruct the chan-
nel of any waterway in the manner contemplated in section fifteen
of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this Act, and shall
upon conviction be punished as hereinbefore provided in this section,
and shall also have his license revoked or suspended for a term to be
fixed by the judge before whom tried and convicted. And any boat,
vessel, scow, raft, or other craft used or employed in violating any of
the provisions of sections thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen of this Act
shall be liable for the pecuniary penalties specified in this section,
and in addition thereto for the amount of the damages done by said
boat, vessel, scow, raft, or other craft, which latter sum shall be
placed to the credit of the appropriation for the improvement of the
harbor or waterway in which the damage occurred, and said boat,
vessel, scow, raft, or other craft may be proceeded against summarily
by way of libel in any district court of the United States having
jurisdiction thereof.
[p. 1153]
-------
38 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.le(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS
H.K. REP. No. 1826, 55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899)
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL
JANUARY 24, 1899.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BURTON, from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 11795]
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, having had under consid-
eration House bill 11795, file the same, and respectfully report
thereon:
The amount appropriated for rivers and harbors in House bill
11795, filed herewith, for expenditures during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1900, is $12,509,648.94. This amount includes provision for
surveys and sundry expenses described in section 2, amounting to
$200,000. The bill also authorizes expenditures aggregating $770,000,
the payment of which is made contingent on the accomplishing of
certain results. The greater share of this latter amount is not likely
to become payable until after June 30, 1900.
!{: * % % % % *
[P. 1]
l.le(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 1686, 55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899)
RIVER AND HARBOR BILL
FEBRUARY 18, 1899.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. FRYE, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11795]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
11795) making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preser-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
39
vation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes, submit the following report, giving such information in
respect to each item in the bill as is considered necessary to an
understanding of its merits:
The bill as it came to the Senate appropriated the sum of $12,509,-
684.94 for expenditures during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900;
authorized expenditures aggregating $770,000, payment of which was
made contingent on the accomplishing of certain results; and author-
ized continuing contracts for the completion of certain improvements
to be paid for by future appropriations amounting to $17,110,538.70.
The grand total of the bill as it came from the House was therefore
$30,390,187.64.
*******
[p. 1]
l.le(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2815-16, 55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899)
Mr. FRYE. The last dozen leaves have
been simply a renumbering of the sec-
tions made necessary by changes in the
bill—section 11 changed to 12, and 9 to
14, and so on. It has nothing to do with
the bill other than that.
The Secretary resumed and concluded
the reading of the report, which is as
follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (HR.
11795) making appropriations for the con-
struction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses
as follows:
*****
[p. 2815]
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 253, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows- In lieu of the words
"Sec. 13," being the first words inserted by
the amendment, insert the words "Sec. 10;"
and the Senate agree to the same.
*****
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 256, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the words
"Sec. 16," inserted by the amendment, insert
the words "Sec. 13;" and the Senate agree to
the same.
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 259, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the words
"Sec. 19," being the first words inserted by
the amendment, insert the words "Sec. 16."
[p. 2816]
l.le(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 32 (1899)
l.le(4)(a) Feb. 1, 2: Debated, amended and passed House, pp. 1350,
1354,1356-1357,1410
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into Com-
mittee of the Whole for the further con-
sideration of the river and harbor
appropriation bill.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly
-------
40
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the House resolved itself into Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union,
Mr. HOPKINS in the chair, for the further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 11795),
making appropriations for the construc-
tion, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and
for other purposes.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, this
country is entering upon an era of com-
mercial expansion. The vast amount of
our exports, as well as their excess over
our imports, is a marvel to the com-
mercial world. To take advantage of this
situation, to reap its full benefits, nothing
is more urgent than the improvement of
our rivers and harbors so that the
products of the farm, the forest, the mine,
and the factory may be carried to the
sea, and then loaded into ships in deep-
water harbors to be taken to other por-
tions of the world. The question arises
how shall this work be done, for we
must realize that not to go forward is to
go backward.
As I pointed out in some remarks made
in this House in April, 1896, two distinct
methods have been employed for the im-
provement of rivers and harbors. The
first is to leave their improvement to the
municipalities most interested and to
private enterprise. The second is to have
the General Government undertake this
task. The best illustrations of these dif-
ferent methods will be found in the lines
of policy adopted by Great Britain and
by France. In Great Britain the first
method is employed. Enormous im-
provements have been made on the
Tyne, the Mersey, the Clyde, and the
Thames, that on the Tyne alone costing
$20,000,000, and the others much more,
the money being supplied by private
companies and by municipalities. In the
scope of these enterprises is included not
only improvements in channels, but also
the construction of wharves and docks.
The other method is that employed in
France. The General Government
undertakes the improvement of rivers
and harbors. From the year 1814 until
the present time France has expended
$800,000,000 in the improvement of har-
bors and rivers and the construction of
canals—two and a half times as much as
the total amount expended in this coun-
try for similar purposes, the amount
expended in this country being about
$320,000,000. This is true, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the Republic of France
is not equal in area to a single State of
this Union—the State of Texas. Be-
tween these two methods we must
choose; between these two methods we
have chosen. For three-quarters of a
century the General Government has
undertaken the improvement of rivers
and harbors, and I make bold to say that
no appropriations made by the United
States Government have conferred so
general a benefit upon the people of the
United States.
The committee in the consideration of
this bill have had presented to them
recommendations for projects for the im-
provement of rivers and harbors aggre-
gating $200,000,000; yet the amount
carried in this bill is a little in excess of
$30,000,000. The appropriations for dif-
ferent years are briefly explained in the
report filed with the bill. In view of the
great disparity between the amount
appropriated ($30,000,000) and the total
amount recommended ($200,000,000) it
will appear that our task has been one
of selection. We have rejected five-
sixths and appropriated for one-sixth.
In framing the bill the committee have
endeavored to follow certain principles.
The committee have sought to make
provision for increased improvements
where commerce now exists rather than
to undertake new projects where the
benefit conferred would be problematical
or where the expense would be out of
proportion to the probable benefit.
Second. We have thought it best, so
far as possible, to push projects to com-
pletion and to avoid piecemeal appropri-
ations. Even if there were a number of
projects before us of equal importance,
it seems best to select one and complete
that, rather than make dribbling ap-
propriations, the results of which would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
41
not be beneficial and the amounts for
which would not be expended eco-
nomically.
We have also omitted from the bill
provisions for improvements, whether
now under way or recently proposed,
where it did not seem to us that the
benefits conferred would be in due pro-
portion to the amount required.
*****
The committee have been unable to
see the propriety of expending large
amounts for harbors where navigation
does not exist.
Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Chairman, the
first river and harbor bill of which I
have had any individual knowledge was
passed only seventeen years ago. That
was before the days of combinations in
the passage of these measures. That bill
carried about $7,000,000. We have gone
on under the new method that shortly
afterwards was inaugurated until now,
this year, we shall have an expenditure,
or will authorize an expenditure, of
$42,000,000. Twelve million dollars—
nearly $13,000,000—of expenditures this
year are not recognized or to be found
in this bill. The friends of this class of
extravagant expenditure adopted a few
years ago the ingenious method of cover-
ing up some portion of the expenditures
by dividing the amount and putting a
part in the sundry civil bill, where the
grand aggregate could not so readily be
recognized.
I want to say at the very outset, as I
have said before, that I shall make no
opposition to the legitimate and proper
expenditure of the public money for the
purpose of improving rivers and harbors
that will contribute to facilitating the
commerce of this country. The great
rivers, the great harbors, ought to be the
objects of the solicitude of the Govern-
ment and ought to be improved. What
I object to is the ulterior purposes that
are always covered in greater or less
degree in the river and harbor bill of
later days.
[p. 1354]
Mr. BALL. Mr. Chairman, those of us
who are serving on the Rivers and Har-
bors Committee may perhaps, in our
zeal to produce water competition and
thereby regulate railroad transportation,
sometimes make mistakes and give ap-
propriations where they ought not to go
or where they are not altogether de-
sirable.
*****
[p. 1356]
Mr. HAWLEY. * * *
I believe that the improvement of the
great rivers and harbors—and some of
the lesser rivers and lesser harbors, if
you will—has contributed to that enor-
mous increase in foreign business as
much as any other element in the
progress had development of all the busi-
ness that we now control in foreign
lands. But a measure of this kind should
be undertaken advisedly. It should be
done upon the recommendation and
under the control and with the approba-
tion of that branch of our Government
to which we have always been expected
to look for guidance and direction in
every proposition for developing our
rivers and harbors.
[p. 1357]
Mr. CURTIS of Iowa. I move the
adoption of the conference report.
The report was considered, and agreed
to.
[p. 1410]
l.le(4)(b) Feb. 23, 24: Debated, amended and passed Senate, p. 2297
Mr. CHANDLER. I wish to ask the
Senator whether there is any change
made in the existing law by the amend-
ments?
Mr. FRYE. Very slight changes to
remove ambiguities. I have here a letter
from Colonel Mackenzie, who under-
stands the laws about rivers and harbors
-------
42
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and understands rivers and harbors bet-
ter than any man living, and I propose
to have that placed in the RECORD.
Mr. PETTIGREW. Is it in regard to
these amendments?
Mr. FRYE. It is.
Mr. PETTIGREW. Let it be read.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secre-
tary will read as requested.
The Secretary read as follows:
In addition to the matter above referred to
I beg to invite your attention to the following:
In accordance with the direction of Con-
gress in section 2 of the river and harbor act
of June 3, 1896, the compilation of all general
laws that had been enacted from time to time
by Congress for the maintenance, preserva-
tion, and protection of navigable waters of the
United States was prepared and submitted to
Congress, together with a draft of an act em-
bodying such provisions and enlargements of
the aforesaid laws as the experience of this
office had shown to be advantageous to the
public interests. The draft submitted covered
every subject embraced in the existing laws
with two exceptions, and was printed in House
Document No. 293, Fifty-fourth Congress,
second session, a copy of which is inclosed.
This proposed act I believe to be clear from
ambiguity, and better adapted to serve the
interests of commerce and navigation than
the laws in their present form. The proposed
act has 13 sections, the last 3 of which (sec-
tions 11 to 13) were incorporated by the
House Committee on Rivers and Harbors in
the pending bill. (See sections 6 and 7 of
H.R. 11795.)
In my opinion it would be to the public in-
terest to incorporate in the bill the remaining
10 sections of the proposed act, and I can con-
ceive of no objection thereto, as these sections
contain no new matter, but simply revise and
make clearer and more definite laws that have
been already enacted.
Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed act are
intended to replace section 7 of the act of
September 19, 1890, as amended by section 3
of the act of July 13, 1892, and I beg to invite
your attention to the accompanying brief,
giving special reasons why this particular
law should be revised and amended.
Very respectfully,
A. MACKENZIE,
Lieutenant-Colonel, Corps of Engineers.
Mr. PETTIGREW. I do not like to
object, but I think this is a dangerous
precedent. It seems to me we are en-
acting an entire revision of these laws.
Mr. FRYE. Oh, no. There are not ten
words changed in the entire thirteen sec-
tions. It is a compilation. The Senator
understands that these laws have been
passed in this way: A section in a river
and harbor act fifty years ago, another
one forty years ago, another one twenty
years ago, another one later, and so on
down. We put a provision in the last
river and harbor act to codify those laws.
The Department have codified them, and
in their careful examination during the
codification they found two or three of
them, relating principally to impedi-
ments placed in harbors and things of
that kind, which required to be changed,
as to just a word or two, because the
Attorneys-General had rendered differ-
ent decisions in regard to the effect of
the law.
It seems to me there is no necessity of
reading them. I will state further, as I
said before, that I examined them my-
self. I then had them referred to a
subcommittee of the Committee on
Commerce to go over them carefully, and
the subcommittee reported that they
were all right.
Mr. NELSON. I wish to say to the
Senator from South Dakota that I care-
fully examined these amendments, and
if the Senator will look at the sheets he
will see that they are all printed por-
tions of the statutes, nearly every word.
There is no material change in the law.
It simply puts them all into one body
instead of having them scattered. I took
special pains especially to see whether
they interfered with existing structures
and bridges and navigation, and they do
not.
Mr. PETTIGREW. Of course, none of
those statements satisfies my objection.
It appears that we have a codification of
these laws, and it is proposed to bring
them in here—
Mr. FRYE. If there is any objection,
let the amendment be read. I ask those
who favor this bill to stay here to-night
and pass it. That is all.
Mr. PETTIGREW. I have not said that
I would raise an objection, neither have
I yielded the floor to the Senator from
Maine.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
43
Mr. FRYE. I beg the Senator's pardon.
I ought to have addressed the Chair in
proper form, but I am getting a bit tired.
Mr. PETTIGREW. The Senator has
committed the same offense again. I did
not yield the floor, and neither did the
Senator from Maine address the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GAL-
LINGER in the chair). The Senator from
South Dakota is entitled to the floor.
Mr. PETTIGREW. I do not know how
important this legislation is. I have
great confidence in the Senator from
Maine and the Senator from Minnesota,
but it seems to me a bad precedent that
we should codify the laws upon this
subject, bring it in here at the last min-
ute, at the end of the day, and without
reading it, without having it printed and
laid upon our desks, without any chance
to consider or think about it, practically
knowing nothing about it, put it through
as an amendment to an appropriation
bill. But there are so many awful things
in this bill now that I do not think you
can possibly make it much worse, and
I will not object, for the reason that I
believe this will be another reason why
the other House will never let the bill
see daylight after they get hold of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment proposed by the Senator from
Maine [Mr. FRYE].
The amendment was agreed to, as
follows:
SEC. 13. That the creation of any obstruc-
tion not affirmatively authorized by Congress
to the navigable capacity of any of the waters
of the United States is hereby prohibited, and
it shall not be lawful to build or commence
the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin,
boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or
other structures in any port, roadstead, haven,
harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water
of the United States outside established har-
bor lines, or where no harbor lines have been
established, except on plans recommended by
the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the
Secretary of War, and it shall not be lawful
to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter
or modify the course, location, condition, or
capacity of any port, roadstead, haven, harbor,
canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or inclosure
within the limits of any breakwater, or of
the channel of any navigable water of the
United States, unless the work has been
recommended by the Chief of Engineers and
authorized by the Secretary of War prior Lo
beginning the same.
SEC. 14. That where it is made manifest to
the Secretary of War that the establishment
of harbor lines is essential to the preservation
and protection of harbors he may and is
hereby authorized to cause such lines to be
established, beyond which no piers, wharves,
bulkheads, or other works shall be extended
or deposits made, except under such regula-
tions as may be prescribed from time to dme
by him: Provided, That whenever the Secre-
tary of War grants to any person or persons
permission to extend piers, wharves, bulk-
heads, or other works, or to make deposits in
any tidal harbor or river of the United States
beyond any harbor lines established under
authority of the United States, he shall cause
to be ascertained the amount of tide water
displaced by any such structure or by any
such deposits, and he shall, if he deem it
necessary, require the parties to whom the
permission is given to make compensation for
such displacement either by excavating in
some part of the harbor, including tide-water
channels between high and low water mark,
to such an extent as to create a basin for as
much tide water as may be displaced by
such structure or by such deposits, or in any
other mode that may be satisfactory to him.
SEC. 16. That it shall not be lawful to throw,
discharge, or deposit, or cause, suffer, or pro-
cure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited
either from or out of any ship, barge, or other
floating craft of any kind, or from the shore,
wharf, manufacturing establishment, or
mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any
kind or description whatever other than that
flowing from streets and sewers and passing
therefrom in a liquid state, into any navi-
gable water of the United States, or into any
tributary of any navigable water from which
the same shall float or be washed into such
navigable water, and it shall not be lawful
to deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be
deposited material of any kind in any place
on the bank of any navigable water, or on the
bank of any tributary of any navigable water,
where the same shall be liable to be washed
into such navigable water, either by ordinary
or high tides, or by storms, or floods, or
otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may
be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That
nothing herein contained shall extend to,
apply to, or prohibit the operations in con-
nection with the improvement of navigable
waters or construction of public works, con-
sidered necessary and proper by the United
States officers supervising such improvement
-------
44
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or public work: And provided further, That
the Secretary of War, whenever in the judg-
ment of the Chief of Engineers anchorage and
navigation will not be injured thereby, may
permit the deposit of any material above
mentioned in navigable waters, within limits
to be denned and under conditions to be
prescribed by him, provided application is
made to him prior to depositing such mate-
rial; and whenever any permit is so granted
the conditions thereof shall be strictly com-
plied with, and any violation thereof shall
be unlawful.
[p. 2297]
l.le(4)(c) March 3: Senates agrees to conference report, pp. 2815-2816,
2843
The Secretary resumed and concluded
the reading of the report, which is as
follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
11795) making appropriations for the con-
struction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
[p. 2815]
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 253, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the words
"Sec. 13," being the first words inserted by
the amendment, insert the words "Sec. 10;"
and the Senate agree to the same.
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 256, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the words
"Sec. 16," inserted by the amendment, insert
the words "Sec. 13;" and the Senate agree to
the same.
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 259, and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In lieu of the words
"Sec. 19," being the first words inserted by
the amendment, insert the words "Sec. 16;"
in the third and fourth lines of the language
inserted by the amendment strike out the
words "sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen" and
insert in lieu thereof the words "thirteen,
fourteen, and fifteen;" in the sixteenth line
strike out the word "sixteen" and insert in
lieu thereof the word "thirteen;" in the
twentieth line strike out the word "seventeen"
and insert in lieu thereof the word "four-
teen;" in the twenty-second line strike out
the word "eighteen" and insert in lieu thereof
the word "fifteen;" in the twenty-ninth line
strike out the words "sixteen, seventeen, and
eighteen" and insert the words "thirteen,
fourteen, and fifteen;" and the Senate agree
to the same.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 2816]
[p. 2843]
l.le(4)(d) March 3: House agrees to conference report, p. 2923
RIVER AND HARBOR APPROPRIATION BILL.
Mr. BURTON. The message just
received from the Senate informs us that
that body has agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the river and
harbor appropriation bill. I present on
behalf of the House conferees the same
report, and move that the House agree
to it. As the report is somewhat lengthy,
I ask unanimous consent that the read-
ing be dispensed with, except the por-
tion pertaining to the Nicaragua Canal
amendment, so called, which perhaps the
House would like to hear. I ask also
that the statement prepared by the
House conferees may be read.
The statement was read, as follows:
The bill as now agreed upon and presented
also includes a codification of existing laws
pertaining to rivers and harbors, though con-
taining no essential changes in the existing
law.
[p. 2293]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 45
l.lf SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1971
January 8, 1971, P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 1981
AN ACT
Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, 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 following
sums are appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, to supply supplemental appropriations (this Act
may be cited as the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1971") for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, namely:
*******
[p. 1981]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
For an additional amount for "General Investigations," $300,000,
to remain available until expended.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL
For an additional amount for "Operation and Maintenance, Gen-
eral," $1,000,000, to remain available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
POLLUTION CONTROL OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
For an additional amount for "Pollution control operations and
research" for expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224),
$21,400,000.
[p. 1992]
-------
46 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.lf(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
H.R. REP. No. 91-1668, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1971
DECEMBER 9, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19928]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report
in explanation of the accompanying bill making supplemental ap-
propriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, and for other
purposes.
tp. 1]
CHAPTER VIII
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $20,400,000 to
implement during the balance of the current fiscal year the provisions
of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224)
approved April 3, 1970. These funds are required to carry out new
and expanded responsibilities imposed by the Act, including the
control of oil and hazardous materials pollution, control of vessel
wastes, control and acid mine wastes, pesticides control, lake pollu-
tion, certification of Federal licenses and permits, and manpower
training.
The Committee expects that the additional funds being provided
will be carefully programed so as to avoid any duplication with re-
lated work being undertaken by other agencies and that every effort
will be made to fully utilize the facilities and capabilities of these
agencies.
The supplemental, together with available funds of $98.6 million,
will provide a total of $119.0 million under this appropriation for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 47
water pollution control operations and research activities during the
current fiscal year.
[p. 38]
l.lf(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
S. KEF. No. 91-1430, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1971
DECEMBER 11,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19928]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill
(H.R. 19928) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, reports the same to the
Senate with various amendments and presents herewith information
relative to the changes recommended:
*******
[p. 1]
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL
The Refuse Act of 1899 makes it illegal to throw, discharge, or
deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or
deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft
of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, manufacturing establishment or
mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description, what-
ever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing
therefrom in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United
States, or into any tributary of any navigable water from which the
same shall float or be washed into such navigable water.
Previously, this Act was interpreted to require permits for dis-
charges carrying suspended material which could bscoms obstructive
to navigation.
Recent court decisions and the import of the Fish and Wildlife
-------
48 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Coordination Act, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, and
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 have all stressed the
urgency of a more literal application of the law.
On July 30, 1970, the Corps of Engineers announced new permit
requirements which include all industrial discharges into navigable
waters and their tributaries. The committee, therefore, recommends
$2,000,000 to implement the revised permit requirements under the
Refuse Act of 1899.
[p. 33]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
POLLUTION CONTROL OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
1970 Appropriation $86,382,000
1971 Appropriation (regular act) 98,618,000
Supplemental request (H. Doc. No. 382) 20,400,000
House allowance 20,400,000
Committee recommendation 23,400,000
The committee recommends $23,400,000, which is $3,000,000 above
the budget estimate and the amount allowed by the House.
The funds recommended will implement, during the balance of the
current fiscal year, the provisions of the Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224) approved April 3, 1970. These
funds are required to carry out the new and expanded responsibilities
imposed on the Federal Water Quality Administration by the Act,
including control of acid mine wastes, control of oil and hazardous
materials pollution, control of vessel wastes, pesticides control, lake
pollution, certification of federal licenses and permits, and manpower
training.
The increase of $3,000,000 over the budget estimate and the
amount allowed by the House will permit increased effort in the
control of acid mine wastes, providing a total of $6,500,000 for this
purpose. Within the increased amount allowed, the committee desires
that $1,000,000 be earmarked for study and demonstration on the
Monongahela River. It is desired that such a study explore the eco-
nomic development potential for the Monongahela River Basin which
would result from the abatement of acid mine wastes. Because of
their expertise in the field of economic development, it is desired that
[p. 34]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 49
the portion of the study and demonstration relating to the potential
economic development be carried on under the direction of the
Appalachian Regional Development Commission.
[p. 35]
l.lf(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1794,91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1971
DECEMBER 22, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MAHON, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19928]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 19928)
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, and for other purposes, having mst, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses as follows:
*******
[p. 1]
CHAPTER IX—PUBLIC WORKS
*******
Amendment No. 53: Reported in technical disagreement. The
managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment, with an amendment appropriating
$1,000,000 for Corps of Engineers—Civil, Operation and Maintenance,
General, instead of $2,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. In addition,
the conferees direct that $1,000,000 be allocated from available funds
to provide a total of $2,000,000 to finance 200 additional positions for
the balance of the current fiscal year to implement the revised permit
requirements under the Refuse Act of 1899 pertaining to industrial
discharges into navigable waters and their tributaries.
Amendment No. 54: Appropriates $21,400,000 for Enviromental
Protection Agency, Pollution Control Operations and Research, in-
-------
50
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
stead of $20,400,000 as proposed by the House and $23,400,000 as
proposed by the Senate. The increase over the House bill amount is
for study and demonstration of methods for the elimination and con-
trol of acid and other mine water pollution in the Monongahela River
Basin. The portion of the study and demonstration relating to the
potential economic development in the Basin shall ba carried on under
the direction of the Appalachian Regional Development Commission.
[p. 10]
l.lf(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
l.lf(4)(a) Dec. 10: Passed House, p. 40926
* * * * * * *
These and various other items representing the bulk of the total
new budget authority recommended in the bill are as follows:
New budget authority
Budget Recommended
estimates in bill
Water pollution control and research 20,400,000 20,400,000
[p. 40926]
l.lf(4)(b) Dec. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 41317, 41322-
41323, 41330
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia.
* * * * *
Under Operation and Maintenance of
the Corps of Engineers, the committee
recommended the sum of $2,000,000,
authorized by the Refuse Act of 1899.
Under the Federal Water Quality
Administration, an additional sum over
the House bill of $3,000,000 is recom-
mended to permit increased efforts in the
control of acid mine wastes, and within
the sum allowed the committee desires
that $1,000,000 be earmarked for study
and demonstration on the Monongahela
River.
[p. 41317]
Mr. HART.
Also, Mr. President, I was pleased to
note that the committee added $2 mil-
lion for the Corps of Engineers for the
administration of the 1899 Refuse Act.
This action is to be applauded as a
potentially vital step in the fight against
water pollution. By approving the ac-
tion, the Congress can finally breathe life
into a statute which has lain dormant for
years but whose value as a pollution
control weapon is now generally rec-
ognized.
The Refuse Act by requiring that no
waste—with the exception of sewage—
be dumped into navigable waters of the
United States without a permit from the
Corps of Engineers, provides the Fed-
eral Government with an effective
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
51
preclearance mechanism for waste dis-
charges. It further provides a valuable
means for inventorying that which is
dumped into our waters. These mecha-
nisms can operate, however, only if the
Corps is given adequate funds to pass on
permit applications and to insure that
those who do not willingly apply are
made to do so. Two million dollars is
the figure which the Corps itself says is
necessary to initiate efforts to enforce
the act effectively. It is my sincere hope
that the Congress will accept the com-
mittee's recommendation and approve
additional funding in that amount.
*****
[p. 41322]
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I am grateful to the able Sen-
ator from Michigan for his comments.
*****
I also want to express appreciation to
him for calling to the attention of the
committee the need for $2 million for
the Army Corps of Engineers for en-
forcement of the Refuse Act of 1899. But
for the attention that was given to this
matter by the able Senator from Mich-
igan, the subcommittee would not have
acted as it did in appropriating the $2
million which will constitute full fund-
ing for 6 months in connection with this
item.
[p. 41323]
Mr. NELSON.
*****
The $11,885,000 for the four new pol-
lution control research programs breaks
down as follows: $1,985,000 is for inland
lake pollution control demonstration
projects; $5,100,000 is for projects to
develop oil spill control technology;
$1,300,000 is for development of vessel
waste control systems, and $3,500,000 is
for a 2-year pesticide study and criteria
development, an effort directed by an
amendment I introduced last year that
was included in the Water Quality
Improvement Act.
Altogether, $59,166,000 would be ap-
propriated of the $65 million authorized
for all of section 5—the Federal Govern-
ment's water pollution control research
and development program—if Congress
appropriates the supplemental budget
request.
Were we not almost halfway into the
fiscal year, I do not believe there is any
question that the full authorization for
each of these efforts could easily be used.
And in view of the pressing nature of
each of these four pollution problems, I
believe it is essential that a thorough
review be undertaken by the next Con-
gress as to whether even the full $65
million level at present authorized is
enough. For instance, a bill introduced
by, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
MONDALE) , which I have cosponsored,
would authorize a badly-needed Fed-
eral effort to help save our deteriorating
inland lakes, and hopefully such a pro-
gram will soon be initiated.
And putting an end to pesticide pol-
lution of our lakes and riverways, de-
veloping the technology to avoid the
massive marine environment disasters
we are seeing from offshore oil well drill-
ing and tanker transportation, stopping
the dumping of sewage and other wastes
into our harbors and waterways from
vessels are all also grave pollution
control challenges which necessitate
top priority attention by the Federal
Government.
Also, in its justification for requesting
only $815,000 this year to begin the new
Great Lakes pollution cleanup demon-
stration effort authorized by the Water
Quality Improvement Act, the adminis-
tration spells out a 5-year plan for the
program. A total of $20 million is au-
thorized for this effort by the April act.
In view of the monumental problems
these priceless resources face, it is
important that the 5-year schedule be
rigidly adhered to and that the next
Congress consider whether the $20 mil-
lion authorization should not be signifi-
cantly increased.
[p. 41330]
-------
52 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
l.lf(4)(c) Dec. 22: House agrees to conference report, p. 43391
1 =
o o
s§
jj Q)
III
o o
o o"
o o
d o
O o
o o
o o
o" o
O o
,:>
± gf
s*i
§
5 9 B1
I i t:
Q. — ^~~
s
0 £ o- " o) c o
^ fc ra
c S Q «J c __-
1 £ ~ g s
IS E i £
TO O) ™
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
53
l.lf(4)(d) Dec. 28: Senate agrees to conference report, pp. 43706,
43709
o o
s§
O) —
> £3
O i+_
o o
o o
o o
I
If
r** _
CT) )—
rt CO
11
W 00
.£ >*
• T; •*?
i|!f I
J.S •£
His
a
QJ
C
X~
-------
54
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia.
*****
Under Corps of Engineers, general in-
vestigations, the conferees agreed to the
Senate amendment in the amount of
$300,000, of which $100,000 is for the ini-
tiation of a comprehensive 3-year study
of the Long Island Sound and $200,000
is for preliminary investigation and de-
sign necessary to correct seepage and
drainage problems in the vicinity of
Caving Point Dam and Clark Lake
project located in Nebraska and South
Dakota.
Under operation and maintenance,
general, to implement the revised permit
requirements under the Refuse Act of
1899, which include all industrial dis-
charges into navigable waters and their
tributaries, the conferees compromised
on $1,000,000 in new obligational author-
ity as being sufficient for the balance of
the fiscal year. In addition, the confer-
ees directed in the report that another
$1,000,000 may be allocated from avail-
able funds, thus providing a total of
$2,000,000 for the current fiscal year.
For the pollution control operations
and research activity under the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, an appropria-
tion of $21,400,000 was settled on, which
will provide funds to carry out the new
and expanded responsibilities imposed
within the agency, in the amount of
$20,400,000, and, in addition, $1,000,000
was provided for a study to explore the
economic development potential for the
Monongahela River Basin, resulting
from abatement of acid mine wastes.
[p. 43709]
-------
1.2 THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
AS AMENDED
33 U.S.C. §1151 et seq. (1970)
Parallel Citations
Statutes At Large § 33 U.S.C. § Statutes At Large § S3 U.S.C. §
1 1151 14 1164
2 1152 15 1165
3 1153 16 1166
4 1154 17 1167
5 1155 18 1168
6 1156 19 1169
7 1157 20 1170
8 1158 21 1171
9 1159 22 1172
10 1160 23 1173
11 1161 24 1174
12 1162 26 1175
13 1163
Sec.
1151. Congressional declaration of policy in controlling water pollution;
right of States to waters.
1152. Federal Water Quality Administration; establishment; appointment
and compensation of head; professional, technical, and clerical
assistance; delegation of authority.
1153. Comprehensive water pollution programs.
(a) Preparation or development of programs; cooperation with
other agencies.
(b) Storage for regulation of streamflow; water quality control;
costs.
(c) Grants for administrative expenses of planning agencies;
comprehensive pollution control and abatement plans for
basins.
1154. Interstate cooperation; uniform State laws; State compacts; con-
sent of Congress to compacts.
1155. Research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies.
(a) Authorization; powers and duties of Secretary.
(b) Specific problems of water pollution.
(c) Collection and dissemination of basic data on chemical, physi-
cal, and biological water quality.
(d) Municipal sewage and other waterborne wastes; effects of
pollutants on water uses; evaluation of effects on water
quality and water uses of augmented streamflows.
(e) Field laboratory and research facilities.
(f) Waters of the Great Lakes; research and technical develop-
ment work.
(g) Cooperative agreements for pilot programs of manpower de-
velopment and training for operation and maintenance of
treatment works and related activities; agreements to de-
velop and maintain system for forecasting personnel sup-
ply and demand in water pollution programs; grants, con-
55
-------
56 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Sec.
tracts, research fellowships, and programs for training
projects; report to Congress; contents.
(h) Contracts or grants for developing and demonstrating methods
of, and construction of research facilities for, preventing,
removing, and controlling pollution in lakes.
(i) Research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations in re-
moval of oil from water and prevention and control of oil
pollution; publication of results; authority to contract
or grant.
(j) Research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations of human
body waste equipment installed on vessels; report to Con-
gress; authority to contract or grant.
(k) Acquisition of land and interests therein for demonstration
projects, field laboratories, and research facilities; valuation
of properties.
(1) Release to States of scientific knowledge of effects from
presence of pesticides in water for adoption of standards;
pesticide release control study for implementation of stand-
ards ; report to Congress.
(m) Study of effects of pollution; including sedimentation, in
estuaries and estuarine zones of United States on fish and
wildlife, sport and commercial fishing; recreation, water
supply and water power, and other beneficial purposes; re-
port to the Congress; authorization of appropriations.
(n) Authorization of appropriations.
1156. Grants for research and development.
(a) Grants for improvements in disposal method into waters of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or improve-
ments in waste treatment and water purification.
(b) Authorization of grants for research and projects to prevent
pollution of waters by industry.
(c) Limitations on grants for projects to improve sewage disposal
methods, and waste treatment and water purification.
(d) Limitations on grants for projects to prevent industrial water
pollution.
(e) Appropriation of funds.
1157. Grants for water pollution control programs.
(a) Authorization of appropriation.
(b) Specification of sums appropriated for grants to interstate
agencies and to States.
(c) Allotments to States.
(d) Payment to States of amount equivalent to Federal share of
cost of carrying out State plan.
(e) Allotments to interstate agencies; payment of amount equiva-
lent to Federal share of cost of carrying out plan.
(f) Approval of State or interstate plans; notice and hearing.
(g) Failure to comply with requirements of plan; cessation of
payments after notice and hearing; review of action of
Secretary.
(h) Amount of Federal shares; promulgation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 57
Sec.
(i) Determination of population of States.
(j) Method of computation and payment of allotments.
1158. Grants for construction of sewerage treatment works.
(a) Authorization.
(b) Limitations.
(c) Determination of desirability of projects and of approving
Federal financial aid; allotment of funds; determination of
population and per capita income.
(d) Authorization of appropriations.
(e) Method of payment; inclusion of preliminary planning in
construction.
(f) Increased grants for urban planning; definition of metropoli-
tan area.
(g) Rates of wages for laborers and mechanics.
1159. Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
(a) Establishment; composition; term of office of members; com-
pensation.
(b) Duties.
(c) Clerical and technical assistance.
1160. Enforcement measures against pollution of interstate or navigable
waters.
(a) Pollution of waters subject to abatement.
(b) Encouragement of State and interstate action.
(c) Water quality standards; procedure for establishment; con-
siderations governing establishment; approval or modifica-
tion by Hearing Board; violations.
(d) Notification of pollution; conference of State and interstate
agencies; notice of conference date; summary of conference
discussions.
(e) Recommendation of Secretary to State Agency to take remedial
action.
(f) Failure to take remedial action; public hearing; appointment
of Board; notice of hearing; findings and recommendations;
action of Secretary; requests for reports from persons whose
alleged activities result in discharges causing or con-
tributing to water pollution; failure to file report; for-
feiture; prosecution.
(g) Action on behalf of United States to secure abatement of the
pollution.
(h) Evidence; jurisdiction of court.
(i) Per diem allowances for members of Hearing Boards.
(j) Definitions.
(k) Requests for reports from persons whose alleged activities
result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollu-
tion; failure to file report; forfeiture; prosecution.
1161. Control of pollution by oil.
(a) Definitions.
(b) Congressional declaration of policy; prohibition against dis-
charge of oil; exceptions; rules and regulations; deter-
mination of harmful quantities of discharged oil; notifica-
-------
58 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Sec.
tion of United States of discharge of oil; penalties for
failure to notify; procedure for imposition of civil penal-
ties for knowingly discharging oil; withholding of clearance.
(c) National Contingency Plan for removal of discharged oil; pro-
visions; revisions; compliance.
(d) Marine disasters; creation of a substantial threat of a
pollution hazard; removal or elimination of pollution haz-
ard; removal or destruction of vessel; employment of
personnel; expenses.
(e) Action by United States attorney to abate actual or threat-
ened discharge of oil from an onshore or offshore facility;
jurisdiction; nature of relief.
(f) Liability of owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility for discharge of oil; exceptions; amount of
liability; procedure for recovery.
(g) Proof by owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility of liability of third party for discharge of oil;
exceptions to third party liability; amount of liability; pro-
cedure for recovery.
(h) Preservation of rights of owner or operator of vessel, on-
shore facility, or offshore facility, or United States against
any third party.
(i) Removal by owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility of discharged oil; suit against United
States for recovery of reasonable cost of removal; applica-
bility to Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; payment of
judgment.
(j) Issuance of rules and regulations consistent with the National
Contingency plan; compliance; imposition of civil penalties
for violations; amount.
(k) Authorization of appropriations.
(1) Administration of oil pollution control; delegation of authority
by President; availability of appropriations; utilization of
personnel, services, and facilities.
(m) Enforcement of provisions.
(n) Jurisdiction and venue.
(o) Existing liability for damages for oil discharge or removal
not affected or modified; power of State or political sub-
division thereof to impose requirements or liabilities for oil
discharge not preempted; existing Federal, State, or local
authority or law not affected or modified.
(p) Financial responsibility of vessels; amount; establishment;
effective date; administration of provisions; claim for costs
against insurer; study and report on need for financial re-
sponsibility of vessels, and onshore and offshore facilities.
1162. Control of pollution by hazardous substances.
(a) Rules and regulations; designation of hazardous substances;
recommendations of methods and means for removal.
(b) Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act.
(c) Notice to appropriate agency of United States of discharge of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 59
Sec.
hazardous substance from vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility.
(d) Removal of discharged hazardous substance hy owner or
operator of vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility;
removal pursuant to authority of President.
(e) Liability of owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility for damages to publicly- or privately-
owned property from discharge or removal of hazardous
substances.
(f) Definitions.
(g) Report to Congress; recommendations for legislation; areas
of study; consultations with interested persons.
(h) Availability of appropriations; utilization of Federal per-
sonnel, service, and facilities.
1163. Control of sewage from vessels.
(a) Definitions.
(b) Promulgation of Federal standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices; factors determinative of standards;
rules and regulations; compliance by existing vessels equip-
ped with marine sanitation devices with standards and
regulations.
(c) Effective dates of standards and regulations; waiver of ap-
plicability of standards and regulations.
(d) Vessels subject to standards and regulations; exceptions.
(e) Consultations; compliance with rule making requirements.
(f) State or local regulation of design, manufacture, installation,
or use of any marine sanitation device; prohibition against
sewage discharge into certain State waters.
(g) Sale of marine sanitation devices; necessity of certification;
procedure; inspection and disclosure of records, reports, and
information required to insure compliance.
(h) Unlawful acts.
(i) Actions to restrain unlawful acts; jurisdiction; parties; en-
forcement of subpenas.
(j) Civil penalties; amount; procedure for assessment.
(k) Enforcement personnel and facilities.
(1) Authority of enforcement personnel to board and inspect ves-
sels and execute warrants.
(m) Venue.
1164. Acid and other mine water pollution elimination or control projects.
(a) Agreements to cooperate between Federal and State or inter-
state agencies in demonstration projects; development of
abatement techniques.
(b) Criteria for selection of watersheds for projects.
(c) Conditions to Federal participation in projects.
(d) Authorization of appropriations; limitation on amount of
grants to States.
1165. Great Lakes pollution elimination or control projects.
(a) Agreements to cooperate between Federal and State, local,
-------
60 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Sec.
interstate, or public agencies in demonstration projects; de-
velopment of abatement and remedial techniques.
(b) Conditions to Federal participation in projects.
(c) Authorization of appropriations.
1165a. Contained spoil disposal facilities.
(a) Construction, operation, and maintenance; period; conditions;
requirements,
(b) Time for establishment; consideration of area needs;
requirements.
(c) Written agreement requirement; terms of agreement.
(d) Waiver of construction costs contribution from non-Federal
interests; findings of participation in waste treatment fa-
cilities for general geographical area and compliance with
water quality standards.
(e) Federal payment of costs for disposal of dredged spoil from
project.
(f) Title to lands, easements, and rights-of-way: retention by
non-Federal interests; conveyance of facilities; agreement
of transferee.
(g) Federal licenses or permits; charges; remission of charge.
(h) Provisions applicable to Great Lakes and their connecting
channels.
(i) Research, study, and experimentation program relating to
dredged spoil extended to navigable waters, etc.; cooperative
program; scope of program; utilization of facilities and
personnel of Federal agency.
1166. Training grants to and contracts with institutions of higher educa-
tion for water quality control programs or projects.
1167. Application for training grant or contract; contents; allocation of
grants or contracts; compensations of employed students.
1168. Award of scholarships for undergraduate study of operation and
maintenance of treatment works; duration; allocation of
scholarships; approval of programs of institutions of higher1
education; payments to recipient of scholarship and to
institution of higher education; continuation of scholarship
payments; employment subsequent to graduation.
1169. Definitions; annual report by Secretary; authorization of appropria-
tions.
1170. Alaska village safe water and pollution elimination or control
projects.
(a) Agreements to cooperate between Secretary and State of
Alaska in demonstration projects; development of pre-
liminary plans.
(b) Utilization of personnel and facilities of Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
(c) Report to Congress.
(d) Authorization of appropriations.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 61
Sec.
1171. Cooperation by all Federal agencies in pollution control.
(a) Administration of Federal property consonant with applica-
ble water quality standards and pollution control programs;
summary of pollution conference, notice of hearing, and
findings and recommendations of hearing board concerning
alleged polluting discharges by Federal agencies.
(b) Issuance of Federal license or permit for activities resulting
in discharges into navigable waters of United States; pre-
requisities; certification procedures; procedure subsequent
to certification; compliance with applicable water quality
standards; inspection prior to initial operation of activity
by certifying body; suspension of license or permit; ap-
plicability to Federal agencies; effective dates of certifica-
tion requirements; lack of applicable water quality standards
for particular activities.
(e) Authority of departments or agencies to require compliance
with applicable water quality standards unaffected; re-
quests to Secretary for information on and methods to
comply with applicable water quality standards.
(d) Authority of Secretary of the Army to allow use of spoil
disposal areas by Federal licensees or permittees; fee.
1172. Administration.
(a) Rules and regulations.
(b) Utilization of personnel of other agencies.
(c) Appropriation to Department of the Interior.
(d) Records.
(e) Audit and examination of books, documents, etc.
(f) Official recognition by United States to industrial organiza-
tions and State political subdivisions for waste treatment
and pollution abatement programs; eligibility; awards; noti-
fication of President, etc. and publication in Federal
Register.
1173. Definitions.
1174, Application to other laws.
1175. Cost estimates, studies and analysis by Secretary; reports to
Congress.
§ 1151. Congressional declaration of policy in controlling water
pollution; right of States to waters
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to enhance the quality and
value of our water resources and to establish a national policy for
the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
(b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the
waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits re-
sulting to the public health and welfare by the prevention and
control of water pollution, it is declared to be the policy of Con-
gress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibili-
ties and rights of the States in preventing and controlling water
-------
62 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pollution, to support and aid technical research relating to the
prevention and control of water pollution, and to provide Federal
technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agen-
cies and to municipalities in connection with the prevention and
control of water pollution. The Secretary of the Interior (herein-
after in this chapter called "Secretary") shall administer this
chapter through the Administration created by section 1152 of
this title, and shall supervise and direct the head of such Ad-
ministration in administering this chapter. The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare shall supervise and direct the ad-
ministration of all functions of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare which relate to water pollution.
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as impairing or
in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States
with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such
States.
June 30,1948, c. 758, § 1, 62 Stat. 1155; July 9 1956, c. 518, § 1, 70
Stat. 498; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, § l(a), 75 Stat. 204; Oct. 2,
1965, Pub.L. 89-234, § l(a), 79 Stat. 903; 1966 Reorg. Plan No. 2,
eff. May 10, 1966, §§ l(a), (e) (1), 5, 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608.
§ 1152. Federal Water Quality Administration; establishment;
appointment and compensation of head; professional, technical,
and clerical assistance; delegation of authority
There is within the Department of the Interior a Federal Water
Quality Administration (hereinafter in this chapter referred to
as the "Administration"). The head of the Administration shall
be appointed, and his compensation fixed, by the Secretary. The
head of the Administration may, in addition to regular staff of
the Administration, which shall be initially provided from the
personnel of the Department, obtain, from within the Depart-
ment or otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, tech-
nical, and clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge
the Administration's functions and may for that purpose use
funds available for carrying out such functions; and he may dele-
gate any of his functions to, or otherwise authorize their per-
formance by, any officer or employee of, or assigned or detailed
to, the Administration.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 2, as added Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, §
2(a), 79 Stat. 903, and amended 1966 Reorg. Plan. No. 2, eff. May
10,1966, § 1 (a), (b), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608; Apr. 3,1970, Pub.
L. 91-224, Title I, § 110 (a), 84 Stat. 113.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 63
§ 1153. Comprehensive water pollution programs—Preparation
or development of programs; cooperation with other agencies
(a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and in co-
operation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollu-
tion control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the munici-
palities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehen-
sive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of inter-
state waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary
condition of surface and underground waters. In the development
of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the
improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and
other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this section, the Sec-
retary is authorized to make joint investigations with any such
agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States,
and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or sub-
stance which may adversely affect such waters.
Storage for regulation of streamflow; water quality control; costs
(b) (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency,
consideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation
of streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that
any such storage and water releases shall not be provided as a
substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling
waste at the source.
(2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose
shall be determined by these agencies, with the advice of the
Secretary, and his views on these matters shall be set forth in
any report or presentation to the Congress proposing authoriza-
tion or construction of any reservoir including such storage.
(3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in de-
termining the economic value of the entire project of which it is
a part, and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality
control in a manner which will insure that all project purposes
share equitably in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of
this chapter shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and
if the benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of
such features shall be nonreimbursable.
-------
64 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Grants for administrative expenses of planning agencies; comprehensive
pollution control and abatement plans for basins
(c) (1) The Secretary shall, at the request of the Governor of a
State, or a majority of the governors when more than one State is
involved, make a grant to pay not to exceed 50 per centum of the
administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period not to
exceed 3 years, if such agency provides for adequate representa-
tion of appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate)
international, interests in the basin or portion thereof involved
and is capable of developing an effective, comprehensive water
quality control and abatement plan for a basin.
(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsec-
tion shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and abate-
ment plan for the basin which—
(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality stand-
ards established pursuant to current law within the basin;
(B) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems
as will provide the most effective and economical means of
collection, storage, treatment, and purification of wastes and
recommends means to encourage both municipal and indus-
trial use of such works and systems; and
(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
quality standards within the basin or portion thereof and
recommends methods of adequately financing those facilities
as may be necessary to implement the plan.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term "basin" in-
cludes, but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams,
coastal waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof,
as well as the lands drained thereby.
June 30,1948, c. 758, § 3, formerly § 2, 62 Stat. 1155; July 9, 1956,
c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 498; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ l(b), (2),
75 Stat. 204; renumbered Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, § 2(a), 79
Stat. 903, and amended Nov. 3, 1966, Pub.L. 89-753, Title I, § 101,
80 Stat. 1246.
§ 1154. Interstate cooperation; uniform State laws; State com-
pacts; consent of Congress to compacts
(a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities by the
States for the prevention and control of water pollution; encour-
age the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform
State laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollu-
tion; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention
and control of water pollution.
(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 65
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) co-
operative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and con-
trol of water pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws
relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies,
joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effec-
tive such agreements and compacts. No such agreement or com-
pact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto
unless and until it has been approved by the Congress.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 4, formerly § 3, 62 Stat. 1157; July 9, 1956,
c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 498; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, § l(b), 75
Stat. 204; renumbered Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, § 2(a), 79 Stat.
903.
§ 1155. Research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations,
and studies—Authorization; powers and duties of Secretary
(a) The Secretary shall conduct in the Department of the In-
terior and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to
other appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or
local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and
institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the
coordination of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstra-
tions, and studies relating to the causes, control, and prevention
of water pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the Secretary
is authorized to—
(1) collect and made available, through publications and
other appropriate means, the results of and other information
as to research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to
the prevention and control of water pollution, including ap-
propriate recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and
institutions and to individuals for research or training proj-
ects and for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of
research, training, and demonstrations by contract with pub-
lic or private agencies and institutions and with individuals
without regard to section 529 of Title 31 and section 5 of
Title 41;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he
deems advisable, the assistance and advice of experts,
scholars, and consultants as authorized by section 55a of
Title 5;
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the De-
partment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances,
-------
66 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem
necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising
research fellowships: Provided, That the Secretary shall re-
port annually to the appropriate committees of Congress on
his operations under this paragraph; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to person-
nel of public agencies and other persons with suitable quali-
fications.
Specific problems of water pollution
(b) The Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollu-
tion control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations
and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem
of water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, com-
munity, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recom-
mending a solution of such problem.
Collection and dissemination of basic data on chemical, physical,
and biological water quality
(c) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect
and disseminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological
water quality and other information insofar as such data or other
information relate to water pollution and the prevention and con-
trol thereof.
Municipal sewage and other waterborne wastes; effects of pollutants on
water uses; evaluation of effects on water quality and water uses of
augmented streamflows
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary
shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including
conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experi-
ments as may be necessary);
(A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and
other waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible
amounts of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in or-
der to restore and maintain the maximum amount of the Na-
tion's water at a quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and mea-
sure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those
pollutants created by new technological developments; and
(C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to
control water pollution not susceptible to other means of
abatement.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 67
Field laboratory and research facilities
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field
laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to,
one to be located in the northeastern area of the United States,
one in the Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one
in the midwestern area, one in the southwestern area, one in the
Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct
of research, investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and
studies, and training relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be
located near institutions of higher learning in which graduate
training in such research might be carried out.
Waters of the Great Lakes; research and technical development work
(f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical deve-
lopment work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of
the waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the pres-
ent and projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under
varying conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation
of the water quality needs of those to be served by such waters,
an evaluation of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment
and disposal practices with respect to such waters, and a study
of alternate means of solving water pollution problems (includ-
ing additional waste treatment measures) with respect to such
waters.
Cooperative agreements for pilot programs of manpower development and
training for operation and maintenance of treatment works and related
activities; agreements to develop and maintain system for forecasting
personnel supply and demand in water pollution programs; grants, con-
tracts, research fellowships, and programs for training projects; report
to Congress; contents
(g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of
trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future
treatment works and related activities, and for the purpose of
enhancing substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such
activities, the Secretary shall finance a pilot program, in co-
operation with State and interstate agencies, municipalities, edu-
cational institutions, and other organizations and individuals, of
manpower development and training and retraining of persons in,
or entering into, the field of operation and maintenance of treat-
ment works and related activities. Such program and any funds
expended for such a program shall supplement, not supplant, other
manpower and training programs and funds available for the
purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary is authorized, under
-------
68 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 sup-
ply of, and demand for, various professional and other occupa-
tional categories needed for the prevention, control, and abate-
ment of water pollution in each region, State, or area of the
United States and, from time to time, to publish the results of
such forecasts.
(3) In furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, the Secre-
tary is authorized to—
(A) make grants to public or private agencies and institu-
tions and to individuals for training projects, and provide for
the conduct of training by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard
to section 529 of Title 31 and section 5 of Title 41;
(B) establish and maintain research fellowships in the De-
partment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances,
including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem
necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising re-
search fellowships; and
(C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical mat-
ters relating to the causes, prevention, and control of water
pollution for personnel of public agencies and other persons
with suitable qualifications.
(4) The Secretary shall submit, through the President, a re-
port to the Congress within eighteen months from April 3, 1970,
summarizing the actions taken under this subsection and the
effectiveness of such actions, and setting forth the number of per-
sons trained, the occupational categories for which training was
provided, the effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local train-
ing programs in this field, together with estimates of future needs,
recommendations on improving training programs, and such other
information and recommendations, including legislative recom-
mendations, as he deems appropriate.
Contracts or grants for developing and demonstrating methods of, and
construction of research facilities for, preventing, removing, and con-
trolling pollution in lakes
(h) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 69
or make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations
and individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demon-
strating new or improved methods for the prevention, removal,
and control of natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including
the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation and (B) the
construction of publicly owned research facilities for such purpose.
Research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations in removal of oil from
water and prevention and control of oil pollution; publication of results;
authority to contract or grant
(i) The Secretary shall—
(A) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and
demonstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the re-
moval of oil from any waters and to the prevention and con-
trol of oil pollution;
(B) publish from time to time the results of such activi-
ties; and
(C) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal
Register specifications and other technical information on
the various chemical compounds used as dispersants or emul-
sifiers in the control of oil spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into con-
tracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and or-
ganizations and individuals.
Research, studies, experiments and demonstrations of human body waste
equipment installed on vessels; report to Congress; authority to con-
tract or grant
(j) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, ex-
periments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative
to equipment which is to be installed on board a vessel and is
designated to receive, retain, treat, or discharge human body
wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended
to receive or retain body wastes with particular emphasis on equip-
ment to be installed on small recreational vessels. The Secretary
shall report to Congress the results of such research, studies, ex-
periments, and demonstrations prior to the effective date of any
standards established under section 1163 of this title. In carry-
ing out this subsection the Secretary may enter into contracts
with, or make grants to, public or private organizations and in-
dividuals.
Acquisition of land and interests therein for demonstration projects, field
laboratories, and research facilities; valuation of properties
(k) In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to
the conduct by the Secretary of demonstration projects and the
-------
70 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
development of field laboratories and research facilities, the Sec-
retary may acquire land and interests therein by purchase, with
appropriated or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for
acquired or public lands under his jurisdiction which he classifies
as suitable for disposition. The values of the properties so ex-
changed either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not
approximately equal, the values shall be equalized by the payment
of cash to the grantor or to the Secretary as the cirmustances
require.
Release to States of scientific knowledge of effects from presence of pesti-
cides in water for adoption of standards; pesticide release control study
for implementation of standards; report to Congress
(1) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations,
and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not later
than two years after April 3, 1970, develop and issue to the States
for the purpose of adopting standards pursuant to section 1160 (c)
of this title the latest scientific knowledge available in indicating
the kind and extent of effects on health and welfare which may
be expected from the presence of pesticides in the water in vary-
ing quantities. He shall revise and add to such information when-
ever necessary to reflect developing scientific knowledge.
(2) For the purpose of assuring effective implementation of
standards adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) the President shall,
in consultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agen-
cies, public and private organizations, and interested individuals,
conduct a study and investigation of methods to control the release
of pesticides into the environment which study shall include ex-
amination of the persistency of pesticides in the water environ-
ment and alternatives thereto. The President shall submit a re-
port on such investigation to Congress together with his recom-
mendations for any necessary legislation within two years after
April 3, 1970.
Study of effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in estuaries and es-
tuarine zones of United States on fish and wildlife, sport and commercial
fishing; recreation, water supply and water power, and other beneficial
purposes; report to the Congress; authorization of appropriations
(m) (1) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Secretary
of the Army, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources
Council, and with other appropriate Federal, State, interstate, or
local public bodies and private organizations, institutions, and indi-
viduals, conduct and promote, and encourage contributions to, a
comprehensive study of the effects of pollution, including sedi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 71
mentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the United
States on fish and wildlife, on sport and commercial fishing, on
recreation, on water supply and water power, and on other bene-
ficial purposes. Such study shall also consider the effect of demo-
graphic trends, the exploitation of mineral resources and fossil
fuels, land and industrial development, navigation, flood and ero-
sion control, and other uses of estuaries and estuarine zones upon
the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting the above study, the Secretary shall assem-
ble, coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on
the Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program
of investigations and surveys to supplement existing information
in representative estuaries and estuarine zones; and identify the
problems and areas where further research and study are required.
(3) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report
of the study authorized by this subsection not later than three
years after November 3, 1966. Copies of the report shall be made
available to all interested parties, public and private. The report
shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the eco-
nomic and social well-being of the people of the United States
and of the effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment
of such estuaries;
(B) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecologi-
cal trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation;
(C) recommendations for a comprehensive national pro-
gram for the preservation, study, use, and development of
estuaries of the Nation, and the respective responsibilities
which should be assumed by Federal, State, and local govern-
ments and by public and private interests.
(4) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,-
000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June
30, 1968, June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971, to carry
out the purposes of this subsection.
(5) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "estuarine
zones" means an environmental system consisting of an estuary
and those transitional areas which are consistently influenced or
affected by water from an estuary such as, but not limited to,
salt marshes, coastal and intertidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons,
inshore waters, and channels, and the term "estuary" means all
or part of the mouth of a navigable or interstate river or stream
or other body of water having unimpaired natural connection with
-------
72 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
open sea and within which the sea water is measurably diluted
with fresh water derived from land drainage.
Authorization of appropriations
(n) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section, other than subsection (g) (1) and (2) of this section, not
to exceed $65,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971. There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (g) (1) of
this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970,
and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (g) (2) of
this section $2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated
shall remain available until expended.
June 30,1948, c. 758, § 5, formerly § 4, 62 Stat. 1158; July 9, 1956,
c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 499; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ l(b), (c),
3, 75 Stat. 204, 205; renumbered Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, §
2 (a), 79 Stat. 903, and amended 1966 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. May
10, 1966, § l(a), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608; Nov. 3, 1966, Pub.L.
89-753, Title II, § 201 (b), (c) (1), 80 Stat. 1247; Apr. 3, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, § 105, 84 Stat. 111.
§ 1156. Grants for research and development—Grants for im-
provements in disposal method into waters of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage or improvements in waste treatment
and water purification
(a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the pur-
pose of—
(1) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water
or both storm water and sewage or other wastes, or
(2) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate advanced waste treatment and water purifica-
tion methods (including the temporary use of new or im-
proved chemical additives which provide substantial imme-
diate improvement to existing treatment processes) or new
or improved methods of joint treatment systems for muni-
cipal and industrial wastes,
and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connec-
tion therewith.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 73
Authorization of grants for research and projects to
prevent pollution of waters by industry
(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to persons for
research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution
of waters by industry including, but not limited to, treatment of
industrial waste.
Limitations on grants for projects to improve sewage disposal methods,
and waste treatment and water purification
(c) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall
be subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant to
this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agen-
cies and by the Secretary;
(2) No grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 75 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project under this sec-
tion unless the Secretary determines that such project will
serve as a useful demonstration for the purpose set forth in
clause (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section.
Limitations on grants for projects to prevent
industrial water pollution
(d) Federal grants under subsection (b) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made under this section in excess of
$1,000,000;
(2) No grant shall be made for more than 70 per centum
of the cost of project; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Sec-
retary determines that such project will serve a useful pur-
pose in the development or demonstration of a new or im-
proved method of treating industrial wastes or otherwise
preventing pollution of waters by industry, which method
shall have industry-wide application.
Appropriation of funds
(e) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated—
(1) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each
of the next five succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)
-------
74 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and (b) of this section, including contracts pursuant to such
subsections for such purposes;
(2) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each
of the next four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000-
000 per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of
subsection (a) of this section; and
(3) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each
of the next four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,-
000 per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b)
of this section.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 6, as added Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, §
3, 79 Stat. 905, and amended Nov. 3, 1966, Pub.L. 89-753, Title
II, § 201 (a), 80 Stat. 1246; Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I,
§ 106, 84 Stat. 113.
§ 1157. Grants for water pollution control programs—Authori-
zation of appropriation
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and
including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, for
each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1967, $5,000,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year to
and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000,
and for the three-month period ending September 30, 1971,
$2,500,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist
them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining ade-
quate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution,
including the training of personnel of public agencies.
Specification of sums appropriated for grants to
interstate agencies and to States
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) of this section for a fiscal year which shall be available
for grants to interstate agencies and the portion thereof which
shall be available for grants to States shall be specified in the
Act appropriating such sums.
Allotments to States
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the
Secretary shall from time to time make allotments to the several
States in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the
population, (2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and
(3) the financial need of the respective States.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 75
Payment to States of amount equivalent to Federal share
of cost of carrying out State plan
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) of this
section for any fiscal year year the Secretary shall pay to such
State an amount equal to its Federal share (as determined under
subsection (h) of this section) of the cost of carrying out its
State plan approved under subsection (f) of this section, includ-
ing the cost of training personnel for State and local water pollu-
tion control work and including the cost of administering the
State plan.
Allotments to interstate agencies; payment of amount equivalent to
Federal share of cost of carrying out plan
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the
Secretary shall from time to time make allotments to interstate
agencies, in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the
Secretary finds reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to
time pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount
equal to such portion of the cost of carrying out its plan approved
under subsection (f) of this section as may be determined in ac-
cordance with regulations, including the cost of training person-
nel for water pollution control work and including the cost of
administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations relat-
ing to the portion of the cost of carrying out the interstate
agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States shall be
designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis
similar to that of the States.
Approval of State or interstate plans; notice and hearing
(f) The Secretary shall approve any plan for the prevention
and control of water pollution which is submitted by the State
water pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate
agency, by such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution con-
trol agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an inter-
state agency, by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in
such form and containing such information, as the Secretary
may from time to time reasonably require to carry out his
functions under this chapter;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be fol-
lowed in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in
its administration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
-------
76 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
interstate program for prevention and control of water pol-
lution ;
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan; and
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determin-
ing priority of projects as provided in section 1158 (b) (4)
of this title.
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
Failure to comply with requirements of plan; cessation of payments
after notice and hearing; review of action of Secretary
(g) (1) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency
or interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved un-
der this section has been so changed that it no longer com-
plies with a requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement,
the Secretary shall notify such agency that no further payments
will be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case
may be, under this section (or in his discretion that further pay-
ments will not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency,
for projects under or parts of the plan affected by such failure)
until he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure.
Until he is so satisfied, the Secretary shall make no further pay-
ments to such State, or to such interstate agency, as the case may
be, under this section (or shall limit payments to projects under
or parts of the plan in which there is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with
the Secretary's action with respect to it under this subsection, it
may appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit
in which such State (or any of the member States, in the case of
an interstate agency) is located. The summons and notice of ap-
peal may be served at any place in the United States. The findings
of fact by the Secretary, unless contrary to the weight of the
evidence, shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown,
may remand the case to the Secretary to take further evidence,
and the Secretary may thereupon make new or modified findings
of fact and may modify his previous action. Such new or modified
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 77
V
findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the
weight of the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm
the action of the Secretary or to set it aside, in whole or in part.
The judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Su-
preme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification
as provided in section 1254 of Title 28.
Amount of Federal shares; promulgation
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per
centum less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50
per centum as the per capita income of such State bears to the
per capita income of the United States, except that (A) the Fed-
eral share shall in no case be more than 66% per centum or less
than 331/3 per centum, and (B) the Federal share for Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Sec-
retary between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered
year, on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the
States and of the United States for the three most recent con-
secutive years for which satisfactory data are available from the
Department of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive
for each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1
next succeeding such promulgation: Provided, That the Federal
shares promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 4 of
the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956, shall be
conclusive for the period beginning July 1, 1956, and ending June
30, 1959.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means
the Fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per
capita income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska
of 50 per centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska
shall not be included as part of the "United States", Promulgations
made thereafter but before per capita income data for Alaska for
a full-three year period are available for the Department of Com-
merce shall be based on satisfactory data available therefrom for
Alaska for such one full year or, when such data are available for
a two-year period, for such two years.
Determination of population of States
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of Com-
merce.
-------
78 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Method of computation and payment of allotments
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) of this section shall be as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall, prior to the beginning of each cal-
endar quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the
amount to be paid to each State (or to each interstate agency
in the case of subsection (e) of this section) under the provi-
sions of such subsection for such period, such estimate to be
based on such records of the State (or the interstate agency)
and information furnished by it, and such other investigation,
as the Secretary may find necessary.
(2) The Secretary shall pay to the State (or to the inter-
state agency), from the allotment available therefor, the
amount so estimated by him for any period, reduced or in-
creased, as the case may be, by any sum (not previously ad-
justed under this paragraph) by which he finds that his esti-
mate of the amount to be paid such State (or such interstate
agency) for any prior period under such subsection was
greater or less than the amount which should have been paid
to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under
such subsection. Such payments shall be made through the
disbursing facilities of the Treasury Department, in such
installments as the Secretary may determine.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 7, formerly § 5, 62 Stat. 1158; July 9,
1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 499; June 25, 1959, Pub.L. 86-70, §
28(a), 73 Stat. 148; July 12, 1960, Pub.L. 86-624, § 23(a), 74 Stat.
417; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ l(b), 4(a), (b), 75 Stat. 204,
205; renumbered and amended Oct. 2,1965, Pub.L. 89-234, §§ 2(a),
7(a), 79 Stat. 903, 910; Nov. 3, 1966, Pub.L. 89-753, Title II § 202,
80 Stat. 1248; as amended July 9, 1971, Pub.L. 92-50, § 2, 85
Stat. 124.
§ 1158. Grants for construction of sewerage treatment works—
Authorization
(a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the con-
struction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into
any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications
in connection therewith.
Limitations
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 79
pursuant to this section unless such project shall have been ap-
proved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency
or agencies and by the Secretary and unless such project is in-
cluded in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this
chapter; (2) no grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof
as determined by the Secretary; (3) no grant shall be made un-
less the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost; (4) no grant
shall be made for any project under this section until the appli-
cant has made provision satisfactory to the Secretary for assur-
ing proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof; and (5)
no grant shall be made for any project under this section unless
such project is in conformity with the State water pollution con-
trol plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 1157 of
this title and has been certified by the appropriate State water
pollution control agency as entitled to priority over other eligible
projects on the basis of financial as well as water pollution con-
trol needs; (6) the percentage limitation of 30 per centum im-
posed by clause (2) of this subsection shall be increased to a
maximum of 40 per centum in the case of grants made under this
section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State under
subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to pay not less
than 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as deter-
mined by the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal grants
are to be made under this section from such allocation; (7) the
percentage limitations imposed by clause (2) of this subsection
shall be increased to a maximum of 50 per centum in the case of
grants made under this section from funds allocated for a fiscal
year to a State under subsection (c) of this section if the State
agrees to pay not less than 25 per centum of the estimated rea-
sonable costs (as determined by the Secretary) of all projects for
which Federal grants are to be made under this section from such
allocation and if enforceable water quality standards have been
established for the waters into which the project discharges, in
accordance with section 1160 (c) of this title in the case of in-
terstate waters, and under State law in the case of intrastate
waters.
Determination of desirability of projects and of approving Federal financial
aid; allotment of funds; determination of population and per capita income
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment
works and of approving Federal financial aid in connection there-
-------
80 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 maintaining the works to the public interest
and to the public necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the
provisions made or proposed by the applicant for such Federal
financial aid for assuring proper and efficient operation and main-
tenance of the treatment works after completion of the construc-
tion thereof. The sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (d)
of this section for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30,
1965, and the first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsec-
tion (d) of this section for each fiscal year beginning on or after
July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to time,
in accordance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of
such sums in the ratio that the population of each State bears
to the population of all the States, and (2) 50 per centum of such
sums in the ratio that the quotient obtained by dividing the per
capita income of the United States by the per capita income of
each State bears to the sum of such quotients for all the States.
All sums in excess of $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to sub-
section (d) of this section for each fiscal year beginning on or
after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to
time, in accordance with regulations, in the ratio that the popula-
tion of each State bears to the popuation of all States. Sums al-
lotted to a State under the two preceding sentences which are not
obligated within six months following the end of the fiscal year
for which they were allotted because of a lack of projects which
have been approved by the State water pollution control agency
under subsection (b) (1) of this section and certified as entitled
to priority under subsection (b) (4) of this section, shall be re-
allotted by the Secretary, on such basis as he determines to be
reasonable and equitable and in accordance with regulations
promulgated by him, to States having projects approved under
this section for which grants have not been made because of lack
of funds including States having projects eligible for reimburse-
ment pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of this sub-
section: 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 construction activity, he may, prior
to such reallocation, make an additional grant with respect to
such project which will in his judgment reflect an equitable con-
tribution for the need caused by such Federal institution or ac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 81
tivity. Any sum made available to a State by reallotment under
the preceding sentence shall be in addition to any funds otherwise
alloted to such State under this chapter. The allotments of a State
under the second, third and fourth sentences of this subsection
shall be available, in accordance with the provisions of this sec-
tion, for payments with respect to projects in such State which
have been approved under this section, except that in the case of
any project on which construction was initiated in such State
after June 30, 1966, which was approved by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency and which the Secretary finds
meets the requirements of this section but was constructed with-
out such assistance, such allotments for any fiscal year ending
prior to July 1, 1971, shall also be available for payments in reim-
bursement of State or local funds used for such project prior to
July 1, 1971, to the extent that assistance could have been pro-
vided under this section if such project had been approved pur-
suant to this section and adequate funds have 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 assist-
ance was a lesser per centum of the cost of construction than was
allowable pursuant to this section, such allotments shall also be
available for payments in reimbursement of State or local funds
used for such project prior to July 1, 1971, to the extent that as-
sistance could have been provided under this section if adequate
funds had been available. Neither a finding by the Secretary that
a project meets the requirements of this subsection, nor any other
provision of this subsection, shall be construed to constitute a
commitment or obligation of the United States to provide funds
to make or pay any grant for such project. For purposes of this
section, population shall be determined on the basis of the latest
decennial census for which figures are available, as certified by
the Secretary of Commerce, and per capita income for each State
and for the United States shall be determined on the basis of the
average of the per capita incomes of the States and of the con-
tinental United States for the three most recent consecutive years
for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce.
Authorization of appropriations
(d) There are 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
-------
82 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under this section. There are authorized to 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, $100,000,0000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965,
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $150,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967; $450,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968; $700,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969; $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970; and $1,250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971; and $500,000,000 for the three month period ending
September 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated shall remain available
until expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds so appropriated
for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965, and at least
50 per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appropriated for each
fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used for
grants for the construction of treatment works servicing municipal-
ities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds so appropriated for
each fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965, and at least 50
per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appropriated for each fiscal
year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used for grants
for the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities
of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
Method of payment; inclusion of preliminary planning in construction
(e) The Secretary shall make payments under this section
through the disbursing facilities of the Department of the
Treasury. Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost
of construction of the project for which the amount was paid. As
used in this section the term "construction" includes preliminary
planning to determine the economic and engineering feasibility of
treatment works, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and
economic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, work-
ing drawings, specifications, procedures, and other action neces-
sary to the construction of treatment works; and the erection,
building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or
extension of treatment works; and the inspection and supervision
of the construction of treatment works.
Increased grants for urban planning; definition of metropolitan area
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the
Secretary may increase the amount of a grant made under sub-
section (b) of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 83
amount of such grant for any project which has been certified to
him by an official State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency
empowered under State or local laws or interstate compact to per-
form metropolitan or regional planning for a metropolitan area
within which the assistance is to be used, or other agency or in-
strumentality designated for such purposes by the Governor (or
Governors in the case of interstate planning) as being in con-
formity with the comprehensive plan developed or in process of
development for such metropolitan area. For the purposes of this
subsection, the term "metropolitan area" means either (1) a
standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the Bureau
of the Budget, except as may be determined by the President as
not being appropriate for the purposes hereof, or (2) any urban
area, including those surrounding areas that form an economic and
socially related region, taking into consideration such factors as
present and future population trends and patterns of urban
growth, location of transportation facilities and systems, and
distribution of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental,
institutional, and other activities, which in the opinion of the
President lends itself as being appropriate for the purposes hereof.
Rates of wages for laborers and mechanics
(g) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary
to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors
or subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this
section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing
for the same type of work on similar construction in the immediate
locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance
with sections 276a to 276a—5 of Title 40. The Secretary of Labor
shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this
subsection, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganiza-
tion Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 and section 276c of Title 40.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 8, formerly § 6, 62 Stat. 1158; July 9, 1956,
c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 502; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ 1 (b), 5, 75
Stat. 204, 206; renumbered and amended Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-
234, §§ 2(a), 4, 7(b), 79 Stat. 903, 906, 910; Nov. 3, 1966, Pub.L.
89-753, Title II, §§ 203(a), 204, 205, 80 Stat. 1248-1250; Apr. 3,
1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, § 111, 84 Stat. 113; as amended
July 9, 1971, Pub.L. 92-50, § 3, 85 Stat. 124.
§ 1159. Water Pollution Control Advisory Board—Establish-
ments; composition; terms of office of members; compensation
(a) (1) There is established in the Department of the Interior,
a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the
-------
84 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Secretary or his designee, who shall be chairman, and nine mem-
bers appointed by the President, none of whom shall be Federal
officers or employees. The appointed members having due regard
for the purposes of this chapter, shall be selected from among
representatives of various State, interstate and local govern-
mental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to,
affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public
and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an
active interest in the field of water pollution prevention and con-
trol, as well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold
office for a term of three years, except that (i) any member
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of
the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be ap-
pointed for the remainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of
office of the members first taking office after June 30, 1965, shall
expire as follows: three at the end of one year after such date,
three at the end of two years after such date, and three at the end
of three years after such date, as designated by the President at
the time of appointment, and (iii) the term of any member under
the preceding provisions shall be extended until the date on which
his successor's appointment is effective. None of the members
appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappointment
within one year after the end of his preceding term, but terms
commencing prior to July 9, 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding
terms" for the purposes of this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or em-
ployees of the United States, while attending conferences or
meetings of the Board or while otherwise serving at the request
of the Secretary, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
to be fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $50 per diem,
including travel time, and while away from their homes or
regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law
(section 73b-2 of Title 5) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
Duties
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recom-
mendations to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to the
activities and functions of the Secretary under this chapter.
Clerical and technical assistance
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 85
to discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the
personnel of the Department of the Interior.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 9, formerly § 7, 62 Stat. 1159; July 17,
1952, c. 927, 66 Stat. 755; July 9, 1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 503;
July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ l(b)-(d), 6(a), (b), 75 Stat. 204,
207; renumbered Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, § 2(a), 79 Stat. 903,
and amended 1966 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. May 10, 1966, § l(a),
(c) (1), (2), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608.
§ 1160. Enforcement measures against pollution of interstate or
navigable waters—Pollution of waters subject to abatement
(a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or ad-
jacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or
contributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such
waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of
such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of any per-
sons, shall be subject to abatement as provided in this chapter.
Encouragement of State and interstate action
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this chapter,
State and interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or
navigable waters shall be encouraged and shall not, except as
otherwise provided by or pursuant to court order under sub-
section (h) of this section, be displaced by Federal enforcement
action.
Water quality standards; procedure for establishment; considerations gov-
erning establishment; approval or modification by Hearing Board; violations
(c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution
control agency files, within one year after October 2, 1965, a letter
of intent that such State, after public hearings, will before June
30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to interstate
waters or portions thereof within such State, and (B) a plan
for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality
criteria adopted, and if such criteria and plan are established in
accordance with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary deter-
mines that such State criteria and plan are consistent with para-
graph (3) of this subsection, such State criteria and plan shall
thereafter be the water quality standards applicable to such inter-
state waters or portions thereof.
(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B)
establish water quality standards in accordance with paragraph
(1) of this subsection, or if the Secretary or the Governor of any
State affected by water quality standards established pursuant to
this subsection desires a revision in such standards, the Secretary
-------
86 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may, after reasonable notice and a conference of representatives
of appropriate Federal departments and agencies, interstate agen-
cies, States, municipalities and industries involved, prepare regu-
lations setting forth standards of water quality to be applicable
to interstate waters or portions thereof. If, within six months
from the date the Secretary publishes such regulations, the State
has not adopted water quality standards found by the Secretary to
be consistent with paragraph (3) of this subsection, or a petition
for public hearing has not been filed under paragraph (4) of this
subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such standards.
(3) Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection
shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of this chapter. In estab-
lishing such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the
appropriate State authority shall take into consideration their use
and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wild-
life, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other
legitimate uses. In establishing such standards the Secretary, the
hearing board, or the appropriate State authority shall take into
consideration their use and value for navigation.
(4) If at any time prior to 30 days after standards have been
promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Gov-
ernor of any State affected by such standards petitions the Secre-
tary for a hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be
held in or near one or more of the places where the water quality
standards will take effect, before a Hearing Board of five or more
persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State which would be
affected by such standards shall be given an opportunity to select
one member of the Hearing Board. The Department of Commerce
and other affected Federal departments and agencies shall each be
given an opportunity to select a member of the Hearing Board and
not less than a majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons
other than officers or employees of the Department of the Interior.
The members of the Board who are not officers or employees of the
United States, while participating in the hearing conducted by such
Hearing Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Hearing
Board, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by
the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel
time, and while away from their homes or regular places of busi-
ness they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 73b-2 of Title 5 for
persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
Notice of such hearing shall be published in the Federal Register
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 87
and given to the State water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies and municipalities involved at least 30 days prior to the
date of such hearing. On the basis of the evidence presented at
such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether
the standards published or promulgated by the Secretary should
be approved or modified and transmit its findings to the Secretary.
If the Hearing Board approves the standards as published or pro-
mulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take effect on
receipt by the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recommendations.
If the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the standards
as published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of water
quality in accordance with the Hearing Board's recommendations
which will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or por-
tions thereof, which reduces the quality of such waters below the
water quality standards established under this subsection (wheth-
er the matter causing or contributing to such reduction is dis-
charged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after
discharge into tributaries of such waters), is subject to abate-
ment in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (g) of this section, except that at least 180 days
before any abatement action is in'tiated under either paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this section as authorized by this
subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators and other
interested parties of the violation of such standards. In any suit
brought under the provisions of this subsection the court shall
receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings of the confer-
ence and hearing provided for in this subsection, together with the
recommendations of the conference and Hearing Board and the
recommendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary,
and such additional evidence, including that relating to the
alleged violation of the standards, as it deems necessary to a
complete review of the standards and to a determination of all
other issues relating to the alleged violation. The court, giving due
consideration to the pract;cabi ity and to the physical and eco-
nomic feasibility of complying with such standards, shall have
jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders enforcing such
judgment as the public interest and the equities of the case may
require.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A) prevent the applica-
tion of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this
section would otherwise be applicable, or (B) extend Federal
-------
88 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
jurisdiction over water not otherwise authorized by this chapter.
(7) In connection with any hearings under this section no wit-
ness or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes.
Notification of pollution; conference of State and interstate agencies;
notice of conference date; summary of conference discussions
(d) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of
the Governor and of the State water po lution control agency for
the State in which the municipality is situated) the governing
body of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request
refers to pollution of waters which is endangering the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the dis-
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originates, give formal notification thereof to the water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States where such discharge or discharges originate and shall call
prompt y a conference or such agency or agencies and of the
"late water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any,
of the State or States, if any, which may be adversely affected by
such pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of any State,
the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of interstate
or navigable waters which is endangering the health or welfare
of persons only in the requesting State in which the discharge
or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originate,
give formal notification thereof to the water pollution control
agency and interstate agency, if any, of such State and shall
promptly call a conference of such agency or agencies, unless, in
the judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pollution on the
legitimate uses of the waters is not of sufficient significance to
warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under this section. The
Secretary shall also call such a conference whenever, on the basis
of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe that any
pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this section and en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than
that in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurring;
or he finds the substantial economic injury results from the in-
ability to market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate
commerce because of pollution referred to in subsection (a) of
this section and action of Federal, State, or local authorities.
(2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys, or
studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason
to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 89
section which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a
foreign country is occurring, and the Secretary of State requests
him to abate such pollution, he shall give formal notification
thereof to the State water pollution control agency of the State
in which such discharge or discharges originate and to the inter-
state water pollution control agency, if any, and shall call promptly
a conference of such agency or agencies, if he believes that such
pollution is occurring in sufficient quantity to warrant such action.
The Secretary, through the Secretary of State, shall invite the
foreign country which may be adversely affected by the pollution
to attend and participate in the conference, and the representative
of such country shall, for the purpose of the conference and any
further proceeding resulting from such conference, have all the
rights of a State water pollution control agency. This paragraph
shall apply only to a foreign country which the Secretary deter-
mines has given the United States essentially the same rights
with respect to the prevention and control of water pollution
occurring in that country as is given that country by this para-
graph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to modify,
amend, repeal, or otherwise affect the provisions of the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States or
the Water Utilization Treaty of 1944 between Mexico and the
United States (59 Stat. 1219), relative to the control and abate-
ment of water pollution in waters covered by those treaties.
(3) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring
such persons as they desire to the conference. In addition, it
shall be the responsibility of the chairman of the conference to
give every person contributing to the alleged pollution or affected
by it an opportunity to make a full statement of his views to the
conference. Not less than three weeks' prior notice of the confer-
ence date shall be given to such agencies.
(4) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A)
occurrence of pollution of interstate or navigable waters subject
to abatement under this chapter; (B) adequacy of measures taken
toward abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if
any, being encountered in abating the pollution.
Recommendation of Secretary to State agency to take remedial action
(e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the con-
ference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
-------
90 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the ap-
propriate State water pollution control agency that it take neces-
sary remedial action. The Secretary shall allow at least six
months from the date he makes such recommendations for the
taking of such recommendation.
Failure to take remedial action; public hearing; appointment of Board;
notice of hearing; findings and recommendations; action of Secretary;
requests for reports from persons whose alleged activities result in dis-
charges causing or contributing to water pollution; failure to file report;
forfeiture; prosecution.
(f) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such reme-
dial action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of
the Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such
pollution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public
hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the
discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originated, before a Hearing Board of five or more persons ap-
pointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any discharge
causing or contributing to such pollution originates and each
State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be
given an opportunity to select one member of the Hearing Board
and at least one member shall be a representative of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the Hearing
Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the
Department of the Interior. At least three weeks' prior notice of
such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control
agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the afore-
said hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. It shall be the
responsibility of the Hearing Board to give every person contribut-
ing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity to make
a full statement of his views to the Hearing Board. On the basis
of the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall
make findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection
(a) of this section is occurring and whether effective progress to-
ward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds
such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abate-
ment thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations to
the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to
be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution.
The Secretary shall send such findings and recommendations to
the person or persons discharging any matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution, together with a notice specifying a
reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 91
of such pollution, and shall also send such findings and recom-
mendations and such notice to the State water pollution control
agency and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate.
(2) In connection with any hearing called under this section the
Secretary is authorized to require any person whose alleged activi-
ties result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution
to file with him, in such form as he may prescribe, a report based
on existing data, furnishing such information as may reasonably
be required as to the character, kind, and quantity of such dis-
charges and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or
reduce such discharges by the person filing such a report. Such
report shall be made under oath or otherwise, as the Secretary
may prescribe, and shall be filed with the Secretary within such
reasonable period as the Secretary may prescribe, unless additional
time be granted by the Secretary. No person shall be required in
such report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and all
information reported shall be considered confidential for the pur-
poses of section 1905 of Title 18.
(3) If any person required to file any report under paragraph
(2) of this subsection shall fail to do so within the time fixed by
the Secretary for filing the same, and such failure shall continue
for thirty days after notice of such default, such person shall for-
feit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day
of the continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be pay-
able into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recover-
able in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the
district where such person has his principal office or in any dis-
trict in which he does business. The Secretary may upon applica-
tion therefor remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under
this paragraph and he shall have authority to determine the facts
upon all such applications.
(4) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
Action on behalf of United States to secure abatement of the pollution
(g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the
public hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
-------
92 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to
such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General
to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abate-
ment of pollution, and
(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endanger-
ing the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such
pollution) originate, may, with the written consent of the
Governor of such State, request the Attorney General to
bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abate-
ment of the pollution.
Evidence; jurisdiction of court
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the
Board's recommendations and shall receive such further evidence
as the court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due
consideration to the practicability and to the physical and eco-
nomic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved,
shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforc-
ing such judgment, as the public interest and the equities of the
case may require.
Per diem allowances for members of Hearing Boards
(i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-
section (f) of this section who are not regular full-time officers or
employees of the United States shall, while participating in the
hearing conducted by such Board or otherwise engaged on the
work of such Board, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including
travel time, and while away from their homes or regular places
of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (section 73b-2 of
Title 5) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
Definitions
(j) As used in this section the term—
(1) "person" includes an individual, corporation, partner-
ship, association, State, municipality, and political subdivi-
sion of a State, and
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant
to State law.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 93
Requests for reports from persons whose alleged activities result in dis-
charges causing or contributing to water pollution; failure to file report;
forfeiture; prosecution
(k) (1) At the request of a majority of the conferees in any
conference called under this section the Secretary is authorized to
request any person whose alleged activities result in discharges
causing or contributing to water pollution, to file with him a
report (in such form as may be prescribed in regulations pro-
mulgated by him) based on existing data, furnishing such infor-
mation as may reasonably be requested as to the character, kind,
and quantity of such discharges and the use of facilities or other
means to prevent or reduce such discharges by the person filing
such a report. No person shall be required in such report to
divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and all information
reported shall be considered confidential for the purposes of sec-
tion 1905 of Title 18.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsec-
tion shall fail to do so within the time fixed by regulations for
filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days
after notice of such default, such person may, by order of a
majority of the conferees, be subject to a forfeiture of $100 for
each and every day of the continuance of such failure which for-
feiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States and
shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United
States brought in the district where such person has his principal
office or in any district in which he does business. The Secretary
may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any forfeiture
provided for under this subsection and he shall have authority to
determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 10, formerly § 8, 62 Stat. 1159; July 17,
1952, c. 927, 66 Stat. 755; July 9, 1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 504;
July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, §§ l(b), 7, 75 Stat. 204, 207; renum-
bered and amended Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, §§ 2 (a), 5, 7(c),
(d), 79 Stat. 903, 907, 910; 1966 Reorg.Plan No. 2, eff. May 10,
1966, § l(a), (d) (1), (2), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608; Nov. 3,
1966, Pub.L. 89-753, Title II, §§ 206-208, 80 Stat. 1250; Apr. 3,
1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, § 112, 84 Stat. 114.
§ 1161. Control of pollution by oil—Definitions
(a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including,
-------
94 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and
oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil;
(2) "discharge" includes, but is not limited to, any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping;
(3) "vessel" means every description of watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on water other than a public vessel;
(4) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bare-boat char-
tered and operated by the United States, or by a State or
political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except
when such vessel is engaged in commerce;
(5) "United States" means the States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone,
Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands;
(6) "owner or operator" means (A) in the case of a vessel,
any person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such
vessel, and (B) in the case of an onshore facility, and an off-
shore facility, any person owning or operating such onshore
facility or offshore facility, and (C) in the case of any aban-
doned offshore facility, the person who owned or operated
such facility immediately prior to such abandonment;
(7) "person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, as-
sociation, and a partnership.
(8) "remove" or "removal" refers to removal of the oil
from the water and shorelines or the taking of such other
actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage
to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shore-
lines, and beaches;
(9) "contiguous zone" means the entire zone established or
to be established by the United States under article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
(10) "onshore facility" means any facility (including, but
not limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind
located in, on, or under, any land within the United States
other than submerged land;
(11) "offshore facility" means any facility of any kind
located in, on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the
United States other than a vessel or a public vessel;
(12) "act of God" means an act occasioned by an unantici-
pated grave natural disaster;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 95
(13) "barrel" means 42 United States gallons at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Congressional declaration of policy; prohibition against discharge of oil;
exceptions; rules and regulations; determination of harmful quantities of
discharged oil; notification of United States of discharge of oil; penalties
for failure to notify; procedure for imposition of civil penalties for
knowingly discharging oil; withholding of clearance
(b) (1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharges of oil into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shore-
lines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
(2) The discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of
the contiguous zone in harmful quantities as determined by the
President under paragraph (3) of this subsection, is prohibited,
except (A) in the case of such discharges into the waters of the
contiguous zone, where permitted under article IV of the Interna-
tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by
Oil, 1954, as amended, and (B) where permitted in quantities and
at times and locations or under such circumstances or conditions
as the President may, by regulation, determine not to be harmful.
Any regulations issued under this subsection shall be consistent
with maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws and
regulations and applicable water quality standards.
(3) The President shall, by regulation, to be issued as soon as
possible after April 3, 1970, determine for the purposes of this
section, those quantities of oil the discharge of which, at such
times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, will be harmful to
the public health or welfare of the United States, including, but
not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private prop-
erty, shorelines, and beaches, except that in the case of the dis-
charge of oil into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, only
those discharges which threaten the fishery resources of the con-
tiguous zone or threaten to pollute or contribute to the pollution
of the territory or the territorial sea of the United States may be
determined to be harmful.
(4) Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore facility or
an offshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any dis-
charge of oil from such vessel or facility in violation of paragraph
(2) of this subsection, immediately notify the appropriate agency
of the United States Government of such discharge. Any such
person who fails to notify immediately such agency of such dis-
charge shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or
-------
96 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Notification
received pursuant to this paragraph or information obtained by
the exploitation of such notification shall not be used against any
such person in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury
or for giving a false statement.
(5) Any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility from whiten oil is knowingly discharged in violation
of paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be assessed a civil penalty
by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating of not more than $10,000 for each offense. No penalty
shall be assessed unless the owner or operator charged shall have
been given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such charge.
Each violation is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may
be compromised by such Secretary. In determining the amount of
the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the ap-
propriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the
owner or operator charged, the effect on the owner or operator's
ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation,
shall be considered by such Secretary. The Secretary of the
Treasury shall withhold at the request of such Secretary the clear-
ance required by section 91 of Title 46, of any vessel the owner or
operator of which is subject to the foregoing penalty. Clearance
may be granted in such cases upon the filing of a bond or other
surety satisfactory to such Secretary.
National Contingency Plan for removal of discharged oil;
provisions; revisions; compliance
(c) (1) Whenever any oil is discharged, into or upon the naviga-
ble waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or
upon the waters of the contiguous zone, the President is authorized
to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such oil at any
time, unless he determines such removal will be done properly by
the owner or operator of the vessel, onshore facility, or offshore
facility from which the discharge occurs.
(2) Within sixty days after April 3, 1970, the President shall
prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for removal of
oil pursuant to this subsection. Such National Contingency Plan
shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action to
minimize damage from oil discharges, including containment, dis-
persal, and removal of oil, and shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) assignment of duties and responsibilities among Fed-
eral departments and agencies in coordination with State and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 97
local agencies, including, but not limited to, water pollution
control, conservation, and port authorities;
(B) identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage
of equipment and supplies;
(C) establishment or designation of a strike force consist-
ing of personnel who shall be trained, prepared, and available
to provide necessary services to carry out the Plan, including
the establishment at major ports, to be determined by the
President, of emergency task forces of trained personnel, ade-
quate oil pollution control equipment and material, and a
detailed oil pollution prevention and removal plan;
(D) a system of surveillance and notice designed to insure
earliest possible notice of discharges of oil to the appropriate
Federal agency;
(E) establishment of a national center to provide coordina-
tion and direction for operations in carrying out the Plan;
(F) procedures and techniques to be employed in identify-
ing, containing, dispersing, and removing oil; and
(G) a schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States,
identifying (i) dispersants and other chemicals, if any, that
may be used in carrying out the Plan, (ii) the waters in which
such dispersants and chemicals may be used, and (iii) the
quantities of such dispersant or chemical which can be used
safely in such waters, which schedule shall provide in the
case of any dispersant, chemical, or waters not specifically
identified in such schedule that the President, or his delegate,
may, on a case-by-case basis, identify the dispersants and
other chemicals which may be used, the waters in which they
may be used, and the quantities which can be used safely in
such waters.
The President may, from time to time, as he deems advisable.
revise or otherwise amend the National Contingency Plan. After
publication of the National Contingency Plan, the removal of oil
and actions to minimize damage from oil discharges shall, to the
greatest extent possible, be in accordance with the National Con-
tingency Plan.
Marine disasters; creation of a substantial threat of a pollution hazard;
removal or elimination of pollution hazard; removal or destruction of
vessel; employment of personnel; expenses
(d) Whenever a marine disaster in or upon the navigable
waters of the United States has created a substantial threat
of a pollution hazard to the public health or welfare of the United
-------
98 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and the public and private shorelines and beaches of the United
States, because of a discharge, or an imminent discharge, of large
quantities of oil from a vessel the United States may (A) co-
ordinate and direct all public and private efforts directed at the
removal or elimination of such threat; and (B) summarily remove,
and, if necessary, destroy such vessel by whatever means are
available without regard to any provision of law governing the
employment of personnel or the expenditure of appropriated
funds. Any expense incurred under this subsection shall be a cost
incurred by the United States Government for the purposes of sub-
section (f) of this section in the removal of oil.
Action by United States attorney to abate actual or threatened discharge of
oil from an onshore or offshore facility; jurisdiction; nature of relief
(e) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local
government, when the President determines there is an imminent
and substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the
United States, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches
within the United States, because of an actual or threatened dis-
charge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United
States from an onshore or offshore facility, the President may
require the United States attorney of the district in which the
threat occurs to secure such relief as may be necessary to abate
such threat, and the district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to grant such relief as the public interest and the
equities of the case may require.
Liability of owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
for discharge of oil; exceptions; amount of liability; procedure for recovery
(f) (1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a
discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of
war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Government,
or (D) an act or omission of a third party without regard to
whether any such act or omission was or was not negligent, or
any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or operator
of any vessel from which oil is discharged in violation of subsec-
tion (b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) of this section for the
removal of such oil by the United States Government in an amount
not to exceed $100 per gross ton of such vessel or $14,000,000,
whichever is lesser, except that where the United States can show
that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 99
misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such
owner or operator shall be liable to the United States Govern-
ment for the full amount of such costs. Such costs shall consti-
tute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered in an
action in rem in the district court of the United States for any
district within which any vessel may be found. The United States
may also bring an action against the owner or operator of such
vessel in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs.
(2) Except where an owner or operator of an onshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of
God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United
States Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party
without regard to whether any such act or omission was or was
not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses, such
owner or operator of any such facility from which oil is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section shall be
liable to the United States Government for the actual costs incur-
red under subsection (c) of this section for the removal of such
oil by the United States Government in an amount not to exceed
$8,000,000, except that where the United States can show that
such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful mis-
conduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such
owner or operator shall be liable to the United States Government
for the full amount of such costs. The United States may bring
an action against the owner or operator of such facility in any
court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs. The Secre-
tary is authorized, by regulation, after consultation with the
Secretary of Commerce and the Small Business Administration,
to establish reasonable and equitable classifications of those on-
shore facilities having a total fixed storage-capacity of 1,000
barrels or less which he determines because of size, type, and
location do not present a substantial risk of the discharge of oil in
violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section, and apply with
respect to such classifications differing limits of liability which
may be less than the amount contained in this paragraph.
(3) Except where an owner or operator of an offshore facility
can prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God,
(B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States
Government, or (D) an act or omission of a third party without
regard to whether any such act or omission was or was not negli-
gent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses, such owner or
operator of any such facility from which oil is discharged in viola-
tion of subsection (b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding
-------
100 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
any other provision of law, be liable to the United States Govern-
ment for the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) of this
section for the removal of such oil by the United States Govern-
ment in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000, except that where the
United States can show that such discharge was the result of will-
ful negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and knowl-
edge of the owner, such owner or operator shall be liable to the
United States Government for the full amount of such costs. The
United States may bring an action against the owner or operator
of such a facility in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover
such costs.
Proof by owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility of
liability of third party for discharge of oil; exceptions to third party
liability; amount of liability; procedure for recovery
(g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an
onshore facility, or of an offshore facility, from which oil is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section proves
that such discharge of oil was caused solely by an act or omission
of a third party, or was caused solely by such an act or omission in
combination with an act of God, an act of war, or negligence on
the part of the United States Government, such third party shall,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the
United States Government for the actual costs incurred under sub-
section (c) of this section for removal of such oil by the United
States Government, except where such third party can prove that
such discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an
act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Gov-
ernment, or (D) an act or omission of another party without re-
gard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or
any combination of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was
the owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge of
oil in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section, the liability
of such third party under this subsection shall not exceed $100 per
gross ton of such vessel or $14,000,000, whichever is the lesser. In
any other case the liability of such third party shall not exceed
the limitation which would have been applicable to the owner or
operator of the vessel or the onshore or offshore facility from
which the discharge actually occurred, if such owner or operator
were liable. If the United States can show that the discharge of
oil in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section was the result
of willful negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of such third party, such third party shall be liable to
the United States Government for the full amount of such re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 101
moval costs. The United States may bring an action against the
third party in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such
removal costs.
Preservation of rights of owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility, or United States against any third party
(h) The liabilities established by this section shall in no way
affect any rights which (1) the owner or operator of a vessel or
of an onshore facility or an offshore facility may have against any
third party whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed
to such discharge, or (2) the United States Government may have
against any third party whose actions may in any way have
caused or contributed to the discharge of oil.
Removal by owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
of discharged oil; suit against United States for recovery of reasonable
cost of removal; applicability to Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act;
payment of judgment
(i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or
an onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section acts to
remove such oil in accordance with regulations promulgated pur-
suant to this section, such owner or operator shall be entitled to
recover the reasonable costs incurred in such removal upon estab-
lishing, in a suit which may be brought against the United States
Government in the United States Court of Claims, that such dis-
charge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war,
(C) negligence on the part of the United States Government, or
(D) an act or omission of a third party without regard to whether
such act or omission was or was not negligent, or of any combina-
tion of the foregoing clauses.
(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case
where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act.
(3) Any amount paid in accordance with a judgment of the
United States Court of Claims pursuant to this section shall be
paid from the fund established pursuant to subsection (k) of this
section.
Issuance of rules and regulations consistent with the National Contingency
Plan; compliance; imposition of civil penalties for violations; amount
(j) (1) Consistent with the National Contingency Plan re-
quired by subsection (c) (2) of this section, as soon as practicable
after April 3, 1970, and from time to time thereafter, the Presi-
dent shall issue regulations consistent with maritime safety and
-------
102 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and
procedures for removal of discharged oil, (B) establishing criteria
for the development and implementation of local and regional oil
removal contingency plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods,
and requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil from
vessels and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and (D)
governing the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of oil and the
inspection of such cargoes in order to reduce the likelihood of dis-
charges of oil from such vessels in violation of this section,
(2) Any owner or operator of a vessel or an onshore facility or
an offshore facility and any other person subject to any regula-
tion issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or
refuses to comply with the provisions of any such regulation, shall
be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such
violation. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The Presi-
dent may assess and compromise such penalty. No penalty shall be
assessed until the owner, operator, or other person charged shall
have been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on such
charge. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the amou.nt
agreed upon in compromise, the gravity of the violation, and the
demonstrated good faith of the owner, operator, or other person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance, after notifica-
tion of a violation, shall be considered by the President.
Authorization of appropriations
(k) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to a revolving
fund to be established in the Treasury not to exceed $35,000,000
to carry out the provisions of subsections (c), (i), and (1) of this
section and section 1162 of this title. Any other funds received by
the United States under this section shall also be deposited in said
fund for such purposes. All sums appropriated to, or deposited in,
said fund shall remain available until expended.
Administration of oil pollution control; delegation of authority by President;
availability of appropriations; utilization of personnel, services, and facilities
(1) The President is authorized to delegate the administration
of this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities which he determines to be appropriate. Any
moneys in the fund established by subsection (k) of this section
shall be available to such Federal departments, agencies, and in-
strumentalities to carry out the provisions of subsections (c) and
(i) of this section and section 1162 of this title. Each such depart-
ment, agency, and instrumentality, in order to avoid duplication of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 103
effort, shall, whenever appropriate, utilize the personnel, services,
and facilities of other Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities.
Enforcement of provisions
(m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the pro-
visions of this section may, except as to public vessels, (A) board
and inspect any vessel upon the navigable waters of the United
States or the waters of the contiguous zone, (B) with or without a
warrant arrest any person who violates the provisions of this
section or any regulation issued thereunder in his presence or
view, and (C) execute any warrant or other process issued by an
officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction and venue
(n) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions, other than actions pursuant to
subsection (i) (1) of this section, arising under this section. In
the case of Guam, such actions may be brought in the district
court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions
may be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands. In the
case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, such actions may be brought in the District Court of the
United States for the District of Hawaii and such court shall have
jurisdiction of such actions. In the case of the Canal Zone, such
actions may be brought in the United States District Court for
the District of the Canal Zone.
Existing liability for damages for oil discharge or removal not affected or
modified; power of State or political subdivision thereof to impose re-
quirements or liabilities for oil discharge not preempted; existing Federal,
State, or local authority or law not affected or modified
(o) (1) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any
way the obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of
any owner or operator of any onshore facility or offshore facility
to any person or agency under any provision of law for damages
to any publicly-owned or privately-owned property resulting from
a discharge of any oil or from the removal of any such oil.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any
State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any require-
ment or liability with respect to the discharge of oil into any
waters within such State.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or
modifying any other existing authority of any Federal depart-
ment, agency, or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore
-------
104 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
facilities under this chapter or any other provision of law, or to
affect any State or local law not in conflict with this section.
Financial responsibility of vessels; amount; establishment; effective date;
administration of provisions; claim for costs against insurer; study and
report on need for financial responsibility of vessels, and onshore and
offshore facilities
(p) (1) Any vessel over three hundred gross tons, including
any barge of equivalent size but not including any barge that is
not self-propelled and that does not carry oil as cargo or fuel,
using any port or place in the United States or the navigable
waters of the United States for any purpose shall establish and
maintain under regulations to be prescribed from time to time
by the President, evidence of financial responsibility of $100 per
gross ton, or $14,000,000 whichever is the lesser to meet the
liability to the United States which such vessel could be sub-
jected under this section. In cases where an owner or operator
owns, operates, or charters more than one such vessel, financial
responsibility need only be established to meet the maximum lia-
bility to which the largest of such vessels could be subjected.
Financial responsibility may be established by any one of, or a
combination of, the following methods acceptable to the President:
(A) evidence of insurance, (B) surety bonds, (C) qualification as
a self-insurer, or (D) other evidence of financial responsibility.
Any bond filed shall be issued by a bonding company authorized to
do business in the United States.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
effective one year after April 3, 1970. The President shall delegate
the responsibility to carry out the provisions of this subsection to
the appropriate agency head within sixty days after April 3, 1970.
Regulations necessary to implement this subsection shall be issued
within six months after April 3, 1970.
(3) Any claim for costs incurred by such vessel may be brought
directly against the insurer or any other person providing evi-
dence of financial responsibility as required under this subsec-
tion. 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 op-
erator if an action had been brought against him by the claimant,
and which would have been available to him if an action had been
brought against him by the owner or operator.
(4) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and other interested
Federal agencies, representatives of the merchant marine, oil com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 105
panies, insurance companies, and other interested individuals and
organizations, and taking into account the results of the applica-
tion of paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall conduct a study of
the need for and, to the extent determined necessary—
(A) other measures to provide financial responsibility and
limitation of liability with respect to vessels using the navi-
gable waters of the United States;
(B) measures to provide financial responsibility for all on-
shore and offshore facilities; and
(C) other measures for limitation of liability of such fa-
cilities ;
for the cost of removing discharged oil and paying all damages
resulting from the discharge of such oil. The Secretary of Trans-
portation shall submit a report, together with any legislative
recommendations, to Congress and the President by January 1,
1971.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 11, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, Stat. 91, amended Dec. 31, 1970, Pub.L. 91-611,
Title I, § 120, 84 Stat. 1823.
§ 1162. Control of pollution by harzardous substances—Rules
and regulations; designation of hazardous substances; recom-
mendations of methods and means for removal
(a) The President shall, in accordance with subsection (b) of
this section, develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropri-
ate, regulations (1) designating as hazardous substances, other
than oil as defined in section 1161 of this title, such elements and
compounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shortlines
or the waters of the contiguous zone, present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare, including, but
not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches; and
(2) establishing, if appropriate, recommended methods and means
for the removal of such substances.
Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act
(b) Sections 551 through 559, inclusive (other than section
553 (c)), and 701 through 706, inclusive, of Title 5, shall apply to
regulations issued under authority of this section.
Notice to appropriate agency of United States of discharge of hazardous
substance from vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
(c) In order to facilitate the removal, if appropriate, of any
hazardous substance any person in charge of a vessel or of an
-------
106 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
onshore or offshore facility of any kind shall, as soon as he has
knowledge of any discharge of such substance from such vessel or
facility, immediately notify the appropriate agency of the United
States of such discharge.
Removal of discharged hazardous substance by owner or operator of vessel,
onshore facility, or offshore facility; removal pursuant to authority of
President
(d) Whenever any hazardous substance is discharged into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shore-
lines or the waters of the contiguous zone, unless removal is im-
mediately undertaken by the owner or operator of the vessel or
onshore or offshore facility from which the discharge occurs or
which caused the discharge, pursuant to the regulations pro-
mulgated under this section, the President, if appropriate, shall
remove or arrange for the removal thereof in accordance with
such regulations. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to restrict the authority of the President to act to remove or ar-
range for the removal of such hazardous substance at any time.
Liability of owner or operator of vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
for damages to publicly- or privately-owned property from discharge or
removal of hazardous substances
(e) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or
offshore facility to any person or agency under any provision of
law for damages to any publicly- or privately-owned property
resulting from a discharge of any hazardous substance or from
the removal of any such substance.
Definitions
(f) (1) For the purpose of this section the definitions in sub-
section (a) of section 1161 of this title shall be applicable to the
provisions of this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of
this subsection:
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(A) "remove" or "removal" refers to removal of the haz-
ardous substances from the water and shorelines or the
taking of such other actions as may be necessary to minimize
or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including,
but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and
private property, shorelines, and beaches;
(B) "owner or operator" means any person owning, operat-
ing, chartering by demise, or otherwise controlling the opera-
tions of, a vessel, or any person owning, operating, or other-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 107
wise controlling- the operations of an onshore or offshore
facility; and
(C) "offshore or onshore facility" means any facility of
any kind and related appurtenances thereto which is located
in, on, or under the surface of any land, or permanently or
temporarily affixed to any land, including lands beneath the
navigable waters of the United States and which is used or
capable of use for the purpose of processing, transporting,
producing, storing, or transferring for commercial purposes
any hazardous substance designated under this section.
Report to Congress; recommendations for legislation; areas of study;
consultations with interested persons
(g) The President shall submit a report to the Congress, to-
gether with his recommendations, not later than November 1,
1970, on the need for, and desirability of, enacting legislation to
impose liability for the cost of removal of hazardous substances
discharged from vessels and onshore and offshore facilities sub-
ject to this section including financial responsibility requirements.
In preparing this report, the President shall conduct an accelerated
study which shall include, but not be limited to, the method and
measures for controlling hazardous substances to prevent this
discharge, and the most appropriate measures for (1) enforce-
ment (including the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for
discharges and for failure to notify) and (2) recovery of costs
incurred by the United States if removal is undertaken by the
United States. In carrying out this study, the President shall con-
sult with the interested representatives of the various public and
private groups that would be affected by such legislation as well
as other interested persons.
Availability of appropriations; utilization of Federal
personnel, services, and facilities
(h) Any moneys in the funds established by section 1161 of
this title shall be available to the President to carry out the pur-
poses of this section. In carrying out this section the President
shall utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of Federal de-
partments, agencies, and instrumentalities in such manner as will
avoid duplication of effort.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 12, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 98.
§ 1163. Control of sewage from vessels—Definitions
(1) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) "new vessel" includes every description of watercraft
-------
108 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used,
as a means of transportation on the navigable waters of the
United States, the construction of which is initiated after
promulgation of standards and regulations under this section;
(2) "existing vessel" includes every description of water-
craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being
used, as a means of transportation on the navigable waters
of the United States, the construction of which is initiated
before promulgation of standards and regulations under this
section;
(3) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bareboat char-
tered and operated by the United States, by a State or po-
litical subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except
when such vessel is engaged in commerce;
(4) "United States" includes the States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Canal Zone, and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands;
(5) "marine sanitation device" includes any equipment for
installation on board a vessel which is designed to receive,
retain, treat, or discharge sewage, and any process to treat
such sewage;
(6) "sewage" means human body wastes and the wastes
from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or
retain body wastes;
(7) "manufacture" means any person engaged in the manu-
facturing, assembling, or importation of marine sanitation
devices or of vessels subject to standards and regulations
promulgated under this section;
(8) "person" means an individual, partnership, firm, cor-
poration, or association, but does not include an individual on
board a public vessel;
(9) "Discharge" includes, but is not limited to, any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, empyting, or dumping.
Promulgation of Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation
devices; factors determinative of standards; rules and regulations; com-
pliance by existing vessels equipped with marine sanitation devices with
standards and regulations
(b) (1) As soon as possible, after April 3, 1970, and subject to
the provisions of section 1155(j) of this title, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, after giving appropriate consideration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 109
to the economic costs involved, and within the limits of available
technology, shall promulgate Federal standards of performance
for marine sanitation devices (hereafter in this section referred
to as "standards") which shall be designed to prevent the dis-
charge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States from new vessels and
existing vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed toilet
facilities. Such standards shall be consistent with maritime safety
and the marine and navigation laws and regulations and shall be
coordinated with the regulations issued under this subsection by
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall promulgate regulations, which are con-
sistent with standards promulgated under this subsection and
with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and
regulations, governing the design, construction, installation, and
operation of any marine sanitation device on board such vessels.
(2) Any existing vessel equipped with a marine sanitation device
on the date of promulgation of initial standards and regulations
under this section, which device is in compliance with such initial
standards and regulations, shall be deemed in compliance with this
section until such time as the device is replaced or is found not to
be in compliance with such initial standards and regulations.
Effective dates of standards and regulations; waiver of
applicability of standards and regulations
(c) (1) Initial standards and regulations under this section shall
become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation;
and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. Revisions
of standards and regulations shall be effective upon promulgation,
unless another effective date is specified, except that no revision
shall take effect before the effective date of the standard or regu-
lation being revised.
(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating with regard to his regulatory authority established
by this section, after consultation with the Secretary, may dis-
tinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as be-
tween new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability of
standards and regulations as necessary or appropriate for such
classes, types, and sizes of vessels (including existing vessels
equipped with marine sanitation devices on the date of promulga-
tion of the initial standards required by this section), and, upon
application, for individual vessels.
-------
110 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Vessels subject to standards and regulations; exceptions
(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regu-
lations promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and op-
erated by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds
that compliance would not be in the interest of national security.
With respect to vessels owned and operated by the Department of
Defense, regulations under the last sentence of subsection (b) (1)
of this section and certifications under subsection (g) (2) of this
section shall be promulgated and issued by the Secretary of
Defense.
Consultations; compliance with rule making requirements
(e) Before the standards and regulations under this section are
promulgated, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the
Secretary of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury;
the Secretary of Commerce; other interested Federal agencies;
and the States and industries interested; and otherwise comply
with the requirements of section 553 of Title 5.
State or local regulation of design, manufacture, installation, or use of any
marine sanitation device; prohibition against sewage discharge into
certain State waters
(f) After the effective date of the initial standards and regula-
tions promulgated under this section, no State or political subdi-
vision thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of
such State or political subdivision with respect to the design,
manufacture, or installation or use of any marine sanitation
device on any vessel subject to the provisions of this section. Upon
application by a State, and where the Secretary determines that
any applicable water quality standards require such a prohibi-
tion, he shall by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from
a vessel of any sewage (whether treated or not) into those waters
of such State which are the subject of the application and to
which such standards apply.
Sale of marine sanitation devices; necessity of certification; procedure;
inspection and disclosure of records, reports, and information required
to insure compliance
(g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall
sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in inter-
state commerce, or import into the United States for sale or resale
any marine sanitation device manufactured after the effective
date of the standards and regulations promulgated under this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 111
section unless such device is in all material respects substantially
the same as a test device certified under this subsection.
(2) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall so certify
a marine sanitation device if he determines, in accordance with
the provisions of this paragraph, that it meets the appropriate
standards and regulations promulgated under this section. The
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing shall test or require such testing of the device in accordance
with procedures set forth by the Secretary as to standards of per-
formance and for such other purposes as may be appropriate. If
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating determines that the device is satisfactory from the
standpoint of safety and any other requirements of maritime law
or regulation, and after consideration of the design, installation,
operation, material, or other appropriate factors, he shall certify
the device. Any device manufactured by such manufacturer which
is in all material respects substantially the same as the certified
test device shall be deemed to be in conformity with the appropri-
ate standards and regulations established under this section.
(3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such rec-
ords, make such reports, and provide such information as the
Secretary or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating may reasonably require to enable him to deter-
mine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in com-
pliance with this section and regulations issued thereunder and
shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by
the Secretary or the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, permit such officer or employee at rea-
sonable times to have access to and copy such records. All infor-
mation reported to or otherwise obtained by, the Secretary or the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing or their representatives pursuant to this subsection which con-
tains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in
section 1905 of Title 18 shall be considered confidential for the
purpose of that section, except that such information may be dis-
closed to other officers or employees concerned with carrying out
this section. This paragraph shall not aorjly in the case of the
construction of a vessel by an individual for his own use.
Unlawful acts
(h) After the effective date of standards and regulations pro-
mulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
-------
112 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such
standards and regulations to manufacture for sale, to sell or
offer for sale, or to distribute for sale or resale any such
vessel unless it is equipped with a marine sanitation device
which is in all material respects substantially the same as the
appropriate test device certified pursuant to this section;
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any cer-
tified marine sanitation device or element of design of such
device installed in such vessel;
(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide infor-
mation required under this section; and
(4) for a vessel subject to such standards and regulations
to operate on the navigable waters of the United States, if
such vessel is not equipped with an operable marine sanita-
tion device certified pursuant to this section.
Actions to restrain unlawful acts; jurisdiction;
parties; enforcement of subpenas
(i) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdic-
tions to restrain violations of subsection (g) (1) of this section
and subsections (h) (1) through (3) of this section. Actions to
restrain such violations shall be brought by, and in, the name of
the United States. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a sub-
pena served upon any person under this subsection, the district
court of the United States for any district in which such person
is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the
United States and after notice to such person, shall have jurisdic-
tion to issue an order requiring such person to appear and give
testimony or to appear and produce documents, and any failure to
obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a
contempt thereof.
Civil penalties; amount; procedure for assessment
(j) Any person who violates subsection (g) (1) of this section
or clause (1) or (2) of subsection (h) of this section shall be
liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation.
Any person who violates clause (4) of subsection (h) of this sec-
tion or any regulation issued pursuant to this section shall be
liable to a civil penalty of not more than $2,000 for each violation.
Each violation shall be a separate offense. The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating may assess and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 113
compromise any such penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until
the person charged shall have been given notice and an opportuni-
ty for a hearing on such charge. In determining the amount of the
penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the gravity of
the violation, and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance, after notifica-
tion of a violation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
Enforcement personnel and facilities
(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing and he may utilize by agreement, with or without reimburse-
ment, law enforcement officers or other personnel and facilities of
the Secretary, other Federal agencies, or the States to carry out
the provisions of this section.
Authority of enforcement personnel to board and inspect
vessels and execute warrants
(1) Anyone authorized by the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce the provisions of
this section may, except as to public vessels, (1) board and inspect
any vessel upon the navigable waters of the United States and (2)
execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court
of competent jurisdiction.
Venue
(m) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section may
be brought in the district court of Guam, and in the case of the
Virgin Islands such actions may be brought in the district court
of the Virgin Islands. In the case of American Samoa and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such actions may be
brought in the District Court of the United States for the District
of Hawaii and such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions.
In the case of the Canal Zone, such actions may be brought in the
District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 13, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 100.
§ 1164. Acid and other mine water pollution elimination or con-
trol projects—Agreements to cooperate between Federal and State
or interstate agencies in demonstration projects; development of
abatement techniques
(a) The Secretary in cooperation with other Federal depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities is authorized to enter into
agreements with any State or interstate agency to carry out one or
-------
114 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
more projects to demonstrate methods for the elimination or con-
trol, within all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water
pollution resulting from active or abandoned mines. Such projects
shall demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and
practicality of various abatement techniques which will contribute
substantially to effective and practical methods of acid or other
mine water pollution elimination or control.
Criteria for selection of watersheds for projects
(b) The Secretary, in selecting watersheds for the purposes of
this section, shall (1) require such feasibility studies as he deems
appropriate, (2) give preference to areas which have the greatest
present or potential value for public use for recreation, fish and
wildlife, water supply, and other public uses, and (3) be satisfied
that the project area will not be affected adversely by the influx
of acid or other mine water pollution from nearby sources.
Conditions to Federal participation in projects
(c) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to
the conditions—
(1) that the State or interstate agency shall pay not less
than 25 per centum of the actual project costs which payment
may be in any form, including, but not limited to, land or
interests therein that is needed for the project, or personal
property or services, the value of which shall be determined
by the Secretary; and
(2) that the State or interstate agency shall provide legal
and practical protection to the project area to insure against
any activities which will cause future acid or other mine
water pollution.
Authorization of appropriations; limitation on amount of grants to States
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available
until expended. No more than 25 per centum of the total funds
available under this section in any one year shall be granted to
any one State.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 14, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 103.
§ 1165. Great Lakes pollution elimination or control projects—
Agreements to cooperate between Federal and State, local, inter-
state, or public agencies in demonstration projects; development
of abatement and remedial techniques
(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal depart-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 115
menta, agencies, and instrumentalities is authorized to enter into
agreements with any State, political subdivision, interstate agency,
or other public agency, or combination thereof, to carry out one
or more projects to demonstrate new methods and techniques
and to develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control of
pollution, within all or any part of the watersheds of the Great
Lakes. Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering and eco-
nomic feasibility and practicality of removal of pollutants and
prevention of any polluting matter from entering into the Great
Lakes in the future and other abatement and remedial techniques
which will contribute substantially to effective and practical
methods of water pollution elimination or control.
Conditions to Federal participation in projects
(b) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to
the condition that the State, political subdivision, interstate agen-
cy, or other public agency, or combination thereof, shall pay not
less than 25 per centum of the actual project costs, which pay-
ment may be in any form, including, but not limited to, land or
interests therein that is needed for the project, and personal prop-
erty or services the value of which shall be determined by the
Secretary.
Authorization of appropriations
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available
until expended.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 15, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 104.
§ 1165a. Contained spoil disposal facilities—Construction, oper-
ation, and maintenance; period; conditions; requirements
(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) of this section, 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 of appropriate local governments and shall
consider the views and recommendations of the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and shall comply with
requirements of section 1171 of this title, and of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969. Section 401 of this title shall not
apply to any facility authorized by this section.
-------
116 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Time for establishment; consideration of area needs; requirements
(b) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, shall establish the contained spoil disposal facilities
authorized in subsection (a) of this section at the earliest prac-
ticable date, taking into consideration the views and recommenda-
tions 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.
Written agreement requirement; terms of agreement
(c) Prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate
State or States, interstate agency, municipality, or other appropri-
ate political subdivision of the State shall agree in writing to (1)
furnish all lands, easements, and right-of-way necessary for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility; (2) con-
tribute to the ,IJnited States 25 per centum of the construction
costs, such amount to be payable either in cash prior to construc-
tion, in installments during construction, or in installments, with
interest at a rate to be determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which construc-
tion 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 construction, operation, and
maintenance of the facility; and (4) except as provided in sub-
section (f) of this section, maintain the facility after completion
of its use for disposal purposes in a manner satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Army.
Waiver of construction costs contribution from non-Federal interests; findings
of participation in waste treatment facilities for general geographical
area and compliance with water quality standards
(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) of this section
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 par-
ticipating in and in compliance with an approved plan for the gen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 117
eral geographical area of the dredging activity for construction,
modification, expansion, or rehabilitation of waste treatment
facilities and the Administrator has found that applicable water
quality standards are not being violated.
Federal payment of costs for disposal of dredged spoil from project
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all costs of
disposal of dredged spoil from the project for the Great Lakes
connecting channels, Michigan, shall be borne by the United States.
Title to lands, easements, and right-of-way: retention by non-Federal
interests; conveyance of facilities; agreement of transferee
(f) The participating non-Federal interest or interests shall
retain title to all lands, easements, and rights-of-way furnished
by it pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. A spoil disposal
facility owned by a non-Federal interest or interests may be con-
veyed 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 satisfactory.
Federal licenses or permits; charges; remission of charge
(g) Any spoil disposal facilitis 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 sub-
sections (d) and (e) of this section.
Provisions applicable to Great Lakes and their connecting channels
(h) This section, other than subsection (i), shall be applicable
only to the Great Lakes and their connecting channels.
Research, study, and experimentation program relating to dredged spoil
extended to navigable waters, etc.; cooperative program; scope of pro-
gram ; utilization of facilities and personnel of Federal agency
(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 in-
clude, but not be limited to, investigations on the characteristics
-------
118 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall be utilized.
Pub.L. 91-611, Title I, § 123, Dec. 31,1970, 84 Stat. 1823.
§ 1166. Training grants to and contracts with institutions of
higher education for water quality control programs or projects
The Secretary is authorized to make grants to or contracts with
institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institu-
tions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening, im-
proving, or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation
of undergraduate students to enter an occupation which involves
the design, operation, and maintenance of treatment works, and
other facilities whose purpose is water quality control. Such
grants or contracts may include payment of all or part of the cost
of programs or projects such as—
(A) planning for the development or expansion of pro-
grams or projects for training persons in the operation and
maintenance of treatment works;
(B) training and retraining of faculty members;
(C) conduct of short-term or regular session institutes for
study by persons engaged in, or preparing to engage in, the
preparation of students preparing to enter an occupation in-
volving the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
(D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time
or part-time academic study at the institution and periods of
full-time or part-time employment involving the operation
and maintenance of treatment works; and
(E) research into, and development of, methods of train-
ing students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching
materials and the planning of curriculum.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 16, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 104.
§ 1167. Application for training grant or contract; contents;
allocation of grants or contracts; compensation of employed
students
(1) A grant or contract authorized by section 1166 of the title
may be made only upon application to the Secretary at such time
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 119
or times and containing such information as he may prescribe,
except that no such application shall be approved unless it—
(A) sets forth programs, activities, research, or develop-
ment for which a grant is authorized under section 1166 of
this title, and describes the relation to any program set forth
by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted pursuant
to section 1168 of this title;
(B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting pro-
cedures as may be necessary to assure proper disbursement
of and accounting for Federal funds paid to the applicant
under this section; and
(C) provides for making such reports, in such form and
containing such information, as the Secretary may require
to carry out his functions under this section, and for keeping
such records and for affording such access thereto as the
Secretary may find necessary to assure the correctness and
verification of such reports.
(2) The Secretary shall allocate grants or contracts under sec-
tion 1166 of this title in such manner as will most nearly provide
an equitable distribution of the grants or contracts throughout
the United States among institutions of higher education which
show promise of being able to use funds effectively for the pur-
poses of this section.
(3) (A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary, and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in an application approved under paragraph
(1), to pay part of the compensation of students employed in con-
nection with the operation and maintenance of treatment works,
other than as an employee in connection with the operation and
maintenance of treatment works or as an employee in any branch
of the Government of the United States, as part of a program for
which a grant has been approved pursuant to this section.
(B) Departments and agencies of the United States are encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration, to
enter into arrangements with institutions of higher education for
the full-time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in
the competitive or excepted service, of students enrolled in pro-
grams set forth in applications approved under paragraph (1).
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 17, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102 ,84 Stat. 105.
-------
120 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
§ 1168. Award of scholarships for undergraduate study of opera-
tion and maintenance of treatment works; duration; allocation of
scholarships; approval of programs of institutions of higher edu-
cation ; payments to recipient of scholarship and to institution of
higher education; continuation of scholarship payments; employ-
ment subsequent to graduation
(1) The Secretary is authorized to award scholarships in accord-
ance with the provisions of this section for undergraduate study
by persons who plan to enter an occupation involving the opera-
tion and maintenance of treatment works. Such scholarships
shall be awarded for such periods as the Secretary may determine
but not to exceed four academic years.
(2) The Secretary shall allocate scholarships under this section
among institutions of higher education with programs approved
under the provisions of this section for the use of individuals
accepted into such programs, in such manner and according to
such plan as will insofar as practicable—
(A) provide an equitable distribution of such scholarships
throughout the United States; and
(B) attract recent graduates of secondary schools to enter
an occupation involving the operation and maintenance of
treatment works.
(3) The Secretary shall approve a program of an institution of
higher education for the purposes of this section only upon applica-
tion by the institution and only upon his finding—
(A) that such program has as a principal objective the
education and training of persons in the operation and main-
tenance of treatment works;
(B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or
can be readily put into effect and may reasonably be ex-
pected to be of high quality;
(C) that the application describes the relation of such pro-
gram to any program, activity, research, or development set
forth by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted
pursuant to section 1166 of this title; and
(D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances
that (i) the institution will recommend to the Secretary for
the award of scholarships under this section, for study in
such program, only persons who have demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the institution a serious intent, upon complet-
ing the program, to enter an occupation involving the opera-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 121
tion and maintenance of treatment works, and (ii) the insti-
tution will make reasonable continuing efforts to encourage
recipients of scholarships under this section, enrolled in such
program, to enter occupations involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works upon completing the
program.
(4) (A) The Secretary shall pay to persons awarded scholar-
ships under this section such stipends (including such allowances
for subsistence and other expenses for such persons and their
dependents) as he may determine to be consistent with prevailing
practices under comparable federally supported programs.
(B) The Secretary shall (in addition to the stipends paid to per-
sons under clause (A) of this paragraph) pay to the institution of
higher education at which such person is pursuing his course of
study such amount as he may determine to be consistent with
prevailing practices under comparable federally supported
programs.
(5) A person awarded a scholarship under the provisions of this
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this
section only during such periods as the Secretary finds that he is
maintaining satisfactory proficiency and devoting full time to
study or research in the field in which such scholarship was
awarded in an institution of higher education, and is not engaging
in gainful employment other than employment approved by the
Secretary by or pursuant to regulation.
(6) The Secretary shall by regulation provide that any person
awarded a scholarship under this section shall agree in writing to
enter and remain in an occupation involving the design, operation,
or maintenance of treatment works for such period after comple-
tion of his course of studies as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 18, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 105.
§ 1169. Definitions; annual report by Secretary; authorization
of appropriations
(1) As used in sections 1166 to 1169 of this title—
(A) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(B) The term "institution of higher education" means an educa-
tional institution described in the first sentence of section 1141 of
Title 20 (other than an institution of any agency of the United
-------
122 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States) which is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency or association approved by the Secretary for this purpose.
For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish a list
of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations which
he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of training
offered.
(C) The term "academic year" means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary shall annually report his activities under sec-
tions 1166 to 1169 of this title, including recommendations for
needed revisions in the provisions thereof.
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, to carry out sections 1166 to 1169 of this title (and
planning and related activities in the initial fiscal year for such
purpose). Funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, under authority of this paragraph shall be available for
obligation pursuant to the provisions of sections 1166 to 1169 of
this title during that year and the succeeding fiscal year.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 19, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 106.
§ 1170. Alaska village safe water and pollution elimination or
control projects—Agreements to cooperate between Secretary and
State of Alaska in demonstration projects; development of pre-
liminary plans
(a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with
the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to demon-
strate methods to provide for central community facilities for safe
water and the elimination or control of water pollution in those
native villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such projects
shall include provisions for community safe water supply systems,
toilets, bathing and laundry facilities, sewage disposal facilities,
and other similar facilities, and educational and informational
facilities and programs relating to health and hygiene. Such
demonstration projects shall be for the further purpose of develop-
ing preliminary plans for providing such safe water and such
elimination or control of water pollution for all native villages in
such State.
Utilization of personnel and facilities of Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
(b) In carrying out this section the Secretary shall cooperate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 123
with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for the
purpose of utilizing such of the personnel and facilities of that
Department as may be appropriate.
Report to Congress
(c) The Secretary shall report to Congress not later than Janu-
ary 31, 1973, the results of the demonstration projects authorized
by this section together with his recommendations, including any
necessary legislation, relating to the establishment of a statewide
program.
Authorization of appropriations
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $1,-
000,000 to carry out this section.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 20, as added Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 107.
§ 1171. Cooperation by all Federal agencies in pollution control
—Administration of Federal property consonant with applicable
water quality standards and pollution control programs; summary
of pollution conference, notice of hearing, and findings and recom-
mendations of hearing board concerning alleged polluting dis-
charges by Federal agencies
(a) Each Federal agency (which term is used in this section
includes Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities)
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or engaged
in any Federal public works activity of any kind, shall, consistent
with the paramount interest of the United States as determined by
the President, insure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and the purposes of this chapter in the administration
of such property, facility, or activity. In his summary of any con-
ference pursuant to section 1160 (d) (4) of this title, the Secretary
shall include references to any discharges allegedly contributing
to pollution from any such Federal property, facility, or activity,
and shall transmit a copy of such summary to the head of the
Federal agency having jurisdiction of such property, facility, or
activity. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 1160 (f) of
this title involving any pollution alleged to be effected by any such
discharges shall also be given to the Federal agency having juris-
diction over the property, facility, or activity involved, and the
findings and recommendations of the hearing board conducting
such hearing shall include references to any such discharges which
are contributing to the pollution found by such board.
-------
124 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Issuance of Federal license or permit for activities resulting in discharges
into navigable waters of United States; prerequisities; certification pro-
cedures; procedure subsequent to certification; compliance with applica-
ble water quality standards; inspection prior to initial operation of
activity by certifying body; suspension of license or permit; applicability
to Federal agencies; effective dates of certification requirements; lack
of applicable water quality standards for particular activities
(b) (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to con-
duct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the
navigable waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing
or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the
discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the
interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over
the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates
or will originate, that there is reasonable assurance, as deter-
mined by the State or interstate agency that such activity will be
conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water
quality standards. Such State or interstate agency shall establish
procedures for public notice in the case of all applications for
certification by it, and to the extent it deems appropriate, pro-
cedures for public hearings in connection with specific applications.
In any case where such standards have been promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to section 1160 (c) of this title, or where a
State or interstate agency has no authority to give such a certifi-
cation, such certification shall be from the Secretary. If the State,
interstate agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, fails or refuses
to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of
time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such re-
quest, the certification requirements of this subsection shall be
waived with respect to such Federal application. No license or
permit shall be granted until the certification required by this
section has been obtained or has been waived as provided in the
preceding sentence. No license or permit shall be granted if cer-
tification has been denied by the State, interstate agency, or the
Secretary, as the case may be.
(2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licens-
ing or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Secretary
of such application and certification. Whenever such a discharge
may affect, as determined by the Secretary, the quality of the
waters of any other State, the Secretary within thirty days of the
date of notice of application for such Federal license or permit
shall so notify such other State, the licensing or permitting agency,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 125
and the applicant. If, within sixty days after receipt of such
notification, such other State determines that such discharge will
affect the quality of its waters so as to violate its water quality
standards, and within such sixty-day period notifies the Secretary
and the licensing or permitting agency in writing of its objection
to the issuance of such license or permit and requests a public
hearing on such objection, the licensing or permitting agency shall
hold such a hearing. The Secretary shall at such hearing submit
his evaluation and recommendations with respect to any such
objection to the licensing or permitting agency. Such agency,
based upon the recommendations of such State, the Secretary, and
upon any additional evidence, of any, presented to the agency at
the hearing, shall condition such license or permit in such manner
as may be necessary to insure compliance with applicable water
quality standards. If the imposition of conditions cannot insure
such compliance such agency shall not issue such license or permit.
(3) The certification obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection with respect to the construction of any facility
shall fulfill the requirements of this subsection with respect to
certification in connection with any other Federal license or permit
required for the operation of such facility unless, after notice to
the certifying State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be,
which shall be given by the Federal agency to whom application
is made for such operating license or permit, the State, or if ap-
propriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, notifies such
agency within sixty days after receipt of such notice that there is
no longer reasonable assurance that there will be compliance with
applicable water quality standards because of changes since the
construction license or permit certification was issued in (A) the
construction or operation of the facility, (B) the characteristics
of the waters into which such discharge is made, or (C) the
water quality standards applicable to such waters. This para-
graph shall be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for
such operating license or permit has failed to provide the certify-
ing State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary,
with notice of any proposed changes in the construction or opera-
tion of the facility with respect to which a construction license or
permit has been granted which changes may result in violation of
applicable water quality standards.
(4) Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or
permitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters of the United States and with respect to
-------
12& LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
which a certification has been obtained pursuant to paragraph
(1) of this subsection, which facility or activity is not subject to
a Federal operating license or permit, the licensee or permittee
shall, provide an opportunity for such certifying State or, if
appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary to review the
manner in which the facility or activity shall be operated or con-
ducted for the purposes of assuring that applicable water quality
standards will not be violated. Upon notification by the certifying
State or, if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary
that the operation of any such federally licensed or permitted
facility or activity will violate applicable water quality standards,
such Federal agency may, after public hearing, suspend such
license or permit. If such license or permit is suspended, it shall
remain suspended until notification is received from the certify-
ing State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, that there is
reasonable assurance that such facility or activity will not violate
applicable water quality standards.
(5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a cer-
tification has been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsection
may be suspended or revoked by the Federal agency issuing such
license or permit upon the entering of a judgment under section
1160 (h) or this title that such facility or activity has been oper-
ated in violation of applicable water quality standards.
(6) No Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for
the purposes of this subsection.
(7) In any case where actual construction of a facility has been
lawfully commenced prior to April 3, 1970, no certification shall
be required under this subsection for a license or permit issued
after April 3, 1970, to operate such facility, except that any such
license or permit issued without certification shall terminate at
the end of the three-year period beginning on April 3, 1970, unless
prior to such termination date the person having such license or
permit submits to the Federal agency which issued such license or
permit a certification and otherwise meets the requirements of
this subsection.
(8) Except as provided in paragraph (7), any application for a
license or permit (A) that is pending on April 3, 1970, and (B)
that is issued within one year following April 3, 1970, shall not
require certification pursuant to this subsection for one year fol-
lowing the issuance of such license or permit, except that any such
license or permit issued shall terminate at the end of one year
unless prior to that time the licensee or permittee submits to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 127
Federal agency that issued such license or permit a certification
and otherwise meets the requirements of this subsection.
(9) (A) In the case of any activity which will affect water quali-
ty but for which there are no applicable water quality standards,
no certification shall be required under this subsection, except
that the licensing or permitting agency shall impose, as a condi-
tion of any license or permit, a requirement that the licensee or
permittee shall comply with the purposes of this chapter.
(B) Upon notice from the State in which the discharge origi-
nates or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary,
that such licensee or permittee has been notified of the adoption
of water quality standards applicable to such activity and has
failed, after reasonable notice, of not less than six months, to
comply with such standards, the license or permit shall be sus-
pended until notification is received from such State or interstate
agency or the Secretary that there is reasonable assurance that
such activity will comply with applicable water quality standards.
Authority of departments or agencies to require compliance with applicable
water quality standards unaffected; requests to Secretary for informa-
tion on and methods to comply with applicable water quality standards
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the author-
ity of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision
of law to require compliance with applicable water quality stand-
ards. The Secretary shall, upon the request of any Federal depart-
ment or agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, pro-
vide, for the purpose of this section, any relevant information on
applicable water quality standards, and shall, when requested by
any such department or agency or State or interstate agency, or
applicant, comment on any methods to comply with such
standards.
Authority of Secretary of the Army to allow use of spoil disposal
areas by Federal licenses or permittees; fee
(d) In order to implement the provisions of this section, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized, if he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit
the use of spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal
licensees or permittees, and to make an appropriate charge for
such use. Moneys received from such licenses or permittees shall
be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
such use. June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 21, formerly § 9, 62 Stat. 1160;
July 9, 1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 506; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88,
§ 8, 75 Stat. 210; renumbered § 11, and amended Oct. 2, 1965,
-------
128 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Pub.L. 89-234, §§ 2(a), 7(e), 79 Stat. 903, 910; 1966 Reorg. Plan
No. 2, eff. May 10, 1966, § l(a), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608;
renumbered § 21, and amended Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224,
Title I, §§ 102, 103, 84 Stat. 91, 107.
§ 1172. Administration—Rules and regulations
(a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his functions under this chapter.
Utilization of personnel of other agencies
(b) The Secretary, with the consent of the head of any other
agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and em-
ployees of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this chapter.
Appropriation to Department of the Interior
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of the Interior such sums as may be necessary to enable it to carry
out its functions under this chapter.
Records
(d) Each recipient of assistance under this chapter shall keep
such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records
which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient
of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the project or
undertaking in connection with which such assistance is given or
used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or
undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records as
will facilitate an effective audit.
Audit and examination of books, documents, etc.
(e) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United
States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have
access for the purpose of audits and examination to any books,
documents, papers, and records of the recipients that are pertinent
to the grants received under this chapter.
Official recognition by United States to industrial organizations and State
political subdivisions for waste treatment and pollution abatement pro-
grams; eligibility; awards; notification of President, etc. and publication
in Federal Register
(f) (1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a pro-
gram which will provide official recognition by the United States
Government to those industrial organizations and political sub-
divisions of States which during the preceding year demonstrated
an outstanding technological achievement or an innovative process,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 129
method or device in their waste treatment and pollution abate-
ment programs. The Secretary shall, in consultation with the
appropriate State water pollution control agency, establish regu-
lations under which such recognition may be applied for and
granted, except that no applicant shall be eligible for an award
under this subsection if such applicant is not in total compliance
with all applicable water quality standards under this chapter, and
otherwise does not have a satisfactory record with respect to
environmental quality.
(2) The Secretary shall award a certificate or plaque of suitable
design to each industrial organization or political subdivision which
qualifies for such recognition under regulations established by this
subsection.
(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the ap-
propriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the
award by the Secretary, and the awarding of such recognition shall
be published in the Federal Register.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 22, formerly § 10, 62 Stat. 1160; July 9,
1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 506; July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, § l(b),
(d), (e), 75 Stat. 204; renumbered § 12, and amended Oct. 2, 1965,
Pub.L. 89-234, §§ 2(a), 6, 79 Stat. 903, 909; 1966 Reorg.Plan No. 2,
eff. May 10, 1966, § l(a), 31 F.R. 6857, 80 Stat. 1608; renumbered
§ 22 and amended Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, §§ 102, 104,
84 Stat. 91, 110.
§ 1173. Definitions
When used in this chapter—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in
which there is a single State agency, other than the State health
authority, charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws
relating to the abatement of water pollution, it means such other
State agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or
more States established by or nursuant to an agreement or com-
pact approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or
more States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to
the control of pollution of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices
used in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liauid
nature, including the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sew-
-------
130 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and their appurte-
nances, and includes any extensions, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and
other waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries,
including coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, or other public body created by or pur-
suant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sew-
age, industrial wastes, or other wastes, and an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 23, formerly § 11, 62 Stat. 1161; July 9,
1956, c. 518, § 1, 70 Stat. 506; June 25, 1959, Pub.L. 86-70, § 28 (b),
73 Stat. 148; July 12, 1960, Pub.L. 86-624, § 23(b), 74 Stat. 418;
July 20, 1961, Pub.L. 87-88, § 9, 75 Stat. 210; renumbered § 13,
Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234, § 2(a), 79 Stat. 903, and amended Nov.
3, 1966, Pub.L. 89-753, Title II, § 209, 80 Stat. 1251; renumbered
§ 23, Apr. 3, 1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 91.
§ 1174. Application to other laws
This chapter shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limit-
ing the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or
of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of
the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or
impairing the provisions of sections 407, 408, 409, and 411 to 413
of this title, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any
treaty of the United States.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 24, formerly § 12, as added July 9, 1956, c.
518, § 1, 70 Stat. 506, renumbered § 14, Oct. 2, 1965, Pub.L. 89-234,
§ 2(a), 79 Stat. 903, renumbered § 24, and amended Apr. 3, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-224, §§ 102,107, 84 Stat. 91,113.
§ 1175. Cost estimates, studies and analysis by Secretary; re-
ports to Congress
(a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this chapter, the development of new programs,
and to furnish the Congress with the information necessary for
authorization of appropriations for fiscal years beginning after
June 30, 1968, the Secretary, in cooperation with State water
pollution control agencies and other water pollution control plan-
ning agencies, shall make a detailed estimate of the cost of car-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 131
rying out the provisions of such sections; a comprehensive study
of the economic impact on affected units of government of the
cost of installation of treatment facilities; and a comprehensive
analysis of the national requirements for and the cost of treating
municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain such water
quality standards as established pursuant to such sections or
applicable State law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed
estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost for the five-
year period beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no later than
January 10,1968, such study to be updated each year thereafter.
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this
chapter and other programs for the same purpose as this chapter,
and (2) means of using existing Federal training programs to
train such personnel. He shall report the results of such investiga-
tion and study to the President and the Congress not later than
July 1, 1967.
June 30, 1948, c. 758, § 26, formerly § 16, as added Nov. 3, 1966,
Pub.L. 89-753, Title II, § 210, 80 Stat. 1252, and renumbered Apr.
3,1970, Pub.L. 91-224, Title I, § 102, 84 Stat. 91.
-------
132 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2a THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
June 30,1948, P.L. 80-845, 62 Stat. 1155
AN ACT
To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service
of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That in connection
with the exercise of jurisdiction over the waterways of the Nation
and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the public health and
welfare by the abatement of stream pollution, it is hereby declared
to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the
primary responsibilities and rights of the States in controlling water
pollution, to support and aid technical research to devise and perfect
methods of treatment of industrial wastes which are not susceptible
to known effective methods of treatment, and to provide Federal
technical services to State and interstate agencies and to industries,
and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities,
in the formulation and execution of their stream pollution abatement
programs. To this end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health
Service (under the supervision and direction of the Federal Security
Administrator) and the Federal Works Administrator shall have the
responsibilities and authority relating to water pollution control
vested in them respectively by this Act.
SEC. 2. (a) The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation,
and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water
pollution agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities
and industries involved, prepare or adopt comprehensive programs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface
and underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive
programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are
necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propaga-
tion of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural,
industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this sub-
section the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investigations
with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or
States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or
substance which may deleteriously affect such waters.
(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention and abatement of water pollution;
encourage the enactment of uniform State laws relating to water pol-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 133
lution; encourage compacts between States for the prevention and
abatement of water pollution; collect and disseminate information
relating to water pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof;
support and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of
treatment of industrial wastes which are not susceptible to known
effective methods of treatment; make available to State and interstate
agencies, municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of sur-
[p. 1155]
veys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments relating to
water pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof conducted
by the Surgeon General and by authorized cooperating agencies; and
furnish such assistance to State agencies as may be authorized by law.
(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in con-
flict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative
effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and abatement of
water pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise,
as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and
compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or
obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has bsen
approved by the Congress.
(d) (1) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to any
State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such
pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such
waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters), which en-
dangers the health or •welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge originates, is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance and subject to abatement as herein provided.
(2) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, sur-
veys, and studies, finds that any pollution declared to be a public
nuisance by paragraph (1) of this subsection is occurring, he shall
give formal notification thereof to the person or persons discharging
any matter causing or contributing to such pollution and shall advise
the water pollution agency or interstate agency of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate of such notification.
This notification may outline recommended remsdial measures which
are reasonable and equitable in that case and shall specify a reason-
able time to secure abatement of the pollution. If action calculated
to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specifisd is not
commenced, this failure shall again bs brought to the attention of the
person or persons discharging the matter and of the water pollution
agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such dis-
-------
134 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
charge or discharges originate. The notification to such agency may
be accompanied by a recommendation that it initiate a suit to abate
the pollution in a court of proper jurisdiction.
(3) If, within a reasonable time after the second notification by the
Surgeon General, the person or persons discharging the matter fail
to initiate action to abate the pollution or the State water pollution
agency or interstate agency fails to initiate a suit to secure abate-
ment, the Federal Security Administrator is authorized to call a
public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where
the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originate, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the
Administrator, who may be officers or employees of the Federal
Security Agency or of the water pollution agency or interstate agency
of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate
(except that at least one of the members of the board shall be a
representative of the water pollution agency of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate and at least one shall
be a representative of the Department of Commerce, and not less
than a majority of the board shall be persons other than officers or
[p. 1156]
employees of the Federal Security Agency). On the basis of the
evidence presented at such hearing the board shall make its recom-
mendations to the Federal Security Administrator concerning the
measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to
secure abatement of such pollution.
(4) After affording the person or persons discharging the matter
causing or contributing to the pollution reasonable opportunity to
comply with the recommendations of the board, the Federal Security
Administrator may, with the consent of the water pollution agency
(or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the
State or States in which the matter causing or contributing to the
pollution is discharged, request the Attorney General to bring a suit
on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(5) Before or after any suit authorized by paragraph (4) is com-
menced, any person who is alleged to be discharging matter contribut-
ing to the pollution, abatement of which is sought, may, with the
consent of the water pollution agency (or of any officer or agency
authorized to give such consent) of the State in which such matter is
discharged, be joined as a defendant. The court shall have power to
enforce its judgment against any such defendant.
(6) In any suit brought pursuant to paragraph (4) in which two
or more persons in different judicial districts are originally joined as
defendants, the suit may be commenced in the judicial district in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 135
which any discharge caused by any of the defendants occurs.
(7) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript
of the proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recom-
mendation; and may receive such further evidence as the court in its
discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing
abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the public
interest and the equities of the case may require. The jurisdiction of
the Surgeon General, or any other agency which has jurisdiction pur-
suant to the provisions of this Act, shall not extend to any region or
areas nor shall it affect the rights or jurisdiction of any public body
where there are in effect provisions for sewage disposal pursuant to
agreement between the United States of America and any such public
body by stipulation entered in the Supreme Court of the United
States. While any such stipulation or modification thereof is in force
and effect, no proceedings of any kind may be maintained by virtue
of this Act against such public body or any public agency, corporation,
or individual within its jurisdiction. Neither this provision nor any
provision of this Act shall be construed to give to the Surgeon General
or any other person or agency the right to intervene in the said pro-
ceedings wherein such stipulation was entered.
(8) As used in this subsection the term "person" includes an indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, association, a State, municipality,
and a political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water-
pollution agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and
research and make surveys concerning any specific problsm of water
pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community, munic-
ipality, or industrial plant, with a view to recommending a solution
of such problem.
[p. 1157]
SEC. 4. The Surgeon General shall prepare and publish, from time
to time, reports of such surveys, studies, investigations, research, and
experiments made under the authority of this Act as he may consider
desirable, together with appropriate recommendations with regard to
the control of water pollution.
SEC. 5. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to
the provisions of section 9 (c), to make loans to any State, municipal-
ity, or interstate agency for the construction of necessary treatment
works to prevent the discharge by such State or municipality of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into inter-
state waters or into a tributary of such waters, and for the preparation
-------
136 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(either by its engineering staff or by practicing engineers employed
for that purpose) of engineering reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith. Such loans shall be subject, however, to the
following limitations: (a) No loan shall be made for any project un-
less such project shall have baen approved by the appropriate State
water pollution agency or agencies and by the Surgeon General, and
unless such project is included in a comprehensive program developed
pursuant to this Act; (b) no loan shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 33 Vs per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof, as determined by the Federal Works Administrator, or in an
amount exceeding $250,000, whichever amount is the smaller; (c)
every such loan shall bear interest at the rate of 2 per centum per
annum, payable semiannually; and (d) the bonds or other obligations
evidencing any such loan (1) must be duly authorized and issued
pursuant to State and local law, and (2) may, as to the security
thereof and the payment of principal thereof and interest thereon, be
subordinated (to the extent deemed feasible and desirable by the
Federal Works Administrator for facilitating the financing of such
projects) to other bonds or obligations of the obligor issued to finance
such project or that may then be outstanding.
SEC. 6. (a) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Adminis-
trator, in carrying out their respective functions under this Act, shall
provide for the review of all reports of examinations, research, investi-
gations, plans, studies, and surveys, made pursuant to the provisions
of this Act and all applications for loans under section 5. In deter-
mining the desirability of projects for treatment works and of approv-
ing loans in connection therewith, consideration shall be given to the
public benefits to be derived by the construction thereof, the propriety
of Federal aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of
constructing and maintaining the works to the public interest and to
the public necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions
made or proposed by the applicant for the loan for assuring proper
and efficient operation and maintenance of the works after completion
of the construction thereof.
(b) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service a
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board to be composed as follows:
The Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by
him, who shall be Chairman of the Board, a representative of the
Department of the Army, a representative of the Department of the
Interior, a representative of the Federal Works Agency, and a
representative of the Department of Agriculture, designated by the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal
[p. 1158]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 137
Works Administrator, and the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively;
and six persons (not officers or employees of the Federal Govern-
ment) to be appointed annually by the President. One of the persons
appointed by the President shall be an engineer who is expert in
sewage and industrial-waste disposal, one shall be a person who shall
have shown an active interest in the field of wildlife conservation,
and, except as the President may determine that the purposes of this
Act will be better furthered by different representation, one shall be
a person representative of municipal government, one shall be a per-
son representative of State government, and one shall bs a person
representative of affected industry. The members of the Board who
are not officers or employees of the United States shall be entitled to
receive compensation at a per diem rate to be fixed by the Federal
Security Administrator, together with an allowance for actual and
necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while engaged on the
business of the Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to review
the policies and program of the Public Health Service as undertaken
under authority of this Act and to make recommendations thereon in
reports to the Surgeon General. Such clerical and technical assist-
ance as may be necessary to discharge the duties of the Board shall
be provided from the personnel of the Public Health Service.
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period
beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed
the sum of $22,500,000 for the purpose of making loans under section
5 of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Federal Security Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the
period beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, the sum of
$1,000,000, to be allotted equitably and paid to the States for expendi-
ture by or under the direction of their respective State water pollu-
tion agencies, and to interstate agencies for expenditure by them, for
the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related
to the prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial
wastes. Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended, shall be allotted by the Surgeon General
in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Federal Security
Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settlement by the
General Accounting Office.
(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Works Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period begin-
ning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed
$800,000 to enable the Federal Works Administrator to erect and to
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
furnish and to equip such buildings and facilities at Cincinnati, Ohio,
as may be necessary for the use of the Public Health Service in con-
nection with the research and study of water pollution and the
training of personnel in work related to the control of water pollution.
The amount authorized for this purpose shall include the cost of
preparation of drawings and specifications, supervision of construction
and other administrative expenses incident to the work: Provided,
That the Federal Works Agency shall prepare the plans and specifica-
[p.1159]
tions, make all necessary contracts and supervise construction. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this authorization shall remain available
until expended.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Works Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period
beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed
the sum of $1,000,000 to enable the Federal Works Administrator to
make grants to States, municipalities, or interstate agencies to aid in
financing the cost of engineering, architectural, and economic investi-
gations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and ot'aer action preliminary to the con-
struction of projects approved by the appropriate State water pollu-
tion agency or agencies and by the Surgeon General. Grants made
under this subsection with respect to any project shall not exceed
whichever of the following amounts is the smaller: (1) $20,000, or
(2) 33 Vs per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as determined
by the Federal Works Administrator) of the action preliminary to
the construction of such project. Sums appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
(d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period
beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such sum (not to
exceed the sum of $2,000,000) as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Works Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period
beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such sum (not to
exceed the sum of $500,000) as may be necessary to enable it to carry
out its functions under this Act.
SEC. 9. (a) Five officers may be appointed to grades in the Regular
Corps of the Public Health Service above that of senior assistant, but
not to a grade above that of director, to assist in carrying out the pur-
poses of this Act. Officers appointed pursuant to this subsection in
any fiscal year shall not be counted as part of the 10 per centum of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 139
the original appointments authorized to be made in such year under
section 207 (b) of the Public Health Service Act; but they shall for all
other purposes be treated as though appointed pursuant to such sec-
tion 207 (b).
(b) The Federal Security Administrator, with the consent of the
head of any other agency of the Federal Government, may utilize
such officers and employees of such agency as may be found necessary
to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(c) (1) Upon written request of the Federal Works Administrator,
from time to time submitted to the Federal Security Administrator,
specifying (a) particular projects approved by the Surgeon General,
(b) the total estimated costs of such projects, and (c) the total sum
requested for loans which the Federal Works Administrator proposes
to make for such projects, the Federal Security Administrator shall
transfer such total sum (within the amount appropriated therefor) to
the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for such
projects pursuant to section 5 hereof. In making such loans, the Fed-
eral Works Administrator shall adhere to the order or sequence of
priority for projects established by the Surgeon General and shall take
such measures as, in his judgment, will assure that the engineering
[p. 1160]
plans and specifications, the details of construction, and the completed
treatment works conform to the project as approved by the Surgeon
General; and the Federal Works Administrator shall furnish written
reports to the Federal Security Administrator on the progress of the
work.
(2) The Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized (a) to
hold, administer, exchange, refund, or sell at public or private sale
any bonds or other obligations evidencing loans made under this Act;
and (b) to collect, or provide for the collection of, interest on and
principal of such bonds or other obligations. All moneys received as
proceeds from such sales, and all moneys so collected, shall bs covered
into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(d) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator
are each authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to
carry out their respective functions under this Act.
SEC. 10. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution agency" means the State
health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which there
is a single State agency, other than the State health authority, charged
with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the abatement
of water pollution, it means such other State agency;
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States having powers or duties pertaining to the abatement of pollu-
tion of waters;
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in
the treatment of sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof;
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands;
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of, State boundaries; and
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, district, or other
public body created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdic-
tion over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
SEC. 11. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limit-
ing the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of
the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of the
United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or impair-
ing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections 13
through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEC. 12. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any pro-
vision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 13. This Act may be cited as the "Water Pollution Control
Act."
Approved June 30, 1948.
[p. 1161]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 141
1.2a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 462, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947)
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL
JULY 8 (legislative day, JULY 7), 1947.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MALONE, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 418]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 418) providing for water-pollution-control activities in the United
States Public Health Service, and for other purposes, having consid-
ered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill (S. 418) is to provide a comprehensive pro-
gram for preventing, abating, and controlling water pollution, to be
prepared or adopted by the Surgeon General, under the supervision
of the Federal Security Agency, and in cooperation with the Federal
Works Agency, and with other Federal agencies, State water pollu-
tion agencies, interstate agencies, and with municipalities and in-
dustries. The bill states the policy of the Congress to recognize,
preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the
States in controlling water pollution. It provides for Federal techni-
cal services and loans not to exceed in the aggregate $100,000,000 in
any fiscal year at an interest rate of 2 percent per annum to States
and interstate agencies and to industries. The bill makes it clear that
enforcement procedures are to be initiated only after reasonable time
is given a State or interstate agency or industry to comply with the
remedial measures recommended by the Surgeon General to abate the
pollution, and then only with the consent of the water pollution
agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent)
of the State in which the agency or industry is located. Provision is
also made for the holding of a public hearing prior to the institution
of a suit to abate pollution, and the court in rendering its judgment is
directed to give due consideration to the practicability and to the
-------
142 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollu-
tion proved.
[P.I]
GENERAL STATEMENT
The pollution of our water resources by domestic and industrial
wastes has become an increasingly serious problem due to the rapid
growth of our cities and industries. Large and increasing amounts of
varied wastes must be disposed of from these concentrated areas.
Polluted waters menace the public health (through contamination of
water and food supplies), destroy fish and game life, and rob us of
other benefits of our natural resources.
The Subcommittee on Flood Control and Improvement of Rivers
and Harbors held 10 days of actual hearings over a period of 6 weeks,
at which statements were heard from 38 witnesses, representing many
fields of activity interested in water pollution. The witnesses
included Members of Congress and several experts on public health
and sanitation, conservation of natural resources, and industries
engaged in water uses. In addition, 35 others filed statements with
the committee.
Practically all of the statements heard or received by the committee
are in agreement with the desirability of reducing and controlling
pollution of streams and the majority are in favor of a Federal pollu-
tion-control program. A substantial number, however, feel that
Federal participation in such a program should be limited in scope and
that primary responsibility for dealing with water-pollution problems
should remain with the States and other local authorities.
Federal participation in pollution abatement has been considered
by all but six Congresses since the Fifty-fifth Congress on 1897. In
all, over 100 bills have been introduced; 3 of these were passed by one
or both Houses, but none was finally approved.
Four pollution control bills have baen introduced in the House of
Representatives during this Congress: H. R. 123, H. R. 315, H. R.
470, and H. R. 3990. S. 418 is identical to H. R. 315 and H. R. 470.
H. R. 123 differs slightly from the others. H. R. 3990 is a modifica-
tion of H. R. 123 and contains some of the provisions of S. 418 as
amended. Consideration has been given to H. R. 123, H. R. 3990
and to the amendments and suggestions offered as to S. 418.
The information developed at the hearings furnished ample proof
that water pollution has become a matter of grave concern in many
areas, and that its damaging effects on the public health and natural
resources are a matter of definite Federal concern as a menace to
national welfare. The committee is convinced that further progress
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 143
in pollution abatement must be undertaken in order to control this
menace to the public health and natural resources. The committee
agrees with the views of many witnesses that the Federal Government
should take the initiative in developing comprehensive plans for the
solution of water pollution problems in cooperation with the States.
The committee also considers that the extension of Federal credit to
local agencies for construction of pollution abatement works will
greatly stimulate the construction phase of the comprehensive pro-
gram and thus encourage the early accomplishment of urgently
needed abatement measures.
The bill as amended leaves the initial responsibility for enforce-
ment with the States. Federal enforcement is to be exercised only
[p. 2]
after the efforts of the State have been exhausted, and then only with
the consent of the State. The committee is deeply impressed with the
serious effects of polluted waters upon the public health and welfare
and is firmly convinced that failure to accomplish adequate progress
in pollution abatement under the terms of this bill, through the co-
operative efforts of the Federal and State agencies, will undoubtedly
call for much stronger and more direct Federal enforcement measures
at some subsequent session of the Congress.
AMENDMENTS
The bill, as amended, reflects what are deemed to be the pertinent
constructive suggestions made in the course of the hearings. The
amendments in effect accomplish the following results:
The respective activities of the Federal Security Agency and the
Federal Works Agency are set forth in the bill. Prior to the amend-
ments effecting this result, the Surgeon General, under the super-
vision and direction of the Federal Security Administrator, was, in
the main, the only Federal official to whom, under the bill, was given
the responsibility and authority relating to water pollution control.
The committee agrees that the responsibility for the diagnoses of the
causes of stream pollution, the development of remedies, and the
justification of expenditures are properly entrusted to the Surgeon
General of the United States Public Health Service. The execution
of the remedies, however, involves the design and construction of
sewage-treatment works by non-Federal public bodies and industries
to be financed, in part, by loans from the Federal Government. The
committee is convinced that the agency presently organized on a
Nation-wide basis and best qualified to superviss this type of non-
Federal construction program is the Federal Works Agency. The
Federal Works Agency, together with its constituent units, has
-------
144 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
constructed or financed over 1,500 sewer projects throughout the
United States, and has made advances for the planning of more
than 1,300 additional sewage disposal and treatment works. Its engi-
neers, finance personnel, and lawyers are skilled in the preparation
and review of detailed plans and specifications, the making of con-
struction estimates, the inspection of work, and the issuance of
municipal bonds, particularly revenue bonds, by means of which
bonds it is expected a considerable portion of the program will be
financed. The committee considers that the designation of the
Federal Works Agency to perform these functions will permit the
program to go ahead with a maximum of speed and efficiency and a
minimum of administrative expense. The Public Health Service and
the Federal Works Agency, each contributing its special skills and
working together cooperatively, can accomplish more than either
of them working alone. Both of these agencies agree with this point
of view. The provision that the Federal Security Administrator,
with the consent of the head of any other agency of the Federal
Government, may utilize such officers and employees of such agencies
as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of
the bill is retained in section 9 (b).
Throughout the bill the term "State water pollution agency" is
used in lieu of the term "State health authority." This amendment is
for the purpose of removing any possible confusion between the terms
of this bill and the terms used in other statutes pertaining to the
Public Health Service.
[p. 3]
The Surgeon General is given authority in section 2 (a) to adopt
comprehensive programs as well as to prepare such programs.
Section 2 (c) is amended so as to make it clear that no interstate
agreement or compact shall be binding unless and until it has been
approved by the Congress.
Section 2 (d) of the bill, being the enforcement section is largely
rewritten
(a) It is made clear by definition in section 2 (d) (1) that the
pollution which is to be abated under the provisions of the bill is the
pollution of interstate waters (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after it is discharged into a tributary of such
waters) which endangers the health and welfare of persons in a State
other than that in which the discharge originates.
(b) In paragraph 2 of section 2 (d) the reasonableness of the time
within which remedial measures shall be taken by an offending party
to secure the abatement of pollution is left open for ultimate deter-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 145
mination by the court, instead of by the Surgeon General. Under the
bill, before amendment, it was provided in effect that upon failure
of the offending party to abate the pollution within the time specified,
but not to exceed 2 years, an action to abate such pollution should be
brought in the name of the United States by any United States
attorney when requested to do so by the Surgeon General. Under
section 2 (d) (3), when there is a failure to abate pollution after
notification or a failure on the part of the State water pollution agency
or interstate agency to initiate a suit to secure such abatement, the
Federal Security Administrator is authorized to call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one of the places where such pollution originates,
before a board of five or more persons appointed by the Administrator.
The board may be composed of officers or employees of the Federal
Security Agency or of the water pollution agency or interstate agency
of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate but
at least one member of the board shall be a representative of the
State water pollution agency of the State or States where such dis-
charge or discharges originate and at least one shall ba a representa-
tive of the Department of Commerce, and not less than the majority
of the board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the
Federal Security Agency. After the hearing, the board makes its
recommendations to the Federal Security Administrator concerning
the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable to secure abate-
ment of the pollution. Also, after the person discharging the matter
causing the pollution has had reasonable opportunity to comply with
the recommendations of the board, the Federal Security Administra-
tor may, with the consent of the water pollution agency (or of any
officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State or
States in which the matter causing or contributing to the pollution
is discharged, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf
of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution. Provision
is also made for the joinder as parties defendant, with the consent of
the water pollution agency (or of any officer or agency authorized
to give such consent) of the State in which such matter is discharged,
of any person who is alleged to be contributing to the pollution, the
abatement of which is sought. The court is given power to enforce its
judgment against any such defendant, regardless of the location of
such defendant. Also, where two or more persons located in different
[p. 4]
judicial districts are originally joined as defendants, the suit may be
commenced in the judicial district in which any discharge caused by
any of the defendants occurs. It is provided that the court shall
receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings before the board,
-------
146 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
a copy of the board's recommendation, and such further evidence as
the court deems proper, and that the court, in rendering its judgment,
shall give due consideration to the practicability and physical and eco-
nomic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved.
A definition of the term "person" is inserted as section 2 (d) (8).
Section 2 (d) represents a compromise of the view of those persons
who believe in immediate and drastic action to abate pollution and the
view of those persons who feel that the activity of the Federal Gov-
ernment should be limited to financial aid and to surveys and studies
as to pollution abatement and recommendations based thereon. It is
the thought of the latter group that through the cooperative efforts of
the Federal Government and State or interstate authorities and in-
dustries practically all feasible pollution abatement can be accom-
plished. It is the view of the advocates of immediate and drastic
enforcement that the presently existing dangers to public health and
the destruction of fish and other aquatic life and the impairment of
streams for the purposes of navigation and recreation are so pressing
that they demand prompt attention. There were a number of wit-
nesses at the hearings who pointed out the far-reaching unfavorable
economic effects of any immediate effort to abate pollution now being
caused by certain industries. Large investments have been made by
such industries, many communities are dependent upon them for the
support of their population, and their products are greatly needed and
make a substantial contribution to the general welfare of the country.
Certain industry witnesses took the position that in considering the
problem of industrial waste the principle of the balancing of con-
veniences and needs should apply. In support of this position, one
•vitness quoted the following excerpt from an opinion rendered in
1906 by Judge Beatty of the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho in the case of McCarthy et al. v. Bunker Hill &
Sullivan Mining and Coal Co. et al. (147 Fed. 981) which was a suit
to restrain mining companies from dumping mine wastes into streams:
But, admitting that complainants have suffered injury, and may suffer more,
from the causes alleged, there is potent reason why the court should exercise its
discretion against the issuing of a restraining order. Without detailing the rea-
sons, such an order would mean the closing of every mill and mine, of every shop,
store, or place of business, in the Coeur d'Alene. There are about 12,000 people,
the majority of whom are laboring people, dependent upon the mines for their
livelihood. Not only would their present occupation cease, but all these people
must remove to other places, for the mines constitute the sole means of occupation,
and when they finally close, Wallace and Wardner, Gem and Burke, and their
surrounding mountains will again become the abode only of silence and the wild
fauna. Any court must hesitate to so act as to bring such results.
In some cases it appears that industries are now and have been giving
considerable attention to the perfecting of measures for the abatement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 147
of the pollution caused by their respective plants, but thus far no
feasible solution has been found for taking care of such pollution.
The committee has borne all of these matters in mind, but it also
recognizes that the health of the citizens of this country is of para-
mount importance. By providing for a hearing before a representa-
tive board and by requiring the consent of the water pollution agency
S. Repts., 80-1, vol. 3 37
[p. 5]
(or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of each
State wherein are located the municipality, persons, or industries
which are to be proceeded against in any Federal suit, the committee
is endeavoring to give all parties concerned an opportunity to present
their positions prior to the commencement of any legal proceeding
and to give due recognition to the primary rights and responsibilities
of the States and to the first-hand information which each State has
or may secure as to all phases of any pollution problem originating
in it.
As hereinbefore set forth, the necessity for the abatement of stream
pollution has been before the Congress for some time. Unless the
cooperative measures, and what the committee deems to be very
reasonable enforcement procedures provided for in the bill, bring
about the recognized needed results, it is reasonable to anticipate
that a later Congress will enact very much more stringent enforce-
ment legislation.
Section 5 is amended so as to make the Federal Works Adminis-
trator, instead of the Federal Security Administrator, the Federal
official authorized to extend loans for the construction of necessary
treatment works and the preparation of reports, plans, and specifica-
tions in connection therewith. As amended, the section omits any
provision for grants-in-aid. Also, a stated rate of interest, namely,
2 percent per annum, is provided as compared with a provision in
the original draft that loans should bear interest at the rate prescribed
by the President and be made upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe. This provision for a fixed rate of interest
is in line with section 904, title 7, chapter 31, United States Code, as
amended September 21, 1944, which authorizes the Administrator of
the REA to make loans for financing rural electrification systems at
an interest rate of 2 percent per annum. It is also provided that no
loans shall be made for any project unless such project shall have
been approved by the appropriate State water pollution agency or
agencies and by the Surgeon General and unless the project is in-
cluded in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to the bill.
The Federal Works Administrator, instead of the Federal Security
-------
148 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Administrator, looks after all legal, financial, and other matters psr-
taining to the security of the loan. It is also provided that the bonds
or other obligations evidencing any loan made to any State, munic-
ipality, or interstate agency, may be subordinated, to the extent
deemed feasible by the Federal Works Administrator, to other bonds
or obligations of the obligor issued to finance such project or that
may then be outstanding. Similar changes are made in ssction 6
with reference to loans to industrial enterprises, except that there is
no provision for subordinating the security of the Federal Govern-
ment as to such loans.
The committee is moved to make the amendments to sections 5
and 6 hereinbefore mentioned because it feels that the present favor-
able financial position of most political subdivisions removes the
necessity for grants-in-aid and that loans up to one-third of the total
cost of a project will be sufficient to stimulate the construction of
pollution abatement projects and to enable their financing through
private agencies at low rates of interest, in view of the provision for
subordinating the security of the Federal Government to the security
of such private lending agency. Furthermore, as developed in the
[P. 6]
testimony, it appears that many of the States now provide for the
issuance of revenue bonds by sewage disposal agencies, which bonds
are self-liquidating and do not come within the usual constitutional
and statutory debt limitation provisions. The elimination of grants-
in-aid was also prompted by the committee's feeling that the present
extremely large Federal debt did not justify grants-in-aid if there was
a reasonable probability that pollution abatement could be otherwise
financed under reasonable provisions and rates.
The provision at the end of sections 5 and 6 that compliance with
the act shall not be conditioned upon the availability of Federal
grants-in-aid or loans is omitted as unnecessary and in conflict with
the spirit of cooperation enunciated throughout the bill.
In section 7, subparagraph (b) of the original bill, providing for
setting forth in the estimates of appropriations for any fiscal year the
order of sequence of priority for individual projects in accordance
with their estimated importance in the control of water pollution, has
been omitted. Also omitted is the provision that the President shall
set forth in the budget his estimate of expenditures and appropria-
tions for such projects both in summary and by individual projects.
It is believed that the fixing of priorities in recommending estimates
of appropriations is undesirable, in view of the fact that the Federal
Security Agency, through the Surgeon General, will bs required to
make an adequate showing as to the need for any sums which may
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 149
be appropriated. It is also provided in section 7 (c) that sums appro-
priated shall remain available until expended. It is felt that this
provision is proper, since grants-in-aid are eliminated and since the
Federal Works Administrator must give careful consideration to any
loan made by the Federal Government both before the extending of
the loan and after the loan is made. Provision is made in section
7 (d) for the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to enable
the Federal Security Agency and the Federal Works Agency to carry
out their respective functions under the bill.
The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, established under
the provisions of section 7 (b), is to include a representative of the
Federal Works Agency and six persons (not officers or employees of
the Federal Government), instead of five, to be appointed by the
President, instead of by the Surgeon General. It is believed that
these changes will tend toward a better balanced and more representa-
tive board.
Section 8 (a) of the bill is amended to provide that the appropria-
tions for the conducting of investigations, surveys, and studies related
to the prevention and control of water pollution may be for the sum of
$5,000,000, instead of $1,500,000, as it appeared that $1,500,000
would be inadequate to cover the activities named. The first appro-
priation for this purpose is to be for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1948, rather than for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947. Subpara-
graph (b) of the original section 8 is omitted because it relates to
grants-in-aid for the preparation of engineering reports. In lieu
thereof a new subdivision (b) is inserted which authorizes the appro-
priation of not to exceed $12,000,000 for the making of advances to
States, municipalities, or interstate agencies to aid in financing the
cost of engineering, architectural, and economic investigations and
studies, and other actions preliminary to the construction of projects.
Such advances shall be repayable without interest upon the com-
mencement of the construction of the particular project.
[p. 7]
The provision in section 9 (c) in the original bill, giving the Surgeon
General authority to utilize an appropriate agency of the United
States for the purpose of reviewing the title and performing other
functions in connection with the construction of treatment works, is
omitted because under the provisions of the bill as amended these
duties are performed by the fully adequate staff of the Federal Works
Agency. Provision is made in section 9 (c) for the transfer of funds
by the Federal Security Administrator to the Federal Works Admin-
istrator for the making of loans pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the
bill. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized to look after
-------
150 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
all matters pertaining to the bonds or other obligations evidencing
any loans made under the bill and the collecting of interest on and
the principal of such bonds and obligations. Also, the Surgeon Gen-
eral and Federal Works Administrator are each authorized to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out their respec-
tive functions.
In view of the use of the term "State water pollution agency" in
lieu of "State health authority," the former term is defined in section
10 (a) to include State health authority and other agencies charged
with the responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the abate-
ment of water pollution. The definition of the term "treatment
works" in section 10 (c) is enlarged so as to make it clear that it in-
cludes extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and altera-
tions. The definition of the term "State" in section 10 (d) is modified
to name specifically the geographical entities which it covers. In
section 10 (e) the definition of the term "interstate waters" is modified
so as to exclude "and their tributaries." This change is made so as
to remove some uncertainty as to the application of the term "inter-
state waters" as indicated by witnesses at the hearings, and in view of
the provision in section 2 as to what shall constitute a nuisance to
be abated under the provisions of the bill.
A new section, numbered 11, is added so as to make it clear that
this bill does not supersede or limit the functions of the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service or any other officer or agency of
the United States, under any other law relating to water pollution
and does not affect or impair the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of
1924 or sections 13 through 17 of the act approved March 3, 1899, as
amended, which makes it unlawful to discharge refuse other than
liquids into navigable waters.
A new section 12 includes the usual separability clause.
Section 13, which was formerly numbered section 11, cites this
legislation as the "Water Pollution Control Act."
Some language changes and additions are made solely for the
purpose of clarity.
The title is amended to conform to the text.
[p. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 151
1.2a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.B. REP. No. 1829, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948)
PROVIDING FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACTIVITIES
IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE OF THE FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY AND IN THE FEDERAL WORKS
AGENCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
APRIL 28, 1948.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DONDERO, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 418]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 418) to provide for water pollution control activities in the Public
Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal
Works Agency, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the
bill do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute therefore
the following:
That in connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the waterways of the
Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the public health and wel-
fare by the abatement of stream pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy
of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the States in controlling water pollution, to support and aid technical
research to devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which
are not susceptible to known effective methods of treatment, and to provide Fed-
eral technical services to State and interstate agencies and to industries, and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities, in the formu-
lation and execution of their stream pollution abatement programs. To this end,
the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service (under the supervision and
direction of the Federal Security Administrator) and the Federal Works Admin-
istrator shall have the responsibilities and authority relating to water pollution
control vested in them respectively by this Act.
SEC. 2. (a) The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation, and in coop-
eration with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution agencies and inter-
state agencies, and with the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or
adopt comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of inter-
State waters and tributaries thereof hereinafter declared to be a public nuisance
-------
152 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and improving the sanitary condition of such interstate waters and tributaries
thereof. In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard shall
II. Repts., 80-2, vol. 3 51
[P. 1]
be given to the improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes,
and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this
subsection the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investigations with
any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the
discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may deleteriously
affect such waters.
(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities by the States
for the prevention and abatement of water pollution; encourage the enactment of
uniform State laws relating to water pollution; encourage compacts between
States for the prevention and abatement of water pollution; collect and dissemi-
nate information relating to water pollution and the prevention and abatement
thereof; support and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of
treatment of industrial wastes which are not susceptible to known effective
methods of treatment; make available to State and interstate agencies, munici-
palities, industries, and individuals the results of surveys, studies, investigations,
research, and experiments relating to water pollution and the prevention and
abatement thereof conducted by the Surgeon General and by authorized coop-
erating agencies; and furnish such assistance to State agencies as may be author-
ized by law.
(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to nego-
tiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or
treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for
the prevention and abatement of water pollution and the enforcement of their
respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint
or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements
and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory
upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by the
Congress.
(d) (1) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to any State or States
(whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary
of such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a State
other than that in which the discharge originates, is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance and subject to abatement as herein provided.
(2) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys, and studies,
finds that any pollution declared to be a public nuisance by paragraph (1) of this
subsection is occurring, he shall give formal notification thereof to the person or
persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution and shall
advise the water pollution agency or interstate agency of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate of such notification. This notifica-
tion may outline recommended remedial measures which are reasonable and
equitable in that case and shall specify a reasonable time to secure abatement of
the pollution. If action calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within
the time specified is not commenced, this failure shall again be brought to the
attention of the person or persons discharging the matter and of the water pollu-
tion agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 153
discharges originate. 'The notification to such agency may be accompanied by a
recommendation that it initiate a suit to abate the pollution in a court of proper
jurisdiction.
(3) If, within a reasonable time after the second notification by the Surgeon
General, the person or persons discharging the matter fail to initiate action to
abate the pollution or the State water pollution agency or interstate agency fails
to initiate a suit to secure abatement, the Federal Security Administrator is
authorized to call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originate, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the Administrator,
who may be officers or employees of the Federal Security Agency or of the water
pollution agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge
or discharges originate (except that at least one of the members of the board
shall be a representative of the water pollution agency of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate and at least one shall be a repre-
sentative of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the
board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Federal Security
Agency). On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing the board
shall make its recommendations to the Federal Security Administrator concern-
ing the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure
abatement of such pollution.
[p. 2]
(4) After affording the person or persons discharging the matter causing or
contributing to the pollution reasonable opportunity to comply with the recom-
mendations of the board, the Federal Security Administrator may, with the con-
sent of the water pollution agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to give
such consent) of the State or States in which the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is discharged, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(5) Before or after any suit authorized by paragraph (4) is commenced, any
person who is alleged to be discharging matter contributing to the pollution,
abatement of which is sought, may, with the consent of the water pollution
agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State
in which such matter is discharged, be joined as a defendant. The court shall
have power to enforce its judgment against any such defendant.
(6) In any suit brought pursuant to paragraph (4) in which two or more persons
in different judicial districts are originally joined as defendants, the suit may be
commenced in the judicial district in which any discharge caused by any of the
defendants occurs.
(7) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript of the
proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recommendation; and may
receive such further evidence as the court in its discretion deems proper. The
court, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and
economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have
jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require. The jurisdiction of
the Surgeon General, or any other agency which has jurisdiction pursuant to the
provisions of this Act, shall not extend to any region pr areas nor shall it affect the
rights or jurisdiction of any public body where there are in effect provisions for
sewerage disposal pursuant to agreement between the United States of America
and any such public body by stipulation entered in the Supreme Court of the
-------
154 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
United States. While any such stipulation or modification thereof is in force and
effect, no proceedings of any kind may be maintained by virtue of this Act against
such public body or any public agency, corporation, or individual within its
jurisdiction. Neither this provision nor any provision of this Act shall be con-
strued to give to the Surgeon General or any other person or agency the right to
intervene in the said proceedings wherein such stipulation was entered.
(8) As used in this subsection the term "person" includes an individual, corpo-
ration, partnership, association, a State, municipality, and a political subdivision
of a State.
SEC. 3. The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water-pollution
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of water pollution confronting any State, inter-
state agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view to rec-
ommending a solution of such problem.
SEC. 4. The Surgeon General shall prepare and publish, from time to time,
reports of such surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments made
under the authority of this Act as he may consider desirable, together with appro-
priate recommendations with regard to the control of water pollution.
SEC. 5. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to the pro-
visions of section 9 (c), to make loans to any State, municipality, or interstate
agency for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
by such State or municipality of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or
other waste into interstate waters or into a tributary of such waters, and for the
preparation (either by its engineering staff or by practicing engineers employed
for that purpose) of engineering reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith. Such loans shall be subject, however, to the following limitations:
(a) No loan shall be made for any project unless such project shall have been
approved by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies and by
the Surgeon General, and unless such project is included in a comprehensive pro-
gram developed pursuant to this Act; (b) no loan shall be made for any project
in an amount exceeding 33% per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof,
as determined by the Federal Works Administrator, or in an amount exceeding
$200,000, whichever amount is the smaller; (c) every such loan shall bear interest
at the rate of 2 per centum per annum, payable semiannually; and (d) the bonds
or other obligations evidencing any such loan (1) must be duly authorized and
issued pursuant to State and local law, and (2) may, as to the security thereof
and the payment of principal thereof and interest thereon, be subordinated (to
the extent deemed feasible and desirable by the Federal Works Administrator
[p. 3]
for facilitating the financing of such projects) to other bonds or obligations of the
obligor issued to finance such project or that may then be outstanding.
SEC. 6. (c) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator, in carry-
ing out their respective functions under this Act, shall provide for the review
of all reports of examinations, research, investigations, plans, studies, and surveys,
made pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and all applications for loans under
section 5. In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works and of
approving loans in connection therewith, consideration shall be given to the public
benefits to be derived by the construction thereof, the propriety of Federal aid in
such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and maintaining
the works to the public interest and to the public necessity for the works, and the
adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by the applicant for the loan for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 155
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the works after
completion of the construction thereof.
(9) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service a Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board to be composed as follows: The Surgeon General or a
sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who shall be Chairman of the Board,
a representative of the Department of the Army, a representative of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, a representative of the Federal Works Agency, and a repre-
sentative of the Department of Agriculture, designated by the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Works Administrator, and the
Secretary of Agriculture, respectively; and six persons (not officers or employees
of the Federal Government) to be appointed annually by the President. One of
the persons appointed by the President shall be an engineer who is expert in
sewage and industrial-waste disposal, one shall be a person who shall have shown
an active interest in the field of wildlife conservation, and, except as the President
may determine that the purposes of this Act will be better furthered by different
representation, one shall be a person representative of municipal government, one
shall be a person representative of State government, and one shall be a person
representative of affected industry. The members of the Board who are not
officers or employees of the United States shall be entitled to receive compensation
at a per diem rate to be fixed by the Federal Security Administrator, together with
an allowance for actual and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while
engaged on the business of the Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to review
the policies and program of the Public Health Service as undertaken under author-
ity of this Act and to make recommendations thereon in reports to the Surgeon
General. Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to dis-
charge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel of the
Public Health Service.
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed the sum of $20,000,000 for the
purpose of making loans under section 5 of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July
1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted equitably and
paid to the States for expenditure by or under the direction of their respective
State water pollution agencies, and to interstate agencies for expenditure by them,
for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the
prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended,
shall be allotted by the Surgeon General in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Federal Security Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settle-
ment by the General Accounting Office.
(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed $800,000 to enable the Federal
Works Administrator to erect and to furnish and to equip such buildings and
facilities at Cincinnati, Ohio, as may be necessary for the use of the Public Health
Service in connection with the research and study of pollution of interstate waters
and the training of personnel in work related to the control of pollution of inter-
state waters. The amount authorized for this purpose shall include the cost of
preparation of drawings and specifications, supervision of construction and other
-------
156 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
administrative expenses incident to the work: Provided, That the Federal Works
Agency shall prepare the plans and specifications, make all necessary contracts
and supervise construction. Sums appropriated pursuant to this authorization
shall remain available until expended.
[P. 4]
(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each of the five fiscal years during the period baginning July 1, 1948, and
ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable the
Federal Works Administrator to make grants to States, municipalities, or inter-
state agencies to aid in financing the cost of engineering, architectural and eco-
nomic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and other action preliminary to the construction of
projects approved by the appropriate State water-pollution agency or agencies
and by the Surgeon General. Grants made under this subsection with respect
to any project shall not exceed whichever of the following amounts is the smaller:
(1) $20,000, or (2) 33Vs per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as deter-
mined by the Federal Works Administrator) of the action preliminary to the
construction of such project. Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall
remain available until expended.
(d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,000) as
may be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000) as may
be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
SEC. 9. (a) To assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act, the appointment
of engineer and scientist officers may be made under the provisions of section
208 (b) (1) of the Public Health Service Act, in addition to the appointments
authorized by such section 208 (b) (1); but not more than five such additional
officers shall hold office at the same time.
(b) The Federal Security Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the Federal Government, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
(c) (1) Upon written requests of the Federal Works Administrator, from time
to time submitted to the Federal Security Administrator, specifying (a) particular
projects approved by the Surgeon General, (b) the total estimated costs of such
projects, and (c) the total sum requested for loans which the Federal Works
Administrator proposes to make for such projects, the Federal Security Adminis-
trator shall transfer such total sum (within the amount appropriated therefor)
to the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for such projects.
pursuant to section 5 hereof. In making such loans, the Federal Works Adminis-
trator shall adhere to the order or sequence of priority for projects established by
the Surgeon General and shall take such measures as, in his judgment, will assure
that the engineering plans and specifications, the details of construction, and the
completed treatment works conform to the project as approved by the Surgeon
General; and the Federal Works Administrator shall furnish written reports to
the Federal Security Administrator on the progress of the work.
(2) The Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized (a) to hold, ad-
minister, exchange, refund, or sell at public of private sale any bonds or other ob-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 157
ligations evidencing loans made under this Act; and (b) to collect, or provide for
the collection of, interest on and principal of such bonds or other obligations. All
moneys received as proceeds from such sales, and all moneys so collected, shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(d) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator are each au-
thorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out their respective
functions under this Act.
SEC. 10. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution agency" means the State health authority,
except that, in the case of any State in which there is a single State agency, other
than the State health authority, charged with responsibility for enforcing State
laws relating to the abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency;
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more States
having powers or duties pertaining to the abatement of pollution of waters;
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the treat-
ment of sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature, including the necessary
intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances, and includes any extensions, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations thereof;
[p. 5]
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska,
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands;
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other waters
that flow across, or form a part of, State boundaries; and
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, district, or other public body
created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
SEC. 11. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limiting the
functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of the Public Health
Service, or of any other officer or agency of the United States, relating to water
pollution, or (2) affecting or impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1924, oi1 sections 13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes", approved March 3, 1899, as amended, or
(3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States.
SEC. 12. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision of this
Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such pro-
vision to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not
be affected thereby.
SEC. 13. This Act may be cited as the "Water Pollution Control Act".
Passed the Senate July 16, 1947.
Attest: CARL A. LOEFFLER,
Secretary.
POLICY OF CONGRESS
Section 1 declares it to be the policy of Congress to recognize, pre-
serve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the States
in controlling water pollution; to support and aid technical research;
to devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which
are not susceptible to known effective methods of treatment; and to
-------
158 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
provide Federal technical services to State and interstate agencies and
to industries, and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to
municipalities.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS
The Surgeon General, in cooperation with other Federal agencies,
with State water pollution agencies and interstate agencies, and with
the municipalities involved, will prepare or adopt comprehensive
programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters
and tributaries thereof declared to be a public nuisance and improving
the sanitary condition of such interstate waters.
The Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investigations
with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or
States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or
substance which may deleteriously affect such waters (sec. 2).
COOPERATION WITH STATES
The Surgeon General is to encourage cooperative activities by the
States for the prevention and abatement of water pollution; encourage
the enactment of uniform State laws relating to water pollution;
encourage compacts between States for the prevention and abatement
of water pollution; collect and disseminate information relating to
water pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof; support
and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of treatment
of industrial wastes which are not susceptible to known effective
methods of treatment; make available to State and interstate agencies,
municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of surveys,
studies, investigations, research and experiments relating to water
[p. 6]
pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof conducted by the
Surgeon General and by authorized cooperating agencies (see 2 (b)).
INTERSTATE COMPACTS
The consent of Congress is given to two or more States to negotiate
and enter into agreements or compacts, but no such agreement or
compact shall be binding upon any State a party thereto unless
and until it has been approved by Congress (sec. 2(c)).
POLLUTION DECLARED PUBLIC NUISANCE
The pollution of interstate waters, which endangers the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge
originates, is declared to be a public nuisance and subject to abate-
ment (sec. 2 (d) (1)).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 159
Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys,
and studies, finds that any pollution declared to be a public nuisance
is occurring, he shall give formal notification thereof to the person or
persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion and shall advise the water pollution agency or interstate agency
of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate of
such notification. Further provisions with respect to the notification
are set forth in section 2 (d) (2).
ACTION AFTER NOTIFICATION
Enforcement provisions, which may be taken after the aforesaid
notification, are set forth in section 2 (d) (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7).
JURISDICTION OF THE SURGEON GENERAL
Section 2 (d) (7): The jurisdiction of the Surgeon General, or any
other agency which has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of
this act, shall not extend to any region or areas nor shall it affect the
rights or jurisdiction of any public body where there are in effect
provisions for sewerage disposal pursuant to agreement between the
United States of America and any such public body by stipulation
entered in the Supreme Court of the United States. While any such
stipulation or modification thereof is in force and effect, no proceed-
ings of any kind may be maintained by virtue of this act against such
public body or any public agency, corporation, or individual within
its jurisdiction. Neither this provision nor any provision of this act
shall be construed to give the Surgeon General or any other person or
agency the right to intervene in the said proceedings wherein such
stipulation was entered.
Section 3: The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State
water pollution agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations
and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water pollution
with a view to recommending a solution of such problem.
Section 4: The Surgeon General is authorized to prepare and
publish, from time to time, reports of such surveys, studies, investi-
gations, research, and experiments as he may consider desirable.
[P. 7]
LOANS FOR TREATMENT WORKS
Section 5: The Federal Works Administrator is authorized to make
loans to any State, municipality, or interstate agency for the con-
struction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge by
such State or municipality of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other waste into interstate waters, and for preparation of
-------
160 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
engineering reports, plans, and specifications in connection therewith.
No loan shall be made unless the project shall have been approved
by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies and by
the Surgeon General and unless the project is included in a compre-
hensive program developed pursuant to the act.
No loan shall be in an amount in excess of 33 % percent of the esti-
mated reasonable cost thereof, or in an amount in excess of $200,000,
whichever amount is the smaller.
Loans shall bear interest at the rate of 2 percent.
The bonds or other obligations evidencing the loan must be duly
authorized and issued pursuant to State and local law, and meet
certain other requirements set forth in section 5.
APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS
Section 6 (a) provides that the Surgeon General and the Federal
Works Administrator shall provide for the review of all reports of
examinations, research, investigations, plans, studies, and surveys, and
all applications for loans. In determining the desirability of projects
and the approval of loans, it is provided that consideration shall be
given to public benefits to be derived therefrom, the propriety of
Federal aid in such construction, the relation of the public cost to the
public necessity, and the adequacy of the provisions made by the ap-
plicant for assuring efficient operation and maintenance of the proj-
ects after completion.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Section 6 (b) establishes in the Public Health Service a Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board composed of the Surgeon General
or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who shall be chair-
man, a representative of the Department of the Army, a representa-
tive of the Department of the Interior, one from the Federal Works
Agency, and a representative of the Department of Agriculture,
designated by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the In-
terior, the Federal Works Administrator, and the Secretary of
Agriculture, respectively; and six persons (not officers or employees
of the Federal Government) to be appointed by the President. One
of the persons appointed by the President shall be an engineer who
is expert in sewage and industrial waste disposal, one shall bs a
person who shall have shown an active interest in the field of wildlife
conservation, and, unless the President determines otherwise, one
shall be representative of municipal government, one a representative
of State government, and one a representative of affected industry.
The members of the Board who are not officers or employees of the
United States, shall be entitled to compensation at a per diem rate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 161
fixed by the Federal Security Administrator, together with traveling
and subsistence expenses while engaged in the business of the Board.
The Board shall review the policies of
[p. 8]
the Public Health Service and make recommendations thereon in
reports to the Surgeon General. Clerical and technical assistance
necessary to the duties of the Board shall be provided from the
personnel of the Public Health Service.
AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR LOANS
Section 7 authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years between July 1, 1948, and
June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed $20,000,000 for the purpose of
making loans under section 5 of this act; sums so appropriated to
remain available until expended.
FEDERAL GRANTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS
Section 8 (a) authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years from July 1, 1948, to June 30,
1953, the sum of $1,000,000 to be allotted equitably and paid to the
States for expenditure by or under the direction of their respective
State water pollution agencies, and to interstate agencies for expendi-
ture by them, for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys,
and studies related to the prevention and control of water pol-
lution caused by industrial wastes. Sums appropriated shall remain
available until expended, shall be allotted by the Surgeon General in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Federal Security
Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settlement by the
General Accounting Office.
LABORATORY AT CINCINNATI, OHIO
Section 8 (b) authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years from July 1, 1948, to June 30,
1953, a sum not to exceed $800,000 to enable the Federal Works Ad-
ministrator to erect, furnish, and equip such buildings and facilities
at Cincinnati, Ohio, as may be necessary for the use of the Public
Health Service in connection with the research and study of pollution
of interstate waters and the training of personnel in work related to
the control of pollution of such waters.
GRANTS TO STATES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES
Section 8 (c) authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the next five fiscal years a sum not to exceed
-------
162 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$1,000,000 to enable him to make grants to States, municipalities, or
interstate agencies to aid in the cost of making the necessary surveys,
etc., preliminary to the construction of projects approved by the
appropriate State water-pollution agencies and by the Surgeon
General; such grants, with respect to any project, shall not exceed
$20,000, or 33 % percent of the estimated cost of the action preliminary
to the construction of the project. Sums appropriated under this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
[p. 9]
ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES
Section 8 (d) authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the next five fiscal years not to exceed the sum of
$2,000,000 to enable it to carry out its functions under this act.
Section 8 (e) authorizes to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the next five fiscal years not to exceed $500,000 to
enable it to carry out its functions under this act.
ENGINEER AND OTHER OFFICERS
Section 9 (a) provides that the appointment of engineer and scien-
tist officers may be under provisions of section 208 (b) (1) of the Pub-
lic Health Service Act, in addition to the appointments authorized by
said section, but not more than five such additional officers shall hold
office at the same time.
Section 9 (b) provides that the Federal Security Administrator,
with the consent of the head of any other Federal agency, may utilize
such officers and employees of such agency as may ba found necessary
to assist in carrying out the purposes of this act.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Section 9 (c) (1) provides that upon written requests of the Federal
Works Administrator, submitted to the Federal Security Adminis-
trator, specifying particular projects approved by the Surgeon Gen-
eral, the costs of said projects, and the total sum requested for loans
which the Federal Works Administrator proposes to make for such
projects, the Federal Security Administrator shall transfer such total
sum to the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for
such projects pursuant to section 5 of the act; that, in the making of
such loans, the Federal Works Administrator shall adhere to the order
or sequence of priority for projects established by the Surgeon Gen-
eral and shall take such measures as, in his judgment, will assure
that the engineering plans and specifications, the details of construc-
tion, and the completed treatment works conform to the project as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 163
approved by the Surgeon General; and the Federal Works Adminis-
trator shall furnish written reports to the Federal Security Admin-
istrator on the progress of the work.
BONDS AND OBLIGATIONS
Section 9 (c) (2) authorizes the Federal Works Administrator to
hold, administer, exchange, refund, or sell at public or private sale
any bonds or other obligations evidencing loans made under this act;
and to collect, or provide for the collection of, interest on any princi-
pal of such obligations, and provides that all moneys received as
proceeds from such sales shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 10 provides that the term "State water pollution agency"
means the State health authority, or the State agency charged with
the enforcement of pollution laws.
The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States having such power.
[p. 10]
The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the
treatment of sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature, including
the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power,
and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes any
extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of, State boundaries.
The term "municipality" means a city, town, district, or other
public body created by State law and having jurisdiction over
disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
REFERENCE TO OTHER ACTS
Section 11 provides that this act shall not supersede or limit the
functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or the Public
Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of the United States,
relating to water pollution; or affect or impair the provisions of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1924, or sections 13 through 17 of the River and
Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899, as amended; or affect or impair
the provisions of any treaty of the United States.
Section 12 provides that if any provision of this act, or the applica-
-------
164 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion of any provision of this act to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or
circumstances, and the remainder of this act, shall not bs affected
thereby.
TITLE OF THE ACT
Section 13 provides that this act may be cited as the "Water
Pollution Control Act."
MAJOR CHANGES IN HOUSE BILL
1. Loans limited to States, municipalities, and interstate agencies
for treatment works.
2. Loans limited to one-third of estimated cost of treatment works
or $200,000, whichever amount is the smaller.
3. Authority to make loans limited to $20,000,000 for each of five
fiscal years (July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1953).
4. Funds authorized up to $1,000,000 for each of five fiscal years
(July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1953) to be allocated to States on an equi-
table basis for investigation, research, surveys, and studies.
5. Grants authorized up to $1,000,000 for each of 5 years (July 1,
1948, to June 30, 1953) to States, municipalities, or interstate agencies,
for engineering and planning.
6. Research in water-pollution control is encouraged by provisions
above-mentioned and authorization of a laboratory at Cincinnati,
Ohio, to house the work there established in 1913.
7. Language of bill more definitely confines provisions to interstate
streams.
8. All authorizations of loans, grants, and administrative funds are
limited to five fiscal years (July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1953).
9. No loans or grants authorized to private industries.
[p. 11]
COMPARISON OF BILLS
The matter set forth below shows the difference between the text
of the bill as it passed the Senate and the text of the committee
amendment. Matter in roman type is contained in both the bill
as it passed the Senate and in the committee amendment. Matter
enclosed in black brackets was contained in the bill as it passed the
Senate but not in the committee amendment. Matter in italic type
is contained in the committee amendment but not in the bill as it
passed the Senate.
AN ACT To provide for water pollution, control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works Agency, and
for other purposes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 165
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That in connection with the exercise of jurisdiction
over the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to
the public health and welfare by the abatement of stream pollution, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, perserve, and protect the pri-
mary responsibilities and rights of the States in controlling water pollution, to
support and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of treatment of in-
dustrial wastes which are not susceptible to known effective methods of treatment,
and to provide Federal technical services to .State and interstate agencies and to in-
dustries, and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to [industries]
municipalities, in the formulation and execution of their stream pollution abate-
ment programs. To this end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service
(under the supervision and direction of the Federal Security Administrator) and
the Federal Works Administrator shall have the responsibilities and authority
relating to water pollution control vested in them respectively by this Act.
SEC. 2. (a) The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation, and in co-
operation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution agencies and
interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and industries involved, prepare
or adopt comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of
interstate waters and tributaries thereof hereinafter declared to be a public
nuisance and improving the sanitary condition of [the surface and underground
waters in or adjacent to any State] such interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to
the improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricul-
tural, industrial, and other legitimate [uses, and for this purposa] uses. For the
purpose of this subsection the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investi-
gations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or
States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which
may deleteriously affect such waters.
(b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities by the States
for the prevention and abatement of water pollution; encourage the enactment
of uniform State laws relating to water pollution; encourage compacts between
States for the prevention and abatement of water pollution; collect and disseminate
information relating to water pollution and the prevention and abatement thereof;
support and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of treatment of
industrial wastes which are not susceptible to known effective methods of treat-
ment; make available to State and interstate agencies, municipalities, industries,
and individuals the results of surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experi-
ments relating to [such matters] water pollution and the prevention and abatement
thereof conducted by the Surgeon General and by authorized cooperating agencies,
[public and private]; and furnish such assistance to State agencies as may be
authorized by law.
(c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negoti-
ate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or treaty
of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the pre-
vention and abatement of water pollution and the enforcement of their respective
laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or other-
wise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and com-
pacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any
State's party thereto unless and until it has been approved by the Congress.
[P. 12]
-------
166 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(d) (1) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to any State or States
(whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary
of such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a State other
than that in which the discharge originates, is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance and subject to abatement as herein provided.
(2) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys, and studies,
finds that any pollution declared to be a public nuisance by paragraph (1) of this
subsection is occurring, he shall give formal notification thereof to the person
or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution and
shall advise the water pollution agency or interstate agency of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate of such notification. This notifica-
tion may outline recommended remedial measures which are reasonable and
equitable in that case and shall specify a reasonable time to secure abatement
of the pollution. If action calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within
the time specified is not commenced, this failure shall again be brought to the
attention of the person or persons discharging the matter and of the water pollution
agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge of dis-
charges originate. The notification to such agency may be accompanied by a
recommendation that it initiate a suit to abate the pollution in a court of proper
jurisdiction.
(3) If, within a reasonable time after the second notification by the Surgeon
General, the person or persons discharging the matter fail to initiate action to
abate the pollution or the State water pollution agency or interstate agency fails
to initiate a suit to secure abatement, the Federal Security Administrator is
authorized to call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution origi-
nate, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the Administrator, who
may be officers or employees of the Federal Security Agency or of the water
pollution agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge
or discharges originate (except that at least one of the members of the board shall
be a. representative of the water pollution agency of the State or States where such
discharge or discharges originate and at least one shall be a representative of the
Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the board shall be
persons other than officers or employees of the Federal Security Agency). On the
basis of the evidence presented at such hearing the board shall make its recom-
mendations to the Federal Security Administrator concerning the measures, if
any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such
pollution.
(4) After affording the person or persons discharging the matter causing or
contributing to the pollution reasonable opportunity to comply with the recom-
mendations of the board, the Federal Security Administrator may, with the con-
sent of the water pollution agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to give
such consent) of the State or States in which the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is discharged, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(5) Before or after any suit authorized by paragraph (4) is commenced, any
person who is alleged to be discharging matter contributing to the pollution,
abatement of which is sought, may, with the consent of the water pollution agency
(or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State in which
such matter is discharged, be joined as a defendant. The court shall have power
to enforce its judgment against any such defendant.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 167
(6) In any suit brought pursuant to paragraph (4) in which two or more persons
in different judicial districts are originally joined as defendants, the suit may be
commenced in the judicial district in which any discharge caused by any of the
defendants occurs.
(7) The court shall receive in evidence' in any such suit a transcript of the
proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recommendation; and
may receive such further evidence as the court in its discretion deems proper.
The court, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and
economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have
jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case1 may require. The jurisdiction of the
Surgeon General, or any other agency which has jurisdiction pursuant to the provi-
sions oj this Act, shall not extend to any region or areas nor shall it affect the rights
or jurisdiction oj any public body where there are in effect provisions for sewerage
disposal pursuant to agreement between the United States oj America and any
such public
[p. 13]
body by stipulation entered in the Supreme Court of the United States.
While any such stipulation or modification thereof is in force and effect, no pro-
ceedings of any kind may be maintained by virtue of this Act against such public
body or any public agency, corporation, or individual within its jurisdiction.
Neither this provision nor any provision of this Act shall be construed to give to
the Surgeon General or any other person or agency the right to intervene in the
said proceedings wherein such stipulation was entered.
(8) As used in this subsection the term "person" includes an individual, corpo-
ration, partnership, association, a State, municipality, and a political subdivision
of a State.
SEC. 3. The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water-pollution
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make surveys
[of] concerning any specific problem of water pollution confronting any State,
interstate agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view to
recommending a solution of such problem.
SEC. 4. The Surgeon General shall prepare and publish, from time to time,
reports of such surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments made
under the authority of this Act as he may consider desirable, together with
appropriate recommendations with regard to the control of water pollution.
SEC. 5. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to the provisions
of section 9 (c), to make loans to any State, municipality, or interstate agency for
the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge by such
State or municipality of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste
into [the surface or underground waters ,m or adjacent to any State] interstate
waters or into a tributary of such waters, and for the preparation (either by its
engineering staff or by practicing engineer's employed for that purpose) of engi-
neering reports, plans, and specifications in connection therewith. Such loans shall
be subject, however, to the following limitations: (a) No loan shall be made by
any project unless such project shall have been approved by the appropriate State
water pollution agency or agencies and by the Surgeon General, and unless such
project is included in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this Act;
(b) no loan shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding 33% per centum
of the estimated reasonable cost thereof, as determined by the Federal Works Ad-
ministrator, 07- in an amount exceeding $200,000, whichever amount is the smaller;
(c) every such loan shall bear interest at the rate of 2 per centum per annum,
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
payable semiannually; and (d) the bonds or other obligations evidencing any such
loan (1) must be duly authorized and issued pursuant to State and local law, and
(2) may, as to the security thereof and the payment of principal thereof and interest
thereon, be subordinated (to the extent deemed feasible and desirable by the
Federal Works Administrator for facilitating the financing of such projects) to
other bonds or obligations of the obligor issued to finance such project or that may
then be outstanding.
[SEC. 6. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to the provisions
of section 9 (c), to extend Federal aid in the form of loans to industrial enterprises
for the construction of necessary treatment works and the preparation of engineer-
ing reports, plans, and specifications in connection therewith, to prevent the dis-
charge by such enterprises of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste into the surface or underground waters in or adjacent to any State. Such
loans shall be subject, however, to the following limitations: (a) No loan shall be
made for any project unless such project shall have been approved by the ap-
propriate State water pollution agency and by the Surgeon General, and is included
in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (b) no loan shall be
made for any project in an amount exceeding 33% per centum of the estimated
reasonable cost thereof, as determined by the Federal Works Administrator; (c)
each loan shall be fully and adequately secured and bear interest at the rate of
2 per centum per annum, payable, semiannually: and (d) each loan may be for a
period not exceeding ten years.]
SEC. [7] 6. (a) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator, in
carrying out their respective functions under this Act, shall provide for the review
of all reports of examinations, research, investigations, plans, studies, and surveys,
made pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and all applications for loans under
section 5 [or 6]. In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving loans in connection therewith, consideration shall be given to the
public benefits to be derived by the construction thereof, the propriety of Federal
aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and
maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public necessity for the
works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by
[p. 14]
the applicant for the loan for assuring proper and efficient operation and mainte-
nance of the works after completion of the construction thereof.
(b) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service a Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board to be composed as follows: The Surgeon General or a
sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who shall be Chairman of the Board,
a representative of the Department of [War] the Army, a representative of the
Department of the Interior, a representative of the Federal Works Agency, and
a representative of the Department of Agriculture, designated by the Secretary
ol [War] the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Works Adminis-
trator, and the Secretary of Agriculture, respectively; and six persons (not officers
or employees of the Federal Government) to be appointed annually by the Presi-
dent. One of the persons appointed by the President shall be an engineer who is
expert in sewage and industrial-waste disposal, one shall be a person who shall
have shown an active interest in the field of wildlife conservation, and, except
as the President may determine that the purposes of this Act will be better fur-
thered by different representation, one shall be a person representative of munici-
pal government, one shall be a person representative of State government, and one
shall be a person representative of affected industry. The members of the Board
who are not officers or employees of the United States shall be entitled to receive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 169
compensation at s per diem rate to be fixed by the Federal Security Administrator,
together with an allowance for actual ami necessary traveling and subsistence
expenses while engaged on the business of the Board. It shall be the duty of the
Board to review the policies and program of the Public Health Service as under-
taken under authority of this Act and to make recommendations thereon in
reports to the Surgeon General. Such clerical and technical assistance as may be
necessary to discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel
of the Public Health Service.
[(c) There are authorized to be appropriated annually to the Federal Security
Agency such sums, not in excess of $100,000,000 for any fiscal year, as may be
necessary for loans under the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of this Act. Sums
so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
[(d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency and the Federal Works Agency for each fiscal year such sums as may be
necessary to enable them to carry out their respective functions under this Act.]
Sec. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30,1953, a sum not to exceed the sum of $20,000,000 for the purpose
o} making loans under section 5 oj this Act. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each [fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948]
oj the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 194S, and ending June
30, 1953, the sum of [$5,000,000] $1,000,000, to be allotted equitably and paid to the
States for expenditure by or under the direction of their respective State water
pollution agencies, and to interstate agencies for expenditure by them for the
conduct oi investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the prevention
and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended, shall be allotted
by the Surgeon [General,] General in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Federal Security Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settlement
by the General Accounting Office. [The amount of any allotment to any State or
interstate agency for any fiscal year remaining unexpended at the end of such
fiscal year shall be available for allotment hereunder for the succeeding fiscal
year, in addition to the amount appropriated by such year.]
(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1,194S, and ending
June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed $800,000 to enable the Federal Works Adminis-
trator to erect and to furnish and to equip such buildings and facilities at Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, as may be necessary for the use of the Public Health Service in
connection with the research and study oj pollution of interstate waters and the
training oj personnel in work related to the control of pollution of interstate
waters. The amount authorized for this purpose shall include the cost of prepara-
tion oj drawings and specifications, supervision oj construction and other adminis-
trative expenses incident to the work: Provided, That the Federal Works Agency
shall prepare the plans and specifications, make all necessary contracts one! super-
vise construction. Sums appropriated pursuant to this authorization shall remain
available until expended.
[p. 15]
(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each [fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948,] of the
five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 194S, and ending June 30, 1953,
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
a sum not to exceed the sum of [$12,000,000] $1,000,000 to enable the Federal Works
Administrator to make [advances] grants to States, municipalities, or interstate
agencies to aid in financing the cost of engineering architectural, and economic
investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures, and other action preliminary to the construction of projects approved
by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies and by the Surgeon
General. [Any such advances shall be repayable, without interest, upon the
commencement of construction of the project for which the advance is made.]
Grants made under this subsection with respect to any project shall not exceed
whichever of the following amounts is the smaller: (1) $20,000, or (2) 33% per
centum oj the estimated reasonable cost (as determined by the Federal Works Ad-
ministrator) of the action preliminary to the construction of such project. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, such sum (not to exceed the sura of $2,000,000) as may
be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1,194S, and ending
June 30, 1953, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000) as may be necessary to
enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
SEC. 9. (a) To assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act, the appointment of
engineer and scientist officers may be made under the provisions of section 208
(b) (1) of the Public Health Service Act, in addition to the appointments author-
ized by such section 208 (b) (1); but not more than five such additional officers
shall hold office at the same time.
(b) The Federal Security Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the Federal Government, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
(c) (1) Upon written requests of the Federal Works Administrator, from time
to time submitted to the Federal Security Administrator, specifying (a) particular
projects approved by the Surgeon General, (b) the total estimated costs of such
projects, and (c) the total sum requested for loans which the Federal Works
Administrator proposes to make for such projects, the Federal Security Adminis-
trator shall transfer such total sum (within the amount appropriated therefor)
to the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for such projects
pursuant to [sections 5 and 6] section 5 hereof. In making such loans, the Federal
Works Administrator shall adhere to the order or sequence of priority for projects
established by the Surgeon General and shall take such measures as, in his
judgment, will assure that the engineering plans and specifications, the details of
construction, and the completed treatment works conform to the project as ap-
proved by the Surgeon General; and the Federal Works Administrator shall
furnish written reports to the Federal Security Administrator on the progress of
the work.
(2) The Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized (a) to hold, admin-
ister, exchange, refund, or sell at public or private sale any bonds or other obliga-
tions evidencing loans made under this Act; and (b) to collect, or provide for the
collection of, interest on and principal of such bonds or other obligations. All
moneys received as proceeds from such sales, and all moneys so collected, shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(d) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator are each author-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 171
ized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out their respective
functions under this Act.
SEC. 10. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution agency" means the State health authority,
except that, in the case of any State in which there is a single State agency, other
than the State health authority, charged with responsibility for enforcing State
laws relating to the abatement of water pollution, it means such other State
agency;
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more States having
powers or duties pertaining to the abatement of pollution of waters;
[p. 16]
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the treat-
ment of sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature, including the necessary
intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances, and includes any extensions, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations thereof;
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska,
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands;
(c) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other waters that
flow across, or form a part of, State boundaries; and
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, district, or other public body
created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
SEC. 11. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limiting the func-
tions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of the Public Health Service,
or of any other officer or agency of the United States, relating to water pollution,
or (2) affecting or impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or
sections 13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors, and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899, as amended, or (3)
affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States.
SEC. 12. If any provisions of this Act, or the application of any provision of this
Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision
to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be
affected thereby.
SEC. 13. This Act may be cited as the "Water Pollution Control Act."
Passed the Senate July 16, 1947.
Attest: CARL A. LOEFFLER, Secretary.
[p. 17]
-------
172 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2a(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2399, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948)
PROVIDING FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACTIVITIES
IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE OF THE FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY AND IN THE FEDERAL WORKS
AGENCY
JUNE 17,1948.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DONDERO, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 418]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 418) entitled
"An Act to provide for water pollution control activities in the Public
Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal
Works Agency, and for other purposes" having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendmsnt of
the House, and agree to the same with amendments as follows:
Page 2, line 12, of the amendment of the House strike out the
words "hereinafter declared to be a public nuisance."
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, of the amendment of the House, strike out
the words "such interstate waters and tributaries thereof," and insert
the following words surface and underground waters.
Page 9, line 11, of the amendment of the House, strike out the
figure "$200,000" and insert the figure $250,000.
Page 11, line 25, of the amendment of the House, strike out the
figure "$20,000,000" and insert the figure $22,500,000.
Page 12, line 25, of the amendment of the House, after the words
"study of" insert the word water, and strike out the word "of" after
the word "pollution."
Page 13, line 1, of the amendmsnt of the House, strike out the
words "interstate waters."
Page 13, line 2, of the amendment of the House, before the word
"pollution" insert the word water, and after the word "pollution"
strike out the words "of interstate waters."
[P-1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 173
Page 14, line 17 through line 23, of the amendment of the House,
strike out all after the words "Sec. 9 (a)" and insert the following:
Five officers may be appointed to grades in the Regular Corps of the
Public Health Service above that of senior assistant, but not to a grade
above that of director, to assist in carrying out the purposes of this
Act. Officers appointed pursuant to this subsection in any fiscal year
shall not be counted as part of the 10 per centum of the original ap-
pointments authorized to be made in such year under section 207 (b)
of the Public Health Service Act; but they shall for all other purposes
be treated as though appointed pursuant to such section 207 (b).
And the House agree to the same.
GEO. A. DONDERO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
PAUL CUNNINGHAM,
JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS,
WILL M. WHITTINGTON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
TOM PICKETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
GEO. W. MALONE,
CHAPMAN REVERCOMB,
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 2]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House
to the bill (S. 418) submit the following statement in explanation of
the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accom-
panying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:
The first two amendments apply to section 2 (a), lines 4, 5, and 6,
on page 18 of the bill. The language substituted more clearly defines
the authority of the Surgeon General with respect to the preparation
and adoption of comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing
the pollution of surface and underground waters.
The amendment to section 5 (line 3, p. 25), increases by $50,000
the maximum individual loan which may be made under the act.
The amendment to section 7 (line 16, p. 27) increases to $2,500,000
the maximum authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Szcurity
Agency for each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning
July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, for the purpose of making
loans under section 5 of the act.
The purpose of the amendments to section 8 (b) (lines 16, 17, and
18, p. 28) is to expand the service of the Public Health Service sta-
-------
174 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion authorized to be erected at Cincinnati, Ohio, in connaction with
research and study of water pollution and the training of personnel
in work related to control of water pollution.
The amendment with reference to section 9 (a) (lines 10 to 16, p.
30) substitutes a new section 9 (a), which is required for the purpose
set forth in the following letter:
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Washington 25, May 14,1948.
DEAE MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reference to S. 418, which your committee re-
ported out, with amendments, on April 28, 1948.
Section 9 (a) of S. 418 as reported authorizes additional appointments to be
made at higher grades in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service pursuant
to section 208 (b) of the Public Health Service Act to assist the Service in carry-
ing out its new or expanded activities under S. 418. Since our letter of January
19, 1948, to you on this bill, however, the Congress has enacted Public Law 425,
which amends the provisions of the Public Health Service Act in several respects,
primarily in the matter of appointment and promotion of commissioned officers
of the Public Health Service. As a result of Public Law 425, the authority to
make additional appointments at higher grades in the Regular Corps of the Public
Health Service, formerly contained in section 208 (b) of the Public Health Service
Act, is now contained in section 207 (b) of that act, in a somewhat revised form.
In order, therefore, to accomplish the purposes for which section 9 (a) of S. 418
was intended, the following is suggested in lieu of such section 9 (a):
(a) Five officers may be appointed to grades in the Regular Corps of the Ser-
vice above that of senior assistant, but not to a grade above that of director, to assist
in carrying out the purposes of this act. Officers appointed pursuant to this sub-
section in any fiscal year shall not be counted as part of the 10 percent of the
original appointments authorized to be made in such year under section 207 (b)
of the Public Health Service Act; but they shall for all other purposes be treated
as though appointed pursuant to such section 207 (b).
[p. 3]
The short time available for necessary action on the amendment suggested by
this letter has not permitted us to obtain advice from the Bureau of the Budget
as to the relationship of this amendment to the program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
J. DONALD KINGSLEY,
Acting Administrator.
Hon. GEORGE A. DONDERO,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington 25, D.C.
GEO. A. DONDERO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS,
PAUL CUNNINGHAM,
WILL M. WHITTINGTON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
TOM PICKETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p-4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
175
1.2a(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.2a(4)(a) Vol. 93 (1947), July 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
9032,9034-9035
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 418) to provide for water-pollu-
tion-control activities in the United
States Public Health Service, and for
other purposes, which had been reported
from the Committee on Public Works
with an amendment to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
*****
[p. 9032]
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] has
an amendment at the desk.
Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have
submitted some minor amendments, con-
sisting of three changes to conform to
any international treaty which may in-
volve the boundaries of this country and
some other country. I offer the amend-
ments to the committee amendment and
ask that they be stated.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendments offered by the Senator from
Nevada to the committee amendment
will be stated. Without objection, the
amendments will be considered en bloc
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 14, line 8,
after the word "law" it is proposed to
insert "or treaty"; on page 26, line 18,
after the word "State,"' it is proposed to
strike out "or international"; and on page
27, line 7, it is proposed to change the
period at the end of the line to a comma
and add "or (3) affecting or impairing
the provisions of any treaty of the United
States."
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Nevada be good enough to
advise us what is likely to be the cost of
this measure?
Mr. MALONE. I am very glad that the
Senator from Georgia has asked the
question. Originally the bill provided
$100,000,000 for grants-m-aid for stream
pollution, but the committee changed
that to loans at 2 percent interest, and
also advanced money for plans and spec-
ifications, which money is to be returned
when the bond issues are passed by the
municipality and the money is available
to complete the project. So it is not in-
tended that the bill shall cost the Gov-
ernment anything.
Mr. President, in connection with the
bill I should like to say further that the
Subcommittee on Flood Control and Im-
provement on Rivers and Harbors of the
Committee on Public Works, of which
subcommittee I am chairman, and the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER],
the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
MARTIN], the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. OVERTON], and the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN] are mem-
bers, conducted extended hearings and
investigations on Senate bill 418 from
April 22 to and including May 28, 1947.
The principles of the proposed legisla-
tion as reported include loans to munici-
palities and industries up to one-third
the cost of necessary works carrying 2
percent interest with funds advanced to
prepare plans and specifications, and
that before suit can be brought for final
abatement an agreement must be reached
between the State and the Surgeon Gen-
eral; also the Government lends its
support to interstate compacts and
agreements. It is cooperative legislation.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ments offered by the Senator from Ne-
vada [Mr. MALONE] to the committee
amendment.
The amendments to the amendment
were agreed to.
The amendment as amended was
agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
The title was amended so as to read:
-------
176
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"A bill to provide for water pollution
con-
[p. 9034]
trol activities in the Public Health
Service of the Federal Security Agency
and in the Federal Works Agency, and
for other purposes."
[p. 9035]
1.2a(4)(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 14: Amended and passed House, pp.
8192, 8195-8203
the United States the subject of stream
pollution. The Eightieth Congress has
had before it about four different bills.
At this time I should like to pay my
respects to the authors of those bills:
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ELSTON] ;
the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT]; the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. SPENCE] ; and two gentlemen in the
other body, the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
TAFT] and the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. BAEKLEY], coauthors of the bill
S. 418. These gentlemen appeared be-
fore our committee and were really of
great benefit in the drafting of this leg-
islation. And I personally appreciate
the untiring efforts of my colleague the
gentleman from Ohio, Congressman
ELSTON.
The bill S. 418, Mr. Speaker, does not
do everything all of us would like to have
done so far as stream pollution is con-
cerned, but the reason we have not had
any legislation in 16 years is the fact
that we could not reach an accord or
agreement on a program—no one seem-
ingly wanted to compromise. One group
seemed to oppose the suggestions of the
other group with the result nothing was
done on stream pollution legislation, at
least no legislation was passed.
S. 418 does three things: It is limited
to interstate streams only; it safeguards
States' rights; and it promotes the study
and we hope ultimately the solution of
problems of stream pollution.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McGREGOR. I gladly yield to my
distinguished colleague from Texas.
Mr. PICKETT. I am interested in the
gentleman's statement that this bill is
limited in its application to interstate
streams only. As I understand the bill
it provides:
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 418) to provide for water pollu-
tion control activities in the Public
Health Service of the Federal Security
Agency and in the Federal Works
Agency, and for other purposes, with an
amendment.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
[p. 8192]
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
demand a second.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that a second be
considered as ordered.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. MCGREGOR] will be recognized
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. WHITTINGTON] for 20
minutes.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. As I under-
stand, for the information of the mem-
bership, the question is to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 418, with an
amendment; and that amendment is to
strike out all after the enacting clause
of the Senate bill and insert in lieu there-
of the provisions of the House bill.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has
stated the situation correctly.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, for 16 or 18 years there
has been before various Congresses of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
177
The term "interstate waters" means all
rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow
across, or form a part of, State boundaries
But in section 2 (d) (1) the following
language is used:
The pollution of interstate waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether ihe
matter causing or contributing to such pol-
lution is discharged directly into such waters
or reaches such waters after discharge into a
tributary of such waters).
It looks to me as though we are getting
very far afield from what is actually an
interstate stream for practical purposes
when we have that language in the bill.
Mr. McGREGOR. The gentleman aas
brought up a very important point. It
was discussed by the committee many
times but the committee feels that the
wording in the bill definitely establishes
the fact that we are only dealing with
interstate streams.
Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McGREGOR. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. ELSTON. In answer to the gen-
tleman from Texas, I might call his at-
tention to the fact that in the New River
case it was decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States that any
stream which is susceptible of being
made into a navigable stream comes
within the interstate commerce clause of
the Constitution.
Mr. PICKETT. If the gentleman will
yield, in view of that New River case just
cited by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
ELSTON] does not the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. MCGREGOR] think we ought to
be very careful in prescribing the limits
of participation in this program under
the interstate definition here?
Mr. McGREGOR. I am in complete
accord with the gentleman's suggestion,
and again may I say that we discussed
that fully in the committee. We feel
we have safeguarded that very situation
in this legislation. We do not consider
this as a bill containing everything which
everybody wants, but we do consider
this is a piece of legislation in the right
direction. At least it is a start.
It might be said that this is a com-
promise bill, a bill that would enable
the States and their political subdivi-
sions to enter into a stream pollution
program with the aid of the Federal
Government and yet retain their own
rights.
The bill before us for consideration—
(a) Authorizes to be appropriated an
expenditure of $20,000,000 per year for
5 years for loans.
(b) Grants $1,000,000 per year for 5
years for expenditure by Federal Se-
curity Agency, or by direction of State
water pollution agencies, for conduct of
investigation, research, etc.
(c) Authorizes to be appropriated to
Federal Works Agency $800,000 per year
for 5 years to erect, furnish, and equip
such buildings and facilities at Cincin-
nati, Ohio necessary for use of the Public
Health Service in connection with re-
search and study of pollution, and so
forth.
(d) Authorizes to be appropriated
$1,000,000 per year for 5 years to Fed-
eral Works Agency to make grants to
States, municipalities, or interstate
agencies to aid in cost of making neces-
sary surveys, and so forth, preliminary
to construction of projects approved by
the appropriate State water pollution
agency and by the Surgeon General.
Such grants are not to exceed $20,000 or
33l/3 psrcent of the cost of the action
preliminary to the construction of the
projects.
(e) Authorizes to be appropriated ad-
ministrative expenses of Federal Se-
curity Agency, $2,000,000 per year for 5
years; and authorizes to be appropriated
to the Federal Works Agency $500,000
per year for 5 years to enable it to carry
out functions of this act.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert in the REC-
ORD at this point a statement by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. AUCH-
INCLOSS], chairman of the subcommittee
who drafted this legislation.
-------
178
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, in
the consideration of S. 418 the subcom-
mittee members were governed by three
primary motives: First, to confine the
measure to interstate streams only; sec-
ond, to safeguard States rights so that
they would be free from undue inter-
ference on the part of the Federal Gov-
ernment; and, third, to promote as much
as possible the study of the problem of
stream pollution, and to encourage its
abatement.
The bill provides that the Surgeon
General shall encourage a comprehen-
sive program for the control of stream
pollution between the States and to se-
cure their cooperation in combating this
evil. If, in the opinion of the Surgeon
General stream pollution exists in inter-
state waters he shall notify the offending
parties and ask that they take steps to
abate the pollution. If they do not take
the necessary steps within a reasonable
time he shall again call their attention
to the situation and request their co-
operation, and if after a reasonable time
has ensued following the second notifica-
tion and no action has been taken, he
may request the Federal Security Ad-
ministrator to call a hearing to be held
by the Stream Pollution Board set up
for that purpose. The Board shall go
into all aspects of the immediate prob-
lem and make its recommendations to
the Federal Security Administrator. If
its recommendations are not acted on
within a reasonable time the Federal
Security Administrator may, with the
consent of the State in which the pollu-
tion is discharged, request the Attorney
General to bring suit to bring about the
abatement of the nuisance.
It will be seen by this procedure that
every opportunity is given to the offend-
ing parties to correct the situation, and
it is only as a last resort that the Fed-
eral Government will step in with the
use of mandatory power.
A Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board is set up in the Public Health
Service with the Surgeon General as
chairman, which will review the policies
of the Public Health Service and make
recommendations from time to time.
This bill carries authorizations in the
sum of $25,300,000 a year for a period
of 5 years, which makes a total of $126,-
500,000. Of this total sum, $100,000,000
is in the form of loans and the balance,
$26,500,000 in outright grants. No loan
will be made to any one project for more
[p. 8195]
than one-third of the cost of construc-
tion of stream-pollution abatement, or
$200,000, whichever is the less, and
grants are made on the same basis to
the different States for the following
purposes:
Research, $1,000,000 per year for 5
years.
Cost of plans for pollution-control
plants, $1,000,000, provided that no grant
shall be more than one-third of the cost
of the plans, or $20,000, whichever is
the less.
Grant for the construction and reha-
bilitation of the Stream Pollution Labo-
ratory now located in Cincinnati, Ohio,
$800,000 a year for 5 years.
A grant to the Federal Security Agency
of $2,000,000 and to the Federal Works
Agency of $500,000 for administration
purposes.
The committee feels that this bill is a
step in the right direction and will pro-
vide a solid basis on which to build for
the future.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT].
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Speaker, I have a
great admiration for the gentleman who
just left the floor, and I sincerely wish
that today I could appear before you as
a supporter of the legislation which he
supports, because I have spoken in this
well for 10 years in behalf of clean
streams legislation. Unfortunately, I am
candid to confess that I do not believe
S. 418, as amended, will correct Amer-
ica's pollution problem.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
179
It will be recalled that on one occasion
this House took a great constructive step
forward in clean streams legislation by
voting to incorporate a provision called
the Mundt amendment which would stop
new sources of pollution from being in-
jected into streams. S. 418, as amended,
does not even stop new sources of pollu-
tion from being injected into streams
which are presently clean, to say nothing
of its failure to outlaw and prohibit pre-
vailing pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I regret very much this
legislation is brought up in the manner
it is at this time. I know that some of
the Members who speak in support of
the legislation also are regretful it has
to be brought up under these conditions
which do not provide for the offering of
amendments. A suspension of the rules
is a gag rule supreme insofar as offering
amendments is concerned. All amend-
ments are completely barred.
Unfortunately, the condition here to-
day also does not permit of a careful
study of this bill. If a careful study of
S. 418, as amended, were permitted I
am sure it would not secure a hundred
votes of the Members of this House, be-
cause, in the first place, we find that the
most active people who have been ad-
vocating clean streams legislation in
America for the past 12 years are op-
posed to this bill. You even find some
people who have been engaging in pol-
lution are opposed to it because of the
wasteful manner in which it spends pub-
lic money without even quarantining
the pollution problem to its present
boundaries in a realistic effort to keep
the epidemic from becoming worse.
I feel that today a member of the
Appropriations Committee should be
speaking here instead of I, because, cer-
tainly, here is a chance where you can
save the taxpayers' money without jeop-
ardizing the peace, without reducing for-
eign assistance, or without endangering
any particular project in anyone's home
community. Here is a place where a vast
amount of public money is to be spent
with no conceivable possibility of it
achieving its announced objective of
eliminating pollution.
Let me put it in this form: I wonder
if the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
RICH], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. TAEER], or any of the other good
economy-minded Members of the House,
and that should include all of us these
days, would vote to appropriate a hun-
dred million dollars, for example, to start
building a factory, while one wing of that
factory was still on fire and before you
called the fire department to put out the
fire. In other words, before you had
done anything whatsoever to stop the
spread of the flames would you appro-
priate money to put the carpenters to
work to put up a new building? Of
course, you would not, but today in this
bill you are being asked to do exactly
that in the expenditure of public funds.
Because of the haste of the moment
and the inadequate time to study the
bill, we have the Senate bill as amended
by the House bill, which proposes to
spend well over a hundred million dol-
lars to correct the pollution problem
while in no single sentence or paragraph
is pollution condemned or stopped. In
other words, it does not prevent the
problem from growing worse. It just
puts the carpenters to work rebuilding
a house which is burning without even
calling the fire department.
Mr. Speaker, we plead with the com-
mittee, we urged it to incorporate a sim-
ple amend "nent which this House had
previously approved by roll-call vote to
stop new outlets of pollution from being
injected into interstate waters while we
are spending vast sums of the public
money trying to correct the problem.
We simply begged the committee to so
legislate that the conditions of pollution
could not steadily grow worse while we
are spending money trying to make them
better. The committee objected to that
and by ingenious device it has trans-
ferred to the shoulders of the American
taxpayer and the Federal Government
virtually all of the potential costs and
responsibility of pollution correction be-
-------
180
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cause by skillful language appearing in
the House version, which does not ap-
pear in the Senate bill, they have trans-
ferred to the Federal Government the
necessity of making research, the re-
sponsibility of finding correctives, and
even the responsibility of financing the
corrective steps and construction.
Let me read you the language on page
17 to show how ingeniously this bill loads
onto the backs of the American taxpayer
virtually not only the responsibility of
pollution correction, but also much of
the cost. On page 17, lines 12 to 16, is this
very clever language that some polluter
schemed up one night and is now trying
to saddle onto the taxpayers of your
district. I hope you members of the
Committee on Appropriations and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
RICH] will listen to this:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of
Congress " * •* to provide Federal tech-
nical services to State and interstate agencies
and to industries, and financial aid to State
and interstate agencies and to municipalities,
in the formulation and execution of their
stream pollution abatement programs.
I suggest that this bill be defeated so
that the next Congress can write a clean
legitimate antipollution bill, which will
produce reasonable dividends in clean
streams for the vast expenditures which
somebody must eventually make to save
America's waters from becoming perma-
nent cesspools and flowing sewers.
Mr. Speaker, if I could find one ray
of hope in S. 418 as amended which
would cause me to believe that the net
result of this legislation would be to
hurry the day when America's streams
and interstate waters might be rescued
from the menace of greedy pollution, I
would be happy to support this bill even
in its toned-down and milk-toast ap-
proach to the pollution problem. But,
sir, I very much fear that S. 418 is a step
backward away from a correct solution
to the pollution problem rather than a
step forward toward cleaner and more
wholesome streams.
Insofar as it spends public funds
studying a problem which has already
been studied, and surveyed, and ana-
lyzed for nearly a century without mak-
ing one single, solitary, definite, and
effective provision against either stop-
ping new sources of pollution from be-
coming operative or toward reducing the
huge amounts of prevailing pollution
which industries and municipalities are
now vomiting into America's waters, I
feel that S. 418 is a backward step.
Insofar as S. 418 tends to transfer from
the offending industries and municipali-
ties the responsibilities for correcting
this pollution practice and for sustain-
ing research activities for reducing the
deleterious effects of their own pollu-
tion, I fear this legislation is a backward
step.
Insofar as S. 418 places on the statute
books a law calling itself a Water Pol-
lution Control Act but failing to include
among its provisions an iota of control
by which the Federal Government can
require the abatement of pollution, I fear
it is a backward step since this red her-
ring will henceforth make it more dif-
ficult to have effective legislation written
into law.
It is eloquently noticeable, Mr. Speak-
er, to those of us who have long labored
in favor of adequate and effective legis-
lation, that S. 418 has the blessing and
the approval of America's worst pollut-
ers. It should mean much to many of
you to observe that the polluters' lobby
which has successfully beat back all our
efforts across the past decade to enact
adequate and effective antipollution leg-
islation is strangely silent and conspic-
uously absent today. Mr. Speaker, these
polluters know a red herring when they
see one and S. 418 is the long-awaited
answer to the polluter's prayer. It will
not
[p. 8196]
stop pollution. It will not outlaw or
prevent new sources of pollution. It will
not even protect what virgin streams and
clean waters there remain in America.
But the polluters believe and I believe
that this legislation will work to stop
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
181
new attempts to write effective legisla-
tion, that it will protect present pollu-
tion practices, and that it will buy
polluters additional time to practice their
pagan program without being subjected
to a workable formula for eliminating
unjustifiable pollution.
Mr. Speaker, just this month the State
division of the Izaak Walton League of
South Dakota, of which I am proud to
be a member, held its convention in
Webster, S. Dak., and as one of its reso-
lutions opposed the passage of S. 418 as
amended, for the reasons I have set forth
here this afternoon. Mr. Kenneth A.
Reid, conservation director of the Na-
tional Division of the Izaak Walton
League has pointed out the fallacies and
the futility of S. 418, as amended, and has
voiced the League's opposition to such a
sham attack upon the shameful practice
of pollution. To many reasonable legis-
lators, it would seem that when the
conservationists of America and its
clean-streams advocates oppose a bill,
erroneously labeled a "Water pollution
control act," and when the polluters of
America favor that bill, there must be
good cause to question the efficacy and
the adequacy of such a legislative pro-
posal.
It is with reluctance that I am forced
to vote against legislation bearing the
antipollution label, Mr. Speaker, after
having crusaded for a proper and a posi-
tive pollution-control bill for 10 years in
Congress and for many other years out-
side of Congress. But Mr. Speaker, a
bill must be judged by its text and
its provisions, by its supporters and its
opponents, by its contents and its con-
clusions. The label on the bill is not
sufficient. Pollution cannot be cured in
America by a headline or a title or by
the label on an act of Congress. Con-
sequently, Mr. Speaker, until and unless
we have an opportunity to vote on legis-
lation which moves positively forward
toward the correction of this country's
very serious pollution problem, I shall
vote against measures which speak
loudly but carry a bent twig in their
attack on pollution. I shall do so in the
hope that some day Congress may have
before it a measure which will really
deal effectively with a problem which
has already been too long neglected.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that Members
are too preoccupied with other matters
in these closing hours of Congress to
devote careful and sustained attention
to this pollution problem. Even if every
Member now on the floor voted against
S. 418, it could still be approved by the
votes of those who will not hear the
arguments against it, due to their having
to be absent from the floor for important
committee duties in these crowded times.
Consequently, while I shall vote against
this proposal, I shall not detain the House
by demanding a yea-and-nay vote. I
realize full well that today I am engaged
in a futile task of opposition. I do how-
ever want the record to show these argu-
ments against S. 418, as amended by the
House, with the hope that the Senate
may insist on its original legislation and
that, regardless, in the next Congress we
can correct the manifold inadequacies
of the pending legislation, which when
clearly understood can bring little solace
or comfort to anybody other than the
pollution forces of America.
Mr. WHITTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I respond to the argu-
ment of the gentleman from South
Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] who has spoken in
opposition to this bill by saying, first,
that the bill he introduced, H.R. 3990,
provided—and listen to what I say—for
authorization for appropriations not to
exceed $100,000,000 annually for an in-
definite time. The testimony before our
committee showed that the cost of stream
pollution would probably aggregate
$1,600,000,000 to $4,000,000,000. If the
gentleman advocates economy, it strikes
me that he certainly should favor the
pending bill, because the pending bill
limits the appropriation that may be
made over a period of 5 years to a total
of approximately $128,000,000.
Secondly, he states that the pending
-------
182
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
bill does not prevent new sources of pol-
lution. That is one of the vices of the
bill that the gentleman himself intro-
duced this session. He has introduced
previous bills. I know that he is for
the improvement of our streams, for
fishing and conservation and so am I,
but for my part and the part of the com-
mittee we decided that if in any State
a municipality wanted an outlet, whether
that municipality be large or small, if
there was to be a small or large new
industry, they should not have to come
to Washington and get permission to
establish a new outlet. He has very cor-
rectly stated that we decided to leave the
matter of a new outlet where it belongs,
to wit, to the stream-pollution and the
sanitary or public-health boards of the
States. We have enough bureaucracy
requiring citizens to come to Washing-
ton for Federal approval for local works.
He complains that this bill provides for
Federal construction at Federal expense.
Whether the gentleman has refreshed
his memory or not, the very bill that he
introduced would have provided a loan
of the entire amount of the construction
by the Federal Government or for a
grant without any probability of it being
repaid, of millions and millions of dol-
lars, to many municipalities. This bill
says that that proposal is unsound. This
bill says that the primary trouble in the
matter of pollution is not in the intra-
state streams controlled by the State
boards but in the interstate streams like
the Ohio River, and I give you that as
an example, where, if the city of Cin-
cinnati undertakes to provide sewerage,
a city in West Virginia or in Kentucky,
across the river, might endanger that
disposal that has been made. This bill
for the first time treats this problem con-
structively and undertakes to provide so
that we may have the example to go by
in the years to come, for assistance to
States, for assistance to municipalities
and other public bodies, in further pro-
viding sewage disposal, on interstate
streams.
I call your attention to this. Under
the gentleman's bill, the steel companies
or the big industries of the United States
could have come to Washington for a
loan. We have stricken that in this bill.
Mr. MUNDT. If the gentleman will
yield, that is not in my bill. It may be
in somebody else's bill, but it is not in
mine.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is in the gen-
tleman's bill. I mean loans to industries.
There are no grants to industries in the
gentleman's bills, but I repeat there are
loans to industries. I have the compari-
son here. It provided for loans to in-
dustries and as I have stated it did not
provide for grants to industries.
I have studied this problem. Bills have
been introduced for years with respect
to pollution. All of us are against pollu-
tion, just as all of us are against sin. But
when you come to look into this matter,
it has resolved itself into these two prop-
ositions: First, whether or not the local
municipalities and public bodies shall
construct their sewage systems, and the
handling or treatment of sewerage is
pretty well perfected. Secondly, whether
industry shall be required under the
regulations in the States to construct
their own industrial disposal plants. We
have provided in this bill for a labora-
tory. There are colleges and universities
that are providing for studies for the
disposal of industrial waste, which is the
big problem, and for other waste. The
solution has been perfected with respect
to sewerage disposal, but when it comes
to the disposal of industrial and other
waste and especially sewerage disposal
in interstate waters, we have here pro-
vision for a laboratory, already estab-
lished and to be continued at Cincinnati.
We have provided an authorization of
$800,000 a year, so that the Government
will not go into this matter blindly, but
that we may have the laboratory and the
experiments conducted there, and they
may be made available to the municipal-
ities of the United States. Information
will be distributed to them to enable
them to construct their programs.
Another thing, we provide for loans in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
183
this bill, but we provide that those loans
shall be one-third of the cost, in no case
to exceed $200,000. Do you know that
some cities in the United States have
gotten $15,000,000 to $18,000,000 for the
construction of their sewage systems in
the war and WPA days? They are bet-
ter able to construct them than the Fed-
eral Government. We say to cities like
Cincinnati and other great cities in this
country, "You are better able to con-
struct your city disposal plant than the
Federal Government." But they say, "If
we do, the small towns up the river may
not make similar arrangements." We
provide for loans and aid to those small
towns for one-third of the cost of their
projects, one-third of the cost of prepar-
ing the plants and for supervision, not
to exceed $200,000.
Pollution bills have been introduced
every session. They have kept a good
many people employed or interested in
the United States. We are all interested
[p. 8197]
in the preservation of our streams. No
man likes to fish or hunt more than I.
But you have to choose often whether
you are going to fish or build a plant.
You have to choose whether the Federal
Government is going to provide city dis-
posal or whether the municipalities will
provide it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is constructive
and in the right direction, to solve the
general problem of stream pollution.
I extend to say stream pollution bills
have been introduced in practically
every session of the Congress since 1897.
Bills to approve compacts among the
States to prevent pollution have been
passed. Bills have been reported. The
Barkley-Vinson bill, as I recall, was
passed by the House in 1935 and died
in the Senate. About 10 years ago a
stream pollution bill introduced by Sen-
ator BARKLEY and Representative Fred
M. VINSON, now Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, was
passed by the Congress and vetoed by
the President because the budgetary
provisions of the bill were inadequate,
in the view of the President.
Hearings have been repeatedly con-
ducted by the committees of the House
and the Senate. During the Eightieth
Congress bills were introduced in the
Senate by Senator TAFT, Senator BARK-
LEY, and in the House by the gentleman
from South Dakota, Representative
MUNDT, the gentleman from Kentucky,
Representative SPENCE, and the gentle-
man from Ohio, Representative ELSTON.
Hearings before both the House and the
Senate committees are available.
The Mundt bill was H.R. 3990. The
Taft-Barkley bill passed by the Senate
was S. 418. The House Committee on
Public Works gave most careful consid-
eration and finally decided to report as a
substitute for S. 418 the bill under con-
sideration. It provides for striking out
all after the enacting clause and insert-
ing the House bill.
Stream pollution arises largely from
sewage disposal and industrial waste.
The bill as passed by the Senate pro-
vided for no grants to States, cities, or
other public bodies. The Mundt bill
provided for grants. Both the Senate
and the Mundt bill provided for loans
to States, municipalities, and public bod-
ies. The Mundt bill did not restrict the
amount, while the Senate bill provided
for loans of one-third of the estimated
cost. Both the Senate and Mundt bills
provided for loans to industrial enter-
prises. Both bills provided interstate
compacts.
PENDING BILL
I suggest that the Members of the
House read the report of the committee.
There is an excellent analysis of the sub-
stitute bill and a careful statement as
to the changes made by the House in the
Senate bill.
I summarize by saying:
One. The Senate bill authorized ap-
propriations amounting to $100,000,000
per year. The House substitute author-
izes loans of $20,000,000 annually for 5
years. Loans to any one agency are
-------
184
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
limited to $200,000.
Two. There is an authorization for
investigations and research to the States
amounting to $1,000,000 annually for 5
years. There are authorizations for
grants for $1,000,000 for 5 years for en-
gineering and planning. The bill is
confined to interstate streams and the
tributaries of such streams as they affect
States other than those in which the
tributaries are located.
Three. The bill authorizes no loans
or grants to private citizens, or to in-
dustry.
THE PROBLEM
First. The problem of stream pollu-
tion is important. The treatment of
city disposal has been fairly well per-
fected. The bill contemplates that all
cities shall provide their own disposal
plants. Their indebtedness is less than
that of the Federal Government. For
needy cities a maximum loan of $200,000
is provided.
Second. The bill contemplates that
all industries provide their own disposal
plants.
Third. A laboratory at Cincinnati is
to be maintained. The information as
a result of the studies will be available
to public bodies and to industry, on in-
terstate streams.
Fourth. Grants are authorized to as-
sist public bodies in making plans.
Fifth. Stream pollution is a problem
for the States. The bill, therefore, is
limited to interstate streams, as defined.
While the Senate bill would have au-
thorized appropriations of $100,000,000
annually for an indefinite period, the
pending bill, as a constructive solution of
a difficult problem, authorizes approxi-
mately $126,000,000 over a period of 5
years, primarily for loans and for ad-
ministration. There is a limit to the
authorization.
Research has done much to remove
and prevent pollution and industrial
waste. Chemicals do pollute. Mines
pollute. Pollution should be eliminated
whenever and wherever possible. While
means of treatment for sewage disposal
have been perfected, the methods of pre-
venting industrial waste is still being
perfected. Today on some streams it is
either industry with its pollution elimi-
nated as far as possible, or the streams
without industry.
The bill is constructive. The problem
is with the States, municipalities, and
public bodies. The Government will co-
operate to prevent and to eliminate pol-
lution where local public bodies are
unable to eliminate. If the problem is
solved on interstate streams, it can later
be extended to other streams. The bill
is a safe approach, and if successfully
administered, the program may be ex-
tended.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. SPENCE] .
May I ask the gentleman to yield?
Mr. SPENCE. I yield.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, as
has been correctedly stated, this bill does
not undertake, as did the bill of my
delightful friend from South Dakota, to
exercise any jurisdiction over any intra-
state streams, except those streams that
may be tributaries to interstate streams
like the Ohio River. It is up to the Ad-
ministration to decide how far up those
streams, whether 5 or 10 or 15 miles, their
influence extends.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, we are
told in the book of Genesis:
In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth. And the earth was without
form, and void, and darkness was upon the
face of the deep.
God created the waters before He
created the light. Nature has furnished
man a pure supply of water ever since
that time. But man has polluted that
water, and in many cases made it unfit
for human consumption. For 16 years
I have endeavored to have some con-
structive legislation put upon the statute
books to control pollution. The only
piece of legislation that has been put on
the books is that authorizing a compact
between the eight States in the Ohio
Valley to make agreements to control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
185
pollution in that section. In those 16
years, there is not a section, a sentence,
or a word attempting to commence the
process of giving relief to those people
affected by water pollution. I want to
tell you why I am interested in this, and
I think it is characteristic of many other
sections of the United States. The Ohio
River is locked and dammed for the pur-
pose of navigation. In the summertime,
these pools do not consist of running
water. They are stagnant cesspools.
They are the outfall sewers of all the
cities on the Ohio River. That pool
which extends from about 4 miles below
Cincinnati to Coney Island, about 8 miles
above the city, take the domestic sewage
and industrial waste of that great sec-
tion, the domestic sewage of 800,000
people at least, and the industrial waste
of a section which might be called the
Ruhr of America. Out of that pool
comes the water supply of the people.
That condition exists, not alone in that
section, but in other sections of the
United States, where they are afflicted in
the same way. It is a dangerous source
of disease and epidemics. It is horrible
to contemplate that that is the source
of water of the people along that great
river. Thomas Jefferson once said it was
the most beautiful river in the world.
Now its value in many respects is prac-
tically destroyed by pollution. Wild life
no longer seeks it. Fish and all aquatic
life have either been destroyed or made
unfit for human consumption. Men have
always sought to make their habitations
upon sites near the river, but in many
sections I do not think they would now
seek the Ohio for this purpose.
Cincinnati is a rich town. It has a
great waterworks system and a great
filtration plant. It can in a sense pro-
tect itself against the pollution of that
river. Yet with new industries you can
distinguish a difference in the taste of
the water. But on the Kentucky side of
the river there are many small towns.
They have no money to build filtration
plants, and they do not have the great
waterworks system that they have in
the great cities. They dig a deep well,
pump the water into the tank, chlorinate
it, and use it. It has been demonstrated
[p. 8198]
that these subterranean waters because
of percolating waters from the river are
highly polluted.
This is not a political question. This is
a question that affects every man,
woman, and child who is dependent
upon this river for water. It is a ques-
tion to which you should give very care-
ful and sympathetic consideration.
I know there have been quibbles as to
where the responsibility is, whether it is
on the Federal Government or on State,
county, and city. I think there is a joint
responsibility, but we cannot have this
pollution controlled unless the Federal
Government steps into the picture. The
States and local subdivisions could no
more control pollution of the river than
they could control the rivers for pur-
poses of navigation or flood control. It
is necessarily a national question. The
Public Health Service is greatly inter-
ested in the passage of this bill. They
have done a great work. Some years
ago I introduced a bill providing for a
pollution survey of the Ohio Valley.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Kentucky [Mr. SPENCE] has
expired.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield the gentleman one additional min-
ute.
Mr. SPENCE. That survey has been
made. It is pioneer work in that field.
It consists of three great volumes. They
now know the pollutive substances that
are in that river. They know how to
treat them. I believe if you put this bill
upon the statute books, it would be at
least a commencement in the cleaning up
of the river. If it needs amendment, we
can amend it in the future.
I hope you will vote for the bill.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Kentucky has again ex-
pired.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
-------
186
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. ELSTON].
Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Speaker, the leg-
islation that is before the House today
is the culmination of more than 50 years
of work. On many occasions stream
pollution bills have been introduced in
Congress. One of these bills was passed
and was vetoed for a budgetary reason;
one died in conference; and at our last
session we were unable to complete the
then pending bill.
The gentleman from South Dakota
[Mr. MUNDT] apparently is the only one
who is raising any objection to this leg-
islation. If we had an opportunity to
examine the bill that he introduced and
the bill before us today, we would find
that substantially there is only one real
difference and that concerns new outlets
of pollution.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would
be absurd to compel a new industry to
indicate in advance that it may pollute
a stream. You might as well expect a
new industry to indicate in advance that
it is not going to violate the antitrust
laws or any other laws.
If there are any outlets of pollution
from new industries, they can be taken
care of the same as existing pollution
would be handled under this bill.
The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
SPENCE] made a point that there had
been a survey of the Ohio Valley. That
survey cost $800,000 and was author-
ized by Congress. What the gentleman
did not mention, because of lack of time,
was that the report indicated that the
Ohio River is polluted to such an extent
that 30 public sources of water supply
serving about 1,660,000 people are en-
dangered.
I think it is important to consider,
so far as enforcement is concerned, that
nine States in the Ohio Valley have
entered into a sanitation compact. They
have agreed to be sued, to make their
States and their subdivision susceptible
to mandamus, injunction, specific per-
formance, or any remedy that might be
exercised in the courts, all with a view
to eliminating water pollution.
The pending bill does not have a sem-
blance of bureaucracy about it. There
is not a single step that is taken under
the pending bill that is not first author-
ized by some State agency, either by the
public-health service of the State or
some agency that may he designated by
the State's public-health authority.
Only in the final analysis, after it has
been impossible for the States to enforce
the law, is the Attorney General of the
United States authorized to bring action
in the United States court, and he cannot
act without the consent of \±ie State.
Mr JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELSTON. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from California.
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Does
this take all actual responsibility away
from cities and States and place it in
the Federal Government?
Mr. ELSTON. Not at all; not at all.
This bill authorizes the appropriation
of $126,000,000 over a period of 5 years;
$100,000,000 of this amount is in the
form of loans to the States and their
subdivisions at 2-percent interest. So
it results in no cost to the Federal Gov-
ernment except the $26,500,000 over a
period of 5 years. When, therefore, the
gentleman from South Dakota talks
about huge appropriations I hope you
will bear in mind that those loans are
repayable to the Federal Government.
It was pointed out by the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. SPENCE] how im-
possible it is for some of the smaller
cities and towns to provide sewage dis-
posal plants. The city of Cincinnati is
today ready to spend more than $20,000,-
000 for a sewage disposal plant, but the
money will be wasted if the cities across
the river, with a population of approxi-
mately 175,000 people are unable to
finance sewage disposal plants:
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this
legislation is long overdue. This bill has
been thoroughly considered by the Com-
mittee on Public Works of the House
and by the subcommittee of which the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
187
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MCGREGOR]
is a member, and the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. AUCHINCLOSS] is chair-
man. The Committee on Public Works
voted unanimously for this bill and the
subcommittee that reported this bill
voted unanimously for it. The gentle-
man from South Dakota was heard be-
fore the committee, and all persons were
heard who wanted to be heard, both the
proponents and the opponents of the
bills under consideration. After full and
careful review of all the evidence sub-
mitted this bill is the result. It amends
the Senate bill in some respects, but not
to an appreciable extent. The Senate
bill passed that body unanimously.
On a number of occasions I have urged
favorable action upon bills to eliminate
water pollution. I heartily endorse the
pending bill. Further delay in the pas-
sage of legislation on this subject will
seriously endanger the health of millions
of people.
Many Members are familiar with the
history of stream-pollution legislation.
Water pollution control bills were first
introduced in the Fifty-fifth Congress in
the year 1897. Continuously since that
time efforts have been made to obtain
this much-needed legislation without
success, during all of which time water
pollution has become more aggravated
until today only a miracle prevents a
serious epidemic in many areas of the
country. Perhaps no area has been
jeopardized more than the Ohio Valley.
At times legislation has been imperiled
because of the failure of all groups in-
terested m the elimination of water pol-
lution to agree on enforcement methods.
These groups having now arrived at an
understanding, I sincerely trust there
will be no difficulty in obtaining favor-
able House action on the bill now pend-
ing.
From the standpoint of economy the
cost of this legislation is negligible as
compared with the great good it will
accomplish. Only by the passage of leg-
islation of this kind can the health of
the Nation be safeguarded. Under the
provisions of the pending bill two-thirds
of the cost of sewage-disposal plants
erected by public bodies must be as-
sumed by local communities before a
loan from the Federal Government can
be obtained. No outright grants-in-aid
are provided for and private industries
cannot even make a loan from the Gov-
ermnent. Under the terms of the bill
before us, out of the total of $25,300,000
authorized to be appropriated per year
for 5 years, $20,000,000 per year is in
the form of loans which must be repaid
with interest at 2 percent.
State laws alone are inadequate to deal
with the situation. Because of the navi-
gation dams in the Ohio River which
retard the natural flow of the water the
river has become a series of cesspools,
particularly near the larger cities. It is
near one of these cesspools that Cincin-
nati, Ohio; Covington, Newport, Belle-
vue, Dayton, and Ludlow, Ky., across
the river from Cincinnati, obtain their
water supply. It has been demonstrated
that there are times when fish cannot
survive in this pool. The city of Cin-
cinnati has spent a large sum of money
on a modern waterworks, and is ready
to spend more than $20,000,000 cdditional
for an improved system. But I submit
that there is a limit beyond which sew-
age cannot be treated. Moreover, it
is almost useless for Cincinnati, or any
other city, to spend large sums on sew-
age-treatment works if neighboring cit-
ies are unable to cooperate. In many
[p. 8199]
places in the Ohio Valley the safety
limit is being exceeded As an example,
a survey showed that along the 90-mile
stretch between Pittsburgh, Pa., and
Wheeling, W. Va., the average coli count
was 125,000 to the pint. At one place it
was as high as 405,000. The limit of
safety is 100,000. Below Louisville the
coh count has ranged from an average
of 320,000 to a maximum of 1,200,000.
Every conceivable effort has been made
to deal with the subject and great prog-
ress has been made. Whereas there
-------
188
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
were only two disposal plants in the
Ohio Valley Basin in 1900, by the end of
1930 there were 200, with 300 more be-
ing added during the next 10 years. I
am informed that in the Ohio River
Valley municipal sewage has been
treated as much as 74 percent in the
State of Illinois; 62 percent in the State
of Indiana; 23 percent in Kentucky; 73
percent in New York; 47 percent in Ohio;
17 percent in Pennsylvania; and 8 per-
cent in West Virginia. But it is obvious
that this is far from enough. As I have
pointed out, it is useless for one city to
operate a sewage-treatment plant if
nearby cities fail to do so. Only by the
enactment of legislation of this kind can
real results be accomplished. Tragic
consequences may be the price of delay.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I
should like to call attention to the report
of the Ohio River committee dated April
20,1943, upon a survey of the Ohio River
and its tributaries for pollution control.
This was an exhaustive survey, carried
on by virtue of an appropriation of Con-
gress, and the report was submitted to
Congress by the Chief of Engineers of
the War Department. It was referred to
by the Chief of Engineers as the most
complete and comprehensive examina-
tion ever made into the sanitary condi-
tions of a major river and its tributaries.
About 5 years were required to obtain
and analyze the voluminous field data
necessary for a sound study of the com-
plicated problems involved, to consider
the technical, financial, and other asso-
ciated questions, and to develop a plan
for remedial improvements. The Corps
of Engineers and the Public Health
Service were in full collaboration at all
times on this comprehensive pollution
report. I would particularly direct the
attention of the committee to the first
part of syllabus 1 of the report wherein
it was pointed out that practically all
streams in the Ohio River Basin are pol-
luted by domestic and industrial wastes;
that the Ohio River proper is polluted
to such an extent that 30 public sources
of water supply serving about 1,660,000
people are endangered. In this connec-
tion it should be remembered that the
streams of the Ohio Basin furnish water
for 7,000,000 people and it is used for
the disposal of sewage by 8,500,000
people.
It should be borne in mind that the
construction of sewage-disposal plants
is not beneficial solely to the municipali-
ties or other public bodies erecting them.
Benefits necessarily accrue to all persons
living along the stream and within an
area which would be affected if such
treatment works were not built. In this
connection the attention of the House is
directed to the fact that much of the
contamination of the Ohio River is due
to the system of locks and dams con-
structed and maintained by the Federal
Government. By retarding the natural
flow of the water, conditions are greatly
aggravated. The Ohio River as a navi-
gable stream is under the jurisdiction of
the Federal Government so far as the
regulation of commerce is concerned.
Contamination of the river is obviously
detrimental to transportation on the
river. It could scarcely be contended
that the general health of the Nation
or any large segment thereof is purely
a local problem. Under the circum-
stances the clearing of our navigable
waterways is primarily an obligation of
the Federal Government.
I believe it is just as essential that the
Federal Government make some contri-
bution toward the elimination of water
pollution as it is for the Federal Gov-
ernment to contribute to the building
and maintenance of highways and of
locks and dams on navigable streams.
In each case there is a service to the
general public. As to highways and
locks and dams the contribution is in
the interest of transportation and com-
merce and the safety and convenience
of the traveling public. As to the elimi-
nation of stream pollution the contribu-
tion is in the interest of public health.
I submit that as between the two classes
of cases public health is the more im-
portant.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
189
Of particular significance in connec-
tion with the pending bill is the fact that
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Compact entered into between the States
of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West
Virginia, and Virginia has now been
adopted by all of these States. Under
this compact each of the signatory States
pledges to each other faithful coopera-
tion in the control of future pollution
and in the abatement of existing pollu-
tion from the streams in the Ohio River
Basin. Each agrees to enact necessary
legislation to enable each such State to
place and maintain the waters of the
Ohio Basin in a satisfactory sanitary
condition.
A commission made up of representa-
tives from the 9 States appointed by their
respective Governors is empowered,
among other things, to give notice to any
municipality, corporation, or other entity
discharging pollution into a stream to
discontinue the practice. If the order of
discontinuance is not obeyed provision
is made to enforce compliance by going
into any court of general jurisdiction
or into the United States district court
in any of the signatory States. Such
courts shall have jurisdiction by way of
mandamus, injunction, special perform-
ance, or other form of remedy to enforce
any abatement order.
The adoption of this compact will go
a long way toward the elimination of
pollution from streams in the Ohio Basin.
In the Potomac Valley there is a similar
compact and other areas will no doubt
follow.
The enforcement provisions of these
compacts, plus the general laws of the
States and municipal ordinances, as well
as the enforcement provisions contained
in this bill, should be assurance that
pollution abatement is now certain. Par-
ticularly is this true in view of those
provisions of this act which provide for
loans to municipalities or other public
bodies unable to finance and maintain
sewage treatment or disposal works.
This proposed legislation is long over-
due. It is the final step toward the solu-
tion of an increasingly serious problem
concerning the health of the Nation.
In order that the House may be more
fully advised with respect to the activi-
ties of the Public Health Service, I ask,
Mr. Speaker, for unaaimous consent to
include as part of my remarks a letter
from the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service, dated June 11, 1948:
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
UNITED STATES PUBLIC: HEALTH SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., June 11,194S.
Hon. CHARLES H. ELSTON,
House 0} Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR ELSTON: This is in reply to your
inquiry regarding the development and use
of the Water and Sanitations Investigation
Station at Cincinnati, Ohio, especially with
reference to housing and equipment,
This field laboratory station was estab-
lished in 1913 for the purpose of conducting
essential research in the fields of water sup-
ply, sewage treatment, and water pollution.
The public health aspects of these problems
have been emphasized The laboratory was
developed to meet the request for assistance
from States and industries. The Cincinnati
station is the only Federal facility of this
type in existence Since its establishment
the laboratory has been housed in the old
Marine Hospital building, a converted resi-
dence of about 15,000 square feet, at East
Third and Kilgour Streets These ill-suited
quarters, inadequate from the start, have
seriously handicapped research and investi-
gations Since 1935 inadequacies in space
and equipment have been such that only the
more pressing problems presented by States
and industries could be handled. Practically
all of the much needed basic research work
at the Station had to be suspended. As ad-
ditional exigencies devolved upon the Public
Health Service, it has been necessary to re-
sort to makeshift laboratory space at other
cities throughout the country
In 1938 the inefficiencies resulting from
lack of adequate quarters and facilities be-
came sufficiently acute to warrant the atten-
tion of the Congress, and resulted in the in-
clusion of funds for a basic research unit in
the Public Buildings Administration appro-
priation Legal difficulties in site acquisi-
tion prevented inauguration of construction
prior to the prewar emergency These diffi-
culties have been resolved The proposed
site is Government-owned, and preliminary
plans have been completed The current
Public Buildings Administration construc-
tion estimate for the facility is approxi-
mately $4,000,000. Construction of a suit-
-------
190
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
able facility would permit consolidation of
the present widely dispersed staff in a prop-
erly designed building to do a much more
effective job.
At the present time treatment processes for
many of our more important industrial
wastes have not been developed. For ex-
ample effective and practical treatment still
has to be worked out for wastes resulting
from the manufacture of synthetics (notably
plastics), products of nuclear fission, and
even the wastes from such a common and
extensive industry as food canning. In in-
stances where treatment costs of industrial
byproduct wastes are exorbitant, it is often
possible in working with industry to reclaim
waste products for beneficial use. A striking
[p. 8200]
example is the work done with distilleries
where reclaimed products from wastes are
used for stock feeds.
Pollution problems relating to irrigation
water, shellfish production, and bathing and
recreational facilities are dependent upon
laboratory and field investigations for their
satisfactory solution. There is some question
of the soundness of present standards gov-
erning controls in these fields.
The existing responsibilities of the Public
Health Service in the fields of water, sewage,
industrial wastes, and milk and food require
a research facility of the type proposed Such
a center is an absolute necessity to the suc-
cessful prosecution of a comprehensive wa-
ter pollution control program. For instance
the Public Health Service, through the Cin-
cinnati station, regularly works with the
Corps of Engineers, United States Army, on
pollution and water-use problems in multi-
purpose reservoir developments. The Ohio
River Survey (H. Doc. No. 266) is an example
in point. Work is in progress in the Gulf
Coast States on control of water hyacinths
and other disrupting aquatic vegetation.
Several programs are under way with the
Bureau of Reclamation in the Missouri and
Columbia River Basins. The Cincinnati lab-
oratory does the technical surveys and work
on industrial pollution for the International
Joint Commission with Canada. Applied re-
search in septic-tank design for rural and
suburban, nonsewered areas is now under
way for the Housing and Home Finance
Agency. Technicians at the station are work-
ing with the Atomic Energy Commission on
problems relating to radioactive wastes In-
vestigations on pollution of shellfish in the
New England States are currently being
made. Similarly, Assistance is provided in-
dustrial establishments such as the recently
completed industrial-waste guides covering
more than 15 major-type industries. How-
ever, the paucity of space and equipment
materially restricts the degree of assistance
that can be rendered. Further, little is being
done on basic work where additional knowl-
edge is essential.
The Public Health Service has approached
this entire problem with a view of conducting
research and investigations that are generally
beyond the resources of the individual States.
Public Health Service work is supplemental
to, rather than a substitute for, the work car-
ried on by the respective State pollution-con.-*
trol agencies.
In carrying out its responsibilities in water-
pollution control, the Public Health Service
proposes to approach the problem by major
watersheds. In cooperation with the proper
Federal and State agencies concerned, the
plan is to catalog the main stream and its
tributaries as to total water use, establish
stream standards for the various segments,
and work with the State agencies in effecting
corrective measures The success of this pro-
gram will be largely dependent upon the
quality, character, and extent of research and
technical field-service activities which are
being developed at the Cincinnati station.
Sincerely yours,
LEONARD A. SCHEELE,
Surgeon General.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Ohio has expired.
(Mr. ELSTON asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks and to include a letter from the
Surgeon General of the United States
Public Health Service.)
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DAVIS].
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker,
I rise in support of Senate bill S. 418 as
amended in the House Committee on
Public Works. From the earliest days
the rivers and streams of this country
have been among its greatest assets. We
not only depend upon the larger streams
for transportation, but an unpolluted
stream, whether large or small, is a
souce of pleasure, convenience, and to a
certain extent a source of wealth, to
every landowner whose land abuts on
the stream. These streams provide mois-
ture for crops in the lowlands, drinking
water for cattle and stock, provide fish-
ing and wildlife for the area, and boat-
ing, swimming and other recreational
facilities which add much to the pleasure
and comfort of the community. On the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
191
other hand a polluted stream not only
does not furnish these pleasures, com-
forts, and conveniences, but it is actually
a nuisance of the worst sort, and a source
of annoyance as well as disease, and in-
stead of being an asset to the adjoining
landowner, it actually detracts from the
value of his land, and becomes an abomi-
nation.
It is evident that the means and in-
strumentalities which have heretofore
been relied upon to deal with stream
pollution have not been adequate, and
have failed to control it. Instead of
being reduced, stream pollution, I be-
lieve is on the increase. One of the un-
fortunate features of stream-pollution
control under present conditions is the
fact that where one municipality, one
county, or one section, may apply itself
diligently to the problem, another com-
munity or area either up the stream or
down the stream may fail to refuse to
take action, and this failure or refusal to
take action, nullifies all the good work
which may be done by one or more
forward-looking cities or communities
on the banks of a particular stream. I
believe the general scheme of this bill is
to encourage cooperation in the control
of stream pollution throughout the entire
length of a stream. It not only provides
for the control and elimination of stream
pollution insofar as interstate waters are
concerned, but includes tributaries of
such interstate waters, and that means
that the aid provided for in this bill will
be available for pollution control and
elimination, for instance, not only of the
Chattahoochee River in Georgia, but also
of its tributary streams, and of streams
that flow into the Flint River and the
Apalachicola River.
The bill deals with the subject of
stream pollution as a matter relating to
the public health and welfare, and to a
large extent, and I think wisely so, places
the control and administration of the
program under the Surgeon General of
the Public Health Service. This bill
deals with stream pollution by discharges
of sewage, industrial waste, or other
substances which may deleteriously af-
fect the waters into which such sub-
stances are discharged.
Provision is made for the appropriation
over a 5-year period of approximately
$120,000,000 to finance the program. Un-
der section V of the bill the Federal
Works Administrator is authorized, sub-
ject to the provisions of section IX (c) of
the bill, to make loans to States, munic-
ipalities, and other municipal subdivi-
sions—which in my opinion includes
counties—up to the sum of $200,000, for
the construction of the necessary treat-
ment works, to prevent the discharge by
such State or municipal subdivision of
untreated or inadequately treated sew-
age or other waste into interstate waters
or into a tributary of such waters, and
also for the preparation of engineering
reports, plans, and specifications in con-
nection therewith.
I believe that this bill will effectively
encourage the elimination of stream pol-
lution throughout the entire length of a
stream, and will encourage elimination
of stream pollution by smaller cities and
towns, which in the past, may have found
the burden too large to be carried by
themselves alone. I believe that it will
produce returns throughout the entire
country in the form of increased good
health, increased sanitation, increased
recreational facilities, increased land
values, and all these items will add up i,o
increased pleasure, satisfaction and con-
tentment on the part of our people. In
my opinion this is a very meritorious bill,
and one which deserves our whole-
hearted support.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LAR-
CADE].
Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, for
many years, since I have been a member
of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors
and recently the Committee on Public
Works, a number of bills have been
introduced each year on this subject.
Long hearings were held on four bills
which were presented this year. They
-------
192
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
were considered together and the com-
mittee was able to work out the bill
which we present to you here for con-
sideration.
I think, generally speaking, this is a
good bill and urge the Members of the
House to vote for it.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may desire to
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
COLMER].
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to
ask the gentleman from Mississippi a
question. I have not had an opportunity
to go fully into this bill. Is provision
made for loans to industry that are
charged with polluting streams, as well
as to municipalities?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; no provi-
sion is made for loans in the pending bill
to industry. Provision is made only for
municipalities and other public bodies.
I wish to say further in answer to the
gentleman's question that under the
Mundt bill provisions were made not for
grants but for loans to industry, and the
same provision was in the other bills
introduced before our body.
Mr. COLMER. A further question, if
the gentleman will permit: Where an in-
dustry is charged with pollution of a
stream, what is the remedy?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. The remedy is
that before they can operate they have
got to comply with the State board of
health requirements or with sanitary
boards' requirements of the several
[p. 8201]
States; and according to the hearings
conducted over a long period of time
there seems to be no desire on the part
of industry generally to evade its re-
sponsibility.
Mr. COLMER. In other words the
procedure would be the same for it as
for a public body except there is no pro-
vision for loans.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is right.
Mr. COLMER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Except public
bodies are given grants in amounts for
preparing their plans and specifications
and industries are not, but they are fur-
nished information which will be help-
ful.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. I yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BONNER. What is the distinc-
tion between municipalities or cities as
to those which can get a loan under the
bill and those that are not eligible?
Mr. WHITTINGTON. There is no
distinction between any municipalities at
all. All municipalities as defined by the
laws of the several States of the Union
are eligible.
Mr. BONNER. I understand the gen-
tleman to say that Cincinnati would not
be eligible for aid under this bill but that
other cities across the river would be
eligible.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; I stated
Cincinnati would not be eligible for a
loan of sixteen or eighteen million dol-
lars so that it could take up substan-
tially one-fifth or one-tenth of the entire
authorization. We limit the amount
that may be loaned to $200,000 so the
large municipalities may be able to con-
struct their own sewage disposal work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may desire to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. COMBS].
Mr. COMBS. Mr. Speaker, stream
pollution has proceeded in our country
to a point where something has to be
done about it. The pending bill does not
go as far as I would like to see it go but
it is a good beginning and I shall sup-
port it. Legislation on the subject is
long overdue. I express the hope that
with this beginning, inadequate as I be-
lieve it is, we will be lauching a program
that in time will stop stream pollution
and restore the beauty and usefulness of
our waterways, large and small.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. PICKETT].
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, may I
say that the members of the Subcom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
193
mittee of the Committee on Public Works
who handled this legislation have done
a superior job on the subject they are
working with. This bill, if we must have
such a law enacted, is far superior to
anything I have seen suggested either
in this body or the other body. But I
want to call the attention of the Mem-
bers of the House to the simple fact that
there is no new remedy provided in this
legislation for correction of the ills that
are confronting places in this country
where there is stream pollution except
the remedy of financial aid from the
Federal Government, so far as I can tell.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. McGREGOR. Do we not give a
remedy in here by giving the facilities of
research of the Federal Government to
those interested?
Mr. PICKETT. There is not any ques-
tion that you provide for research; how-
ever, you do not provide any remedy
except authorization for Federal money.
You may enlarge on the scope of activi-
ties by the Federal Government to any
extent desired, within the limits of the
Constitution. You cannot escape the re-
sults of such an enlargement; some of
which are to increase bureaucracy, the
number of employees required to dis-
charge the functions authorized, addi-
tional influence and intrusion by the
Federal Government through its depart-
ments on the affairs of States and local
communities and compound the intru-
sion of bureaucracy into the everyday
functions of State and municipal govern-
ment and the citizens of the United
States. If that is what the Congress de-
sires to do, it can be accomplished by
the majority.
The hearings on the several bills in-
troduced in the House, which took place
last year, occurred before it was my priv-
ilege to be a member of the committee.
Nevertheless I have studied the various
proposals and given more than passing
attention to the hearings. Let me call
your attention to the fact that on page
142, and the following, there is a table
showing what States have enacted laws
relative to water pollution control. The
table gives other pertinent information.
According to my count, 38 of the 48
States in the Union have enacted laws
directed toward the control of water
pollution and have designated agencies
to supervise the work. Thirty-seven of
the thirty-eight States permit the is-
suance of orders and court action under
the law. In only 14 of those 38 States is
it indicated the law has any deficiency.
Most of the criticisms of the various
State laws are directed toward the pen-
alty provided for the violation of them.
Therefore, at least half the States of the
Union have State laws dealing with the
water pollution problem that are found
to be satisfactory.
It is my information that one of the
most serious areas of stream pollution in
the United States is the Ohio River. I
am also informed that an interstate com-
pact for eight States which the Ohio
River and its tributaries border or flow
through has been authorized for a num-
ber of years, but the States have effected
no adequate remedy. There is some
indication, therefore, that the several
States involved have recognized the ex-
istence of a problem, but have failed to
supply the remedy because of their own
inaction. Could the reason be that not-
withstanding we have heard from some
of the Representatives of some of those
States an expressed opposition to Federal
intrusion into State affairs and Federal
bureaucracy to control them, those States
have been awaiting the opportunity to
seek a remedy from the Federal Govern-
ment?
The hearings on the bills pending be-
fore the House Committee on Public
Works are replete with evidence that
those who spoke for a number of the
groups who expressed favorable interest
in Federal legislation on water pollution,
as well as official representatives from
some of the States who appeared before
the committee, have no interest in or
-------
194
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
desire for Federal legislation on this
subject unless it authorized a Federal
grant-in-aid or some other subsidy.
This bill does not satisfy such seekers.
I am glad it does not.
I think the bill does go a little further
than it should in some respects and does
not limit the scope of Federal activity
sufficiently in other respects. I shall not
discuss all of the objections. One of the
major ones of concern to me is the fail-
ure of the legislation to limit specifically
the extent of activity that may be carried
on under the definition of "interstate
waters." A number of suggestions can
be made to effect the purpose. One of
them, to provide that the term "inter-
state waters" means all rivers, lakes, and
other waters, and their tributaries, that
flow across or form a part of, State or
international boundaries; not including
tributaries which flow entirely within
the boundaries of a State. Then follow
that definition by a definition of "intra-
state waters" to mean all rivers, lakes,
and other waters, or any tributary
thereof, which drain or drains an area
lying within the boundaries of a State.
The definitions so limiting the meaning
of "interstate waters" would eliminate
from Federal intrusion and supervision
such streams as the Brazos, Colorado,
and Trinity Rivers in Texas. Likewise,
it would prevent Federal encroachment
into the efforts of many of the other
States whose antipollution laws are
deemed to be satisfactory.
The remedy for pollution lies in the
enactment and active enforcement of
State laws, as well as the enactment of
interstate compacts designed to give aid
in the solution of the problem. The
remedy is through the legislatures of the
several States rather than from Wash-
ington. That is aside from the fact that
.under the laws now in existence a rem-
edy is provided by proper court pro-
ceedings for an aggrieved party to file
suit and establish his need for relief in
a proper forum where it can be secured.
I am sorry time does not permit me to
discuss the matter fully. I close with the
observation that once the door is open
it is far too easy to get this or some suc-
ceeding Congress to enlarge greatly upon
the purpose of this law and ultimately
permit outright Federal control through
bureaucratic dictatorship. Such an en-
largement on the authorization could
result in nothing other than the appro-
pria-
[p. 8202]
tion of several billions of dollars like
that which would be possible if the last
Mundt bill were to be enacted into law.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HAND].
Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, the pending
bill, S. 418, as completely amended by
the House committee, in my opinion,
suffers from two major defects: First, it
is inadequate; and, second, it is very
expansive. I must associate myself with
the remarks just made by the gentleman
from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT]. He
seems to be of the same opinion and
suggests, as I do, that this bill lie over
until we can get a law with real teeth
in it and at far less expense.
The question is, Are we going to pro-
vide for the prevention of pollution, both
in streams or on ocean shores—which is
also important—or are we going to say,
as this bill does, that whatever remedy
we do attempt to provide is provided by
the old familiar remedy of spending more
Government money? It seems to me the
way to stop pollution in coastal areas and
interstate waters is to prohibit it, and to
put the burden on those who are pollut-
ing it to devise means to stop the damage
they are doing. That is certainly not the
method adopted by the pending bill.
My own bill, H.R. 5268, I believe to be
the sounder approach. To the best of
my knowledge, it has not been given real
consideration by the committee, and I
believe the committee opposes it, or at
least parts of it. I shall, nevertheless,
continue to press for it at the first op-
portunity. My bill is endorsed by the
National Coast Antipollution and Con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
195
servation League and others who are
vitally interested in preventing further
pollution. It is necessary to take a
stronger line against pollution—a men-
ace to our national assets and resources.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. JENKINS].
Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I think I can assure the gentleman from
Texas that this bill will not be such a
tremendous boon to anyone, especially to
the small cities along the rivers. In my
own district, which runs about 150 miles
along the Ohio, there are several small
communities that will have to struggle to
the very limit to meet the terms of this
bill. I have, as other gentlemen have in-
dicated here, been very much interested
in this legislation for years. We have
had it before the committee of the House
in some form or another for years. We
have done practically everything in the
world in our endeavor to clean up these
streams. While this is a tremendous un-
dertaking, we must not lose sight of the
fact that the results will be tremendously
important if we can do what should be
done.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this oppor-
tunity to support this legislation.
Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. ELSTON. It is a fact, is it not,
that if a municipality under this bill
makes a loan, it can only borrow one-
third of the amount it proposes to
expend?
Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Yes; and these
small municipalities along the Ohio
River will have difficulty in meeting that
situation.
Mr. BATES of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. BATES of Massachusetts. I would
like to ask the chairman of this commit-
tee whether or not there is anything in
this bill, or how the language can be in-
terpreted, concerning the setting up of
State compacts.
Mr. McGREGOR. Under this legisla-
tion we are not interfering with that in
any way.
Mr. BATES of Massachusetts. But
there is no grant except for the making
of surveys, studies, research, and so
forth.
Mr. McGREGOR. Let me refer to
page 19, line 7:
The consent of the Congress is hereby
.given to two or more States to negotiate and
enter into agreements or compacts not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United
States
Mr. BATES of Massachusetts. My
only other question is whether or not
there is any direct grant except for sur-
veys and studies.
Mr. McGREGOR. There is not, ex-
cept for research, which includes, of
course, surveys and studies. The rest of
it is in loans.
Mr. BATES of Massachusetts. I thank
the gejntleman.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from Maine [Mr. HALE].
Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, it seems to
me regrettable that this bill (S. 418) is
bsing brought up at this time under sus-
pension of the rules. The whole subject
oi water pollution is of the greatest in-
terest and concern to my State. I had
no notice that this bill was coming up
this week. I have had no opportunity
to give it study and no opportunity to
communicate about it with the public
authorities in my State or with interested
individuals.
It may be that this measure is quite as
unobjectionable as its advocates contend.
However, it is a complicated piece of leg-
islation in a field where legislation can-
not be easy and where State, municipal,
and private interests are involved, as
well as the Federal interest, and there
should be an apt apportionment of bur-
dens and responsibilities under any
legislation. I cannot tell from a casual
study whether this bill does aptly appor-
-------
196
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion the burdens. Therefore, I feel con-
strained to vote against it. It should
certainly have come here under a rule
in the normal way, or else it should not
come at all. There is no immediate
emergency which requires the passage of
this bill. It could easily go over till the
next Congress.
Mr. MCGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
move the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. MCGREGOR] that the rules be sus-
pended and that the bill be passed.
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. MUNDT)
there were—ayes 138, noes 14.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
House Joint Resolution 641 was laid
on the table.
[p. 8203]
1.2a(4)(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 15: Senate disagrees to House amend-
ments and demands conference, pp. 8295-8296
Mr. REVERCOMB. I move that the
Senate disagree to the amendment of
the House, request a conference with the
House on the disagreeing votes of the
[p. 8295]
two Houses thereon, and that the Chair
1.2a(4)(d) Vol. 94 (1948), June 16: House agrees to conference, p. 8458
appoint the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to, and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. REVER-
COMB, Mr. MALONE, and Mr. MCCLELLAN
conferees on the part of the Senate.
[p. 8296]
STREAM-POLLUTION BILL SENT
TO CONFERENCE
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 418) to pro-
vide for water-pollution-control activi-
ties in the Public Health Service of the
Federal Security Agency and in the Fed-
eral Works Agency, and for other pur-
poses, insist on the House amendments,
agree to the conference requested by the
1.2a(4)(e) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18:
p. 8864
*****
PROVIDING FOR WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
ACTIVITIES
Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill
(S. 418) to provide for water pollution
control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Federal Security Agency
and in the Federal Works Agency, and
for other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
Senate, and that the Chair appoint
conferees.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mich-
igan. [After a pause.] The Chair hears
none and appoints the following con-
ferees: Messrs. DONDERO, AUCHINCLOSS,
MCGREGOR, CUNNINGHAM, WHITTINGTON,
PICKETT, and BLATNIK.
[p. 8458]
House agrees to conference report,
agers on the part of the House be read in
lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mich-
igan?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
The conference report and statement
are as follows:
CONFERENCE REPORT
The committee of conference on the dis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
197
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the House to the bill (S. 418)
"An Act to provide for water pollution con-
trol activities in the Public Health Service
of the Federal Security Agency and in the
Federal Works Agency, and for other pur-
poses," having met, after full and free con-
ference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House, and
agree to the same with amendments, as
follows:
Page 2, line 12, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the words "hereinafter de-
clared to be a public nuisance".
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, of the amendment
of the House, strike out the words "such in-
terstate water and tributaries thereof", and
insert the following words "surface and un-
derground waters".
Page 9, line 11, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the figure "$200,000" and
insert the figure $250,000".
Page 11, line 25, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the figure "$20,000,000" and
insert the figure "$22,500,000".
Page 12, line 25 of the amendment of the
House, after the words "study of" insert the
word "water", and strike out the word "of"
after the word "pollution".
Page 13, line 1, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the words "interstate
waters".
Page 13, line 2, of the amendment of ihe
House, before the word "pollution" insert
the word "water", and after the word "pollu-
tion" strike out the words "of interstate
waters".
Page 14, line 17 through line 23, of the
amendment of the House, strike out all
after the words "SEC 9 (a)" and insert the
following- "Five officers may be appointed
to grades in the Regular Corps of the Public
Health Service above that of senior assist-
ant, but not to a grade above that of direc-
tor, to assist in carrying out the purposes of
this Act. Officers appointed pursuant to this
subsection in any fiscal year shall not be
counted as part of the 10 per centum of the
original appointments authorized to be made
in such year under section 207 (b) of the
Public Health Service Act; but they shall for
all other purposes be treated as though ap-
pointed pursuant to such section 207 (b.)"
And the House agree to the same.
GEO. A DONDEEO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
PAUL CUNNINGHAM,
JAMES C. AUCHINCLCSS,
WILL M WHITTINGTON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
TOM PICKETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
GEO. W. MALONE,
CHAPMAN REVERCOMB,
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill (S 418) submit the follow-
ing statement in explanation of the effect of
the action agreed upon and recommended in
the accompanying conference report as to
each of such amendments, namely:
The first two amendments apply to Sec. 2
(a), lines 4, 5, and 6, on page 18 of the bill.
The language substituted more clearly defines
the authority of the Surgeon General with
respect to the preparation and adoption of
comprehensive programs for eliminating or
reducing the pollution of surface and under-
ground waters.
The amendment to Sec. 5 (line 3, page 25),
increases by $50,000 the maximum individual
loan which may be made under the Act.
The amendment to See. 7 (line 16, page 27),
increases by $2,500,000 the maximum author-
ized to be appropriated to the Federal Se-
curity Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1, 1948, and
ending June 30, 1953, for the purpose of mak-
ing loans under Section 5 of the Act.
The purpose of the amendments to Sec. 8
(b) (lines 16, 17, and 18, page 28), is to ex-
pand the service of the Public Health Service
station authorized to be erected at Cincin-
nati, Ohio, in connection with research and
study of water pollution and the training of
personnel in work related to control of water
pollution.
The amendment with reference to Sec 9
(a), (lines 10 to 16, page 30), substitutes a
new Sec 9 (a), which is required for the
purpose set forth in the following letter:
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Washington, Zone 25, May 14,1948.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reference
to S. 418, which your Committee reported
out, with amendments, on April 28, 1948.
Section 9 (a) of S. 418 as reported author-
izes additional appointments to be made at
higher grades in the Regular Corps of the
Public Health Service pursuant to section
208 (b) of the Public Health Service Act to
assist the Service in carrying out its new or
expanded activities under S. 418 Since our
letter of January 19, 1948, to you on this
bill, however, the Congress has enacted Pub-
lic Law 425, which amends the provisions
of the Public Health Service Act in several
respects, primarily in the matter of appoint-
ment and promotion of commissioned officers
-------
198
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the Public Health Service. As a result
of Public Law 425, the authority to make
additional appointments at higher grades
in the Regular Corps of the Public Health
Service, formerly contained in section 208
(b) of the Public Health Service Act, is now
contained in section 207 (b) of that Act, in
a somewhat revised form. In order, there-
fore, to accomplish the purposes for which
section 9 (a) of S. 418 was intended, the fol-
lowing is suggested in lieu of such section
9 (a):
(a) Five officers may be appointed to grades
in the Regular Corps of the Service above
that of senior assistant, but not to a grade
above that of director, to assist in carrying
out the purposes of this Act. Officers ap-
pointed pursuant to this subsection in any
fiscal year shall not be counted as part of
the 10 per centum of the original appoint-
ments authorized to be made in such year
under section 207 (b) of the Public Health
Service Act, but they shall for all other pur-
poses be treated as though appointed pur-
suant to such section 207 (b).
The short time available for necessary
action on the amendment suggested by this
letter has not permitted us to obtain advice
from the Bureau of the Budget as to the
relationship of this amendment to the pro-
gram of the President.
Sincerely yours,
J. DONALD KINGSLEY,
Acting Administrator.
Hon GEORGE A. DONDERO,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives,
Washington 25, D.C.
GEO. A. DONDERO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS,
PAUL CUNNINGHAM,
WILL M. WHITTINGTON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
TOM PICKETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
[p. 8864]
1.2a(4)(f) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: Conference report submitted in
Senate, p. 8772
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to present a confer-
ence report on Senate bill 418.
Mr. MALONE. It is the stream-pollu-
tion conference report.
So, Mr. President, I submit the report.
The conference report submitted by
Mr. MALONE, and ordered to lie on the
table, is as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the House to the bill (S. 418)
entitled "An Act to provide for water pollu-
tion control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Federal Security Agency and
in the Federal Works Agency, and for other
purposes" having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and
do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House, and
agree to the same with amendments as fol-
lows:
Page 2, line 12, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the words "hereinafter de-
clared to be a public nuisance."
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, of the amendment
of the House, strike out the words "such
interstate waters and tributaries thereof"
and insert the following words "surface and
underground waters."
Page 9, line 11, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the figure "$200,000" and
insert the figure "$250,000."
Page 11, line 25, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the figure "$20,000,000" and
insert the figure "$22,500,000."
Page 12, line 25, of the amendment of the
House, after the words "study of" insert the
word "water", and strike out the word "of"
after the word "pollution."
Page 13, line 1, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the words "interstate
waters."
Page 13, line 2, of the amendment of the
House, before the word "pollution" insert
the word "water", and after the word "pollu-
tion" strike out the words "of interstate
waters."
Page 14, line 17 through line 23, of the
amendment of the House, strike out all after
the words "Sec. 9 (a)" and insert the follow-
ing. "Five officers may be appointed to grades
in the Regular Corps of the Public Health
Service above that of senior assistant, but
not to a grade above that of director, to assist
in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Of-
ficers appointed pursuant to this subsection
in any fiscal year shall not be counted as
part of the 10 per centum of the original
appointments authorized to be made in such
year under section 207 (b) of the Public
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
199
Health Service Act; but they shall for all
other purposes be treated as though ap-
pointed pursuant to such section 207 (b)."
And the House agree to the same,
GEO. W. MALONE,
CHAPMAN REVERCOMB,
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
GEO. A DONDEEO,
1.2a(4)(g) Vol. 94 (1948), June 19:
pp. 9002-9003
POLLUTION-CONTROL ACTIVITIES
IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the unfinished
business be temporarily laid aside and
that the Senate proceed to the consider-
ation of the conference report on Senate
bill 418, a bill to provide for water-pol-
lution-control activities in the Public
Health Service of the Federal Security
Agency and in the Federal Works
Agency, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Nevada?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report, which
was read by the Chief Clerk, as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S
418) to provide for water pollution control
activities in the Public Health Service of the
Federal Security Agency and in the Federal
Works Agency, and for other purposes having
met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows.
That the Senate recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the House, and
agree to the same with amendments, as fol-
lows: Page 2, line 12, of the amendment of
the House, strike out the words "hereinafter
declared to be a public nuisance", page 2,
lines 13 and 14, of the amendment of the
House, strike out the words "such interstate
waters and tributaries thereof" and insert
J. HARRY McGRECOH,
PAUL CUNNINGHAM,
JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS,
WILL M. WHITTINGTON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
TOM PICKETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 8772]
Senate agrees to conference report,
the following words "surface and under-
[p. 9002]
ground waters"; page 9, and 11, of the amend-
ment of the House, strike out the figure
"$200,000" and insert the figure "$250,000";
page 11, line 25, of the amendment of Jie
House, strike out the figure "$20,000,000" and
insert the figure "$22,500,000"; page 12, line
25, of the amendment of the House, after
the words "study of" insert the word "water",
and strike out the word "of" after the word
"pollution", page 13, line 1, of the amend-
ment of the House, strike out the words "in-
terstate waters"; page 13, line 2, of the
amendment of the House, before the word
"pollution" insert the word "water", and
after the word "pollution" strike out the
words "of interstate waters"; page 14, line
17 through line 23, of the amendment of
the House, strike out all after the words
"SEC 9 (a)" and insert the following: "Five
officers may be appointed to grades in the
Regular Corps of the Public Health Service
above that of senior assistant, but not to
a grade above that of director, to assist in
carrying out the purposes of chis act Of-
ficers appointed pursuant to this subsection
in any fiscal year shall not be counted as
part of the 10 per centum of the original ap-
pointments authorized to be made in ,:uch
year under section 207 (b) of the Public
Health Service Act, but they shall for all
other purposes be treated as though ap-
pointed pursuant to such section 207 (b)."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 9003]
-------
200 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2b REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 14 OF 1950
May 24, 1950, 15 Fed. Reg. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of
Representatives in Congress assembled, March 13, 1950, pursuant to the pro-
visions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, approved June 20,1949.
LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
In order to assure coordination of administration and consistency
of enforcement of the labor standards provisions of each of the follow-
ing Acts by the Federal agencies responsible for the administration
thereof, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe appropriate standards,
regulations, and procedures, which shall be observed by these agen-
cies, and cause to be made by the Department of Labor such investi-
gations, with respect to compliance with and enforcement of such
labor standards, as he deems desirable, namely: (a) The Act of
March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494, ch. 411), as amended; (b) the Act of
June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948, ch. 482); (c) the Act of August 1, 1892
(27 Stat. 340, ch. 352), as amended; (d) The Act of June 19, 1912
(37 Stat. 137, ch. 174), as amended; (e) the Act of June 3, 1939 (53
Stat. 804, ch. 175), as amended; (f) the Act of August 13, 1946 (60
Stat. 1040, ch. 958); (g) the Act of May 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 170, ch.
251), as amended; and (h) the Act of July 15, 1949, ch. 338, Public
Law 171, 81st Congress, First Session.
[p. 1267]
1.2c WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT EXTENSION
July 17,1952, P.L. 82-579,66 Stat. 755
AN ACT
To extend the duration of the Water Pollution Control Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the words
"each of the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953" where they occur in section 7 and subsec-
tions (a), (c), (d), and (e) of section 8 of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (Public Law 845, Eightieth Congress), are hereby amended
to read "each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning
July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1956."
Approved July 17, 1952.
[p. 755]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 201
1.2c(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
' H.R. REP. No. 1990, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952)
EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
MAY 22, 1952.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BUCKLEY, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6856]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 6856) to extend the duration of the Water Pollution Control
Act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
H.R. 6856 merely extends the duration of the Water Pollution
Control Act, Public Law 845 (80th Cong.), without any changes in
the basic law.
Public Law 845, Eightieth Congress, provided for full recognition
of the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in controlling
water pollution. It authorized the United States Public Health
Service to develop comprehensive water pollution control programs
in cooperation with the States, interstate agencies, municipalities, in-
dustries, and others. These programs were to be developed for sur-
face and underground waters giving due consideration to all water
uses—public water supply, propagation of fish and aquatic life, rec-
reational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other water uses.
The act also provided for Federal grants to the States to help them
with their industrial waste problems and to States, interstate agencies,
and municipalities for the construction of abatement works. The ex-
tension of Federal credit to local agencies for construction of pollu-
tion abatement works was intended by the Congress to stimulate the
construction phase of the comprehensive programs and thereby en-
courage the earliest possible accomplishment of urgently needed
abatement structures.
-------
202 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The act further provided for Federal research and technical counsel
and assistance. It is the intent of the Congress that Federal enforce-
ment under the act is to be exercised on interstate waters only after
[p. 1]
the efforts of the States have been exhausted and then only with their
consent.
In the 3 years, 1950, 1951, and 1952, of operation (there was no
appropriation under the act for 1949) the United States Public Health
Service has proceeded with the development of comprehensive basin
plans; cooperated with the States in the conduct of surveys; provided
technical aid to State, interstate, and local agencies; encouraged the
adoption of uniform State water pollution control laws; encouraged
cooperative pollution control activities by State and interstate agen-
cies; and cooperated with other Federal agencies on problems of
water pollution control. Funds have been granted to State and
interstate agencies for investigations and research on water pollution
caused by industrial wastes.
Although $135,000,000 was authorized during the 5-year period
specified in the act, appropriations of only $8,408,568 have been made
under the act; of this amount, $5,381,283 was for United States Pub-
lic Health Service activities; substantially all of the remainder
($3,000,000) was granted to the States. A special appropriation of
$4,000,000 was made for the construction of a research facility at
Cincinnati, Ohio. This facility, known as the Environmental Health
Center, is the only one of its kind in the world and is now approxi-
mately 60 percet completed. It is anticipated that the center will
be occupied in December 1952 or January 1953.
The Division of Water Pollution Control of the United States
Public Health Service, despite the small total appropriation made
available to it, appears to have accomplished much in the organiza-
tion of water pollution control work in the United States. Ten field
units have been established on the basis of river basin areas; each is
staffed with four to seven engineers and scientists. Also the research
and investigation staff of the facility in Cincinnati has been increased.
Working with the States, the United States Public Health Service
has issued reports covering the 226 basins in the United States, of
which 146 are interstate in nature. These studies show a total of
more than 22,000 sources of pollution in the United States, divided
nearly equally between 11,800 municipal sewer systems and 10,400
factory-waste outlets. State and interstate agencies have bsen as-
sisted in surveys of more than 88 streams and coastal water areas
and in investigation of about 150 industrial wastes, sewage, and
impoundment pollution problems.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
203
After analyzing all existing State water pollution control laws and
consultation with State water pollution control authorities and others,
a suggested State Water Pollution Control Act has been developed
and this has been endorsed by the Council of State Governments.
Much has been accomplished in this phase of activity. States have
been encouraged to form regional pollution control councils and six
of such councils now exist. All of these councils act in an advisory
capacity and provide a means for pollution control agencies to con-
sider problems collectively; to agree on uniform procedures, policies,
and requirements; and to work in unison.
The basic act has stimulated State activity in the field of water
pollution control, as is evidenced by the fact that in 1950 the States
spent slightly more than $2 for each dollar provided by Federal grants;
by 1952 State expenditures for this purpose amounted to approxi-
mately $4.50 for each dollar of Federal grant. About 70 percent of
[p. 2]
all grant moneys has been expended in investigations on existing in-
dustrial pollution problems. Approximately 15 percent of grant
moneys have been utilized in the establishment of new or expansion of
existing laboratory facilities.
Testimony in the hearings convinced the committee that the
United States Public Health Service has accomplished much within
the limits of its very nominal appropriations for administration of
the Water Pollution Control Act. The committee, therefore, reached
the conclusion that the basic act should be extended for another 3
years.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law proposed by the
bill are shown in parallel columns as follows:
EXISTING LAW
To provide for water pollution control
activities in the Public Health Ser-
vice of the Federal Security Agency
and in the Federal Works Agency, and
for other purposes.
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1, 1943,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $22,500,000 for the
purpose of making loans under section 5
of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended.
*****
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the five
fiscal years during the period beginning
July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953,
the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted
equitably and paid to the States for
expenditure by or under the direction of
their respective State water pollution
agencies, and to interstate agencies for
expenditure by them, for the conduct of
-------
204
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
investigations, research, surveys, and
studies related to the prevention and
control of water pollution caused by
industrial wastes. Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended, shall be al-
lotted by the Surgeon General in accord-
ance with regulations prescribed by the
Federal Security Administrator, and
shall be paid prior to audit or settlement
by the General Accounting Office.
AMENDMENT UNDER H.R. 6856
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1956, a sum
not to exceed the sum of $22,500,000
for the purpose of making loans under
section 5 of this Act. Sums so appro-
priated shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the eight
fiscal years during the period beginning
July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1958,
the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted
equitably and paid to the States for
expenditure by or under the direction of
their respective State water pollution
agencies, and to interstate agencies for
expenditure by them, for the conduct of
investigations, research, surveys, and
studies related to the prevention and
control of water pollution caused by
industrial wastes. Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended, shall be
allotted by the Surgeon General in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Federal Security Administrator,
and shall be paid prior to audit or settle-
ment by the General Accounting Office.
[p. 3]
EXISTING LAW
(c) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable
the Federal Works Administrator to
make grants to States, municipalities, or
interstate agencies to aid in financing
the cost of engineering, architectural,
and economic investigations and studies,
surveys, designs, plans, working draw-
ings, specifications, procedures, and other
action preliminary to the construction
of projects approved by the appropriate
State water pollution agency or agencies
and by the Surgeon General. Grants
made under this subsection with respect
to any project shall not exceed which-
ever of the following amounts is the
smaller: (1) $20,000, or (2) 33V3 per
centum of the estimated reasonable cost
(as determined by the Federal Works
Administrator) of the action preliminary
to the construction of such project. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.
(d) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,-
000) as may be necessary to enable it
to carry out its functions under this Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000)
as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
AMENDMENT UNDER H.R. 6856
(c) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable
the Federal Works Administrator to
make grants to States, municipalities, or
interstate agencies to aid in financing the
cost of engineering, architectural, and
economic investigations and studies, sur-
veys, designs, plans, working drawings,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
205
specifications, procedures, and other ac-
tion preliminary to the construction of
projects approved by the appropriate
State water pollution agency or agencies
and by the Surgeon General. Grants
made under this subsection with respect
to any project shall not exceed which-
ever of the following amounts is the
smaller: (1) $20,000, or (2) 33% per
centum of the estimated reasonable cost
(as determined by the Federal Works
Administrator) of the action preliminary
to the construction of such project.
Sums appropriated pursuant to this sub-
section shall remain available until ex-
pended.
(d) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal
years during the period beginning July
1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1956, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,-
000) as may be necessary to enable it
to carry out its functions under this Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1956, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000)
as may be necessary to enable it to carry
out its functions under this Act.
[p. 4]
1.2c(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 2092, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952)
EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
JULY 3 (legislative day, JUNE 27), 1952.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6856]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 6856) to extend the duration of the Water Pollution Control
Act, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
The Water Pollution Control Act authorized the United States
Public Health Service to develop comprehensive water pollution con-
trol programs for surface and underground waters in cooperation with
the States, interstate agencies, municipalities, industries, and others,
giving proper consideration to all water uses such as public water
supply, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes and
-------
206 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
agricultural, industrial, and other water uses. Federal enforcement
under the act is to be exercised on interstate waters only after the
efforts of the States have been exhausted, and then only with their
consent.
The act recognized the primary responsibilities and rights of the
States in controlling water pollution, and made available assistance
on research and technical matters. Specifically, the act also provides
for Federal loans to local agencies to assist in ths construction of
necessary treatment works where urgently needed, and authorized
an appropriation of $22,500,000 annually for such purpose; an authori-
zation of $1,000,000 annually for grants to States and other public
bodies to assist in financing the cost of preparation of plans, specifica-
tions, and preliminary work, in connection with pollution abatement
projects; $1,000,000 annually to be equitably allotted to the States
for expenditure in the conduct of investigations, research, surveys,
and studies of problems related to water pollution by industrial
wastes; $800,000 annually for constructing and equipping a laboratory
[P.I]
center at Cincinnati, Ohio; and not to exceed $2,500,000 annually to
Federal Security Agency for carrying out its functions under the act.
The act was approved June 30, 1948, and no appropriation was
made for fiscal year 1949. During 1950, 1951, and 1952, appropria-
tions amounted to only $12,408,568, although $139,000,000 was
authorized. Of this amount $4,000,000 was appropriated for construc-
tion of the research facility at Cincinnati, $3,000,000 was granted to the
States, and the remainder for activities of the United States Public
Health Service.
The United States Public Health Service has proceeded with the
development of comprehensive basin plans; cooperated with the States
in the conduct of surveys; provided technical aid to State and local
agencies; encouraged the adoption of uniform State water pollution
control laws; encouraged cooperative pollution control activities by
State and interstate agencies; and cooperated with other Federal
agencies on problems and studies of water pollution control.
The Division of Water Pollution Control of the United States Pub-
lic Health Service has established 10 field units in river basin areas.
Working with the States, reports have been issued covering 226 basins
in the United States, of which 146 are interstate in nature. State and
interstate agencies have been assisted in surveys of more than 88
streams and coastal water areas and in investigation of about 150
industrial wastes, sewage, and impoundment pollution problems.
Activity in the field of water pollution control by the States has been
greatly stimulated by the operations under the act. Expenditures by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 207
the States on cooperative matters have far exceeded the Federal
expenditures.
The committee believes that excellent progress has been made in
furthering the studies in the field of water pollution, and of making
many agencies and people conscious of the problems involved, even
with the nominal appropriations that have been made. It is further
believed that the program should be continued in order that the prog-
ress already made will not be lost, and to remain current with the
changing nature of a large and very important water problem affect-
ing the health of the citizens of the entire Nation.
The comments of the Federal Security Agency are shown in the fol-
lowing letter:
FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
June 17, 1952.
HON. DENNIS CHAVEZ,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
United States Senate, Washington 25, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 4, 1952,
for a report on H.R. 6858, a bill to extend the duration of the Water Pollution
Control Act. This bill would provide that the words "each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953" where they
occur in section 7 and subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) of section 8 of the Water
Pollution Control Act (Public Law 845, 80th Cong.) are to be amended to read
"each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948, and ending
June 30, 1956." The effect would be to extend for three more years the present
authorization for appropriations under the Water Pollution Control Act for plan-
ning grants and construction loans for sewage treatment works and grants to
States and interstate agencies for industrial waste studies as well as administra-
tive expenses to enable the Federal Security Agency to carry out its functions
under the act.
As you know, the Water Pollution Control Act was adopted by the Congress in
1948 in recognition of the national interest in preserving the public health and
conserving natural resources through safeguarding the quality of our waters. Its
[P. 2]
passage represented the culmination of a movement extending over 50 years and
was made possible by reconciliation of the divergent views of the groups advo-
cating different approaches to the solution of the water pollution problem. As
enacted, it established a cooperative Federal-State program for prevention, con-
trol, and abatement of water pollution.
The objectives of this program can be attained, in the last analysis, only by
the installation of adequate sewage treatment works by municipalities and the
provision of waste utilization and treatment systems by industry.
The act recognizes the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in con-
trolling water pollution, but makes available Federal technical assistance to
States, interstate agencies, and industries and, in addition, financial assistance
to States and interstate agencies. It also provides for a limited degree of Federal
enforcement action. It further aims, through the use of Federal loans, to stimu-
late construction of waste treatment works by municipalities and other public
bodies.
-------
208 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
To assist States, municipalities, and industries in attaining control of pollution,
the act places responsibility for the following principal functions in this Agency:
(i) development (in cooperation with States and with other interested groups) of
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing water pollution; (ii) loans to
municipalities and other public bodies to assist in the construction of sewage
treatment works and grants to such public bodies to assist in the planning of
treatment works; (iii) Federal action for abatement of pollution of interstate
streams, to be taken only if the States responsible have failed to act and then only
with the consent of those States; (iv) research and educational activities, technical
assistance to States and interstate agencies, and grants to States and interstate
agencies for the conduct of industrial wastes studies. (Certain functions originally
vested by the act in the Federal Works Agency have since been transferred
to this Agency by Reorganization Plan No. 16 of 1950.)
The provisions authorizing appropriations for construction loans, planning
grants, and grants for industrial wastes studies, as well as the specific authoriza-
tion for administrative appropriations, are limited to the 5-year period ending
June 30, 1953.
The act was adopted June 30, 1948, at the close of the Eightieth Congress, but
appropriations under it did not become available until a year later. The Public
Health Service has, therefore, had somewhat less than 3 years of full operation
under the act.
The immediate and most important work of the Service after the act was passed
was to initiate the preparation or adoption of comprehensive programs for the
elimination or abatement of pollution, in the development of which due considera-
tion was to be given to all of the important purposes for which the waters were
to be used. These programs will provide a guide to the individual actions to be
taken by the municipalities and industries causing pollution.
Data on the known extent and character of water pollution have been collected
and developed into reports covering the entire country on a river basin basis.
This work was accomplished with the fullest cooperation of the States. The
reports, which were published jointly by the Service and the States, set forth the
known facts about pollution by watershed areas and indicate for a substantial
number of cities, towns, and industries, their present pollution abatement needs in
relation to the needs of their neighbors. As a result of these efforts, the extent of
the water pollution problem has been generally defined but there remains the
important task of developing additional data to fill the large gaps in existing
knowledge.
Federal financial assistance designed to stimulate sewage treatment works
construction at an accelerated rate has not yet been forthcoming as thus far no
funds have been made available to this Agency for construction loans or planning
grants.
The Public Health Service is also carrying out an educational program in order
to aid community groups to solve their local pollution problems. It is believed
that a continuation of this educational program is an essential factor in furthering
the water pollution control program.
The service has not instituted any formal enforcement proceedings under sec-
tion 2 (d) of the Water Pollution Control Act which defines pollution of inter-
state waters and tributaries thereof as a public nuisance when it injures the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the polluting
matter is discharged. We have instead been able to use effectively the existence
ol this enforcement section to solve, in cooperation with the States, troublesome
interstate pollution problems. This approach, we believe, is consistent with the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 209
congressional intent that Federal enforcement is to be exercised only after the
efforts of the State have been exhausted, and then only with the consent of the
[p. 3]
State. Further, the reports prepared in connection with the development of the
comprehensive programs indicated generally where the interstate pollution is
occurring—information which can be utilized as a basis for enforcement action
by the United States.
Pursuant to a specific direction in the Water Pollution Control Act to encourage
the enactment of uniform State laws relating to water-pollution control, the Service
developed a suggested uniform State law for the use of the States in considering
and formulating amendments to their existing laws. Representatives of the
Service have acted as consultants to States at their request in connection with
proposed State water-pollution-control legislation.
Research directed toward more effective methods of treating wastes has been
aided under the act through the Environmental Health Center at Cincinnati,
cooperative activities with the States, and through grants to States and interstate
agencies for industrial-waste studies. In addition, the formation of the National
Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes has brought about an informal
exchange of technical information and developmental work in reduction of indus-
trial wastes. Continued action by the Public Health Service is needed to main-
tain research programs activated as a result of the Water Pollution Control Act.
While this Agency is preparing recommendations for detailed amendments of
the Water Pollution Control Act which would establish the act as permanent
legislation, it is not definite when they will be presented to Congress and it may
not be accomplished prior to the expiration date of July 1, 1953, noted above or
before the much earlier date when budget estimates for fiscal year 1954 have to
be prepared by this Agency.
The tremendous increase in the size and importance and the constantly changing
nature of the pollution problem, in our opinion, call for continuation of the
program established by the act on a permanent basis. Therefore, in order not to
vitiate the progress already made by this Agency in the field of water pollution
control, it is recommendsd that H.R. 6856 be enacted into law, and that sub-
stantive amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act be considered as soon
as practicable.
In accordance with established procedure this report was submitted to the
Bureau of the Budget prior to its presentation to your committee. The Bureau
advises as follows:
"In reply, you are advised that while there would be no objection to the sub-
mission of the proposed report to the committee, amendments are needed in the
basic statute to provide a more effective program at minimum cost. Legislation
for this purpose, as you are aware, has been under review for some time. Accord-
ingly, the extension of the present authority should, in the view of the Bureau of
the Budget, be limited to a relatively brief period pending reconsideration of the
basic statute."
Sincerely yours,
JOHN L. THURSTON,
Acting Administrator.
-------
210
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate changes in existing law proposed by the bill are
shown in parallel columns as follows:
EXISTING LAW
To provide for water pollution control
activities in the Public Health Serv-
ice of the Federal Security Agency and
in the Federal Works Agency, and for
other purposes
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $22,500,000 for the
purpose of making loans under section 5
of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended.
*****
AMENDMENT UNDER H.R. 6856
SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,1948,
and ending July 30, 1956, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $22,500,000 for the
purpose of making loans under section
5 of this Act. Sums so appropriated
shall remain available until expended.
[p. 4]
EXISTING LAW
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal Se-
curity Agency for each of the five fiscal
years during the period beginning July
1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1953, the
sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted equitably
and paid to the States for expenditure by
or under the direction of their respective
State water pollution agencies, and to
interstate agencies for expenditure by
them, for the conduct of investigations,
research, surveys, and studies related to
the prevention and control of water pol-
lution caused by industrial wastes. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended,
shall be allotted by the Surgeon General
in accordance with regulations pre-
scribed by the Federal Security Admin-
istrator, and shall be paid prior to audit
or settlement by the General Accounting
Office.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to
exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable
the Federal Works Administrator to
make grants to States, municipalities,
or interstate agencies to aid in financing
the cost of engineering, architectural,
and economic investigations and studies,
surveys, designs, plans, working draw-
ings, specifications, procedures, and
other action preliminary to the construc-
tion of projects approved by the appro-
priate State water pollution agency or
agencies and by the Surgeon General.
Grants made under this subsection with
respect to any project shall not exceed
whichever of the following amounts is
the smaller: (1) $20,000, or (2) 33V3 per
centum of the estimated reasonable cost
(as determined by the Federal Works
Administrator) of the action preliminary
to the construction of such project.
Sums appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until
expended.
AMENDMENT UNDER H.R. 5855
SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized
to be appropriated to the Federal
Security Agency for each of the eight
fiscal years during the period beginning
July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1956,
the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted
equitably and paid to the States for
expenditure by or under the direction of
their respective State water pollution
agencies, and to interstate agencies for
expenditure by them, for the conduct of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
211
investigations, research, surveys, and
studies related to trie prevention and
control of water pollution caused by
industrial wastes. Sums appropriated
pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended, shall be
allotted by the Surgeon General in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Federal Security Administrator,
and shall be paid prior to audit or settle-
ment by the General Accounting Office.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1956, a sum
not to exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to
enable the Federal Works Administra-
tor to make grants to States, munici-
palities, or interstate agencies to aid, in
financing the cost of engineering, archi-
tectural, and economic investigations
and studies, surveys, designs, plans,
working drawings, specifications, pro-
cedures, and other action preliminary
to the construction of projects approved
by the appropriate State water pollu-
tion agency or agencies and by the
Surgeon General. Grants made under
this subsection with respect to any
project shall not exceed whichever of
the following amounts is the smaller:
(1) $20,000, or (2) 33% per centum of
the estimated reasonable cost (as de-
termined by the Federal Works Admin-
istrator) of the action preliminary to
the construction of such project. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsec-
tion shall remain available until ex-
pended.
[p. 5]
1.2c(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 98 (1952)
1.2c(3)(a) June 12: Passed House, pp. 6364-6365
EXISTING LAW
(d) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,-
000) as may be necessary to enable it
to carry out its functions under this
Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the five fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1953, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000)
as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
AMENDMENT UNDER H.R. 6856
(d) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal
years during the period beginning July
1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1958, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,-
000) as may be necessary to enable it
to carry out its functions under this
Act.
(e) There is hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years
during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1956, such
sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000)
as may bs necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
[p. 6]
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 6856) to
extend the duration of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, and ask for its imme-
diate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. BYRNES. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, and I do
not intend to object, I would like to
-------
212
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ask the gentleman some questions
about the operation and administration
[p. 6364]
of the Water Pollution Act. Can the
gentleman give us any idea when the
Department intends to start acting under
the authority of this act, and when it is
going to be our policy to eliminate pol-
lution in the rivers and streams? I ask
this question because I have been trying
to get legislation through which would
attempt to encourage the erection and
maintenance of waste-treatment plants.
The Department in reporting on the leg-
islation simply says that they are unable
to approve anything of this nature at this
time because the matter is under study.
When are they going to get through
studying and actually do something to
eliminate stream pollution?
Mr. LARCADE. In reply to the gen-
tleman's query, I wish to say that this bill
is only an extension of existing law for
a period of 3 years.
With respect to the question as to the
progress being made, appropriations, of
course, depend entirely upon the Com-
mittee on Appropriations and the legisla-
tures of the various States of the United
States. Every effort is being made by
the Department to go ahead with this
program, especially in those places where
the situation is so critical. But, in the
first instance, we had to get legislation
passed by the various States of the Union,
and in some instances we have to have
matching funds. But, the rapidity of
the progress of the program is based
entirely on the extent to which appro-
priations are made by the Congress for
that purpose.
Mr. BYRNES. In this instance, of
course, appropriations have nothing to
do with it. It seems to me that they
simply cannot make up their minds
as to what they want to do so far as the
encouragement of the building of waste-
treatment plants is concerned. I cannot
understand why they are moving so
slowly in operating under this authority,
and why they have not been able to
decide that we certainly have to do
everything possible to encourage the
communities and industries and anybody
that we can encourage to stop dumping
waste, and particularly industrial waste,
into the streams and rivers of the
country.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BYRNES. I yield.
Mr. McGREGOR. I concur in the in-
quiry made by the gentleman from Wis-
consin, and also the statement made by
the gentleman from Louisiana. I think
the gentleman from Wisconsin brought
out a very good point. It was brought
out in committee, namely that it is time
that we started action on this stream-
pollution program. As the gentleman
from Louisiana said, this is simply an
extension of the enabling legislation.
But, the time has certainly arrived where
we have to have some action. I might
add this bill came out of our committee
by a unanimous vote after quite a bit of
discussion.
Mr. BYRNES. As I suggested, Mr.
Speaker, it was not my intention to
object, but I did want to bring this mat-
ter to the attention of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. LARCADE]?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc > That the words "each
of the five fiscal years during the period be-
ginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30,
1953" where they occur in section 7 nnd
subsections (a), (c), (d),and (e) of section
S of the Water Pollution Control Act (Public
Law 845, 80th Cong.), are neieoy ameautu M
read "each of the eight fiscal years during
the period beginning July 1, 1948, and ending
June 30, 1956."
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon-
sider was laid on the table.
[p. 6365]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 213
1.2c(3)(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317
The bill (H.R. 6856) to control the dur-
ation of the Water Pollution Control
Act, was considered, ordered to a third
reading, read the third time, and passed.
[p. 9317]
1.2d WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1956
July 9, 1956, P.L. 84-660, 70 Stat. 498
AN ACT
To extend and strengthen the Water Pollution Control Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Water Pol-
lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466-466J) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"DECLARATION OF POLICY
"SECTION 1. (a) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits result-
ing to the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of
water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights
of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and finan-
cial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in con-
nection -with the prevention and control of water pollution. To this
end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service shall adminis-
ter this Act through the Public Health Service and under the super-
vision and direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
" (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to
the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
"COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
"SEC. 2. The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation, and
in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution
control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities
and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface
and underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive
-------
214 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are
necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propaga-
tion of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose
of this section, the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint in-
vestigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in
any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial
wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters.
"INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
"SEC. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States for the prevention and control of water pollu-
tion; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable,
uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control of water
pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention
and control of water pollution.
" (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in con-
flict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative
effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of water
pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto,
and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they
[p. 498]
may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and com-
pacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory
upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved
by the Congress.
"RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
"SEC. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public
Health Service and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance
to other appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or
local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and
institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordi-
nation of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and
studies relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollu-
tion. In carrying out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is authorized
to—
" (1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 215
"(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
" (3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
" (4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public
Health Service with such stipends and allowances, including
traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to
procure the assistance of the most promising research fellowships:
Provided, That the total sum authorized to be appropriated for
any fiscal year for fellowships pursuant to this subparagraph shall
not exceed $100,000; and
" (5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel of
public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
" (b) The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water
pollution control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations
and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of
water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community,
municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a
solution of such problem.
" (c) The Surgeon General shall, in cooperation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and
disseminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water
quality and other information insofar as such data or other informa-
tion relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
"GRANTS FOB WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
"SEC. 5. (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
grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting
the
[p. 499]
costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the pre-
vention and control of water pollution.
" (b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
" (c) From, the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Sur-
geon General shall from tims to time make allotments to the several
States, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the popu-
lation, (2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the
financial need of the respective States.
" (d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
fiscal year the Surgeon General shall pay to such State an amount
equal to its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of
the cost of carrying out its State plan approved under subsection
(f), including the cost of training personnel for State and local water
pollution control work and including the cost of administering the
State plan.
" (e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Sur-
geon General shall from time to time make allotments to interstate
agencies, in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon
General finds reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time
pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such
portion of the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection
(f) as may be determined in accordance with regulations, including
the cost of training personnel for water pollution control work and
including the cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The
regulations relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the
interstate agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States
shall be designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a
basis similar to that of the States.
" (f) The Surgeon General shall approve any plan for the preven-
tion and control of water pollution which is submitted by the State
water pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency,
by such agency, if such plan—
" (1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
" (2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Surgeon General
may from time to time reasonably require to carry out his func-
tions under this Act;
" (3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to ba followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its admin-
istration;
" (4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 217
and
" (5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and effi-
cient administration of the plan.
The Surgeon General shall not disapprove any plan without first
giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State
water pollution control agency or interstate agency which has sub-
mitted such plan.
" (g) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice
and opportunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency
or interstate agency finds that—
[p. 500]
" (A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with a
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
" (B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement,
the Surgeon General shall notify such agency that no further pay-
ments will be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case
may be, under this section (or in his discretion that further payments
will not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects
under or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied
that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
the Surgeon General shall make no further payments to such State,
or to such interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section
(or shall limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan in
which there is no such failure).
" (2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Surgeon General's action with respect to it under this subsection, it
may appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in
which such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an
interstate agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may
be served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by
the Surgeon General, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence,
shall be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand
the case to the Surgeon General to take further evidence, and the
Surgeon General may thereupon make new or modified findings of
fact and may modify his previous action. Such new or modified find-
ings of fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the weight
of the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action
of the Surgeon General or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The
judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided
in title 28, United States Code, section 1254.
-------
218 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
'< (h) (1) The 'Federal share' for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the sams ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the continental United States (excluding Alaska), except that (A)
the Federal share shall in no case be more than 66% per centum or
less than 33 Vs per centum, and (B) the Federal share for Hawaii and
Alaska shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands shall be 66% per centum.
" (2) The 'Federal shares' shall be promulgated by the Surgeon
General between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered
year, on the basis of the average of the psr 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. Such promulgation shall be conclusive
for each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next
succeeding such promulgation: Provided, That the Federal shares
promulgated by the Surgeon General pursuant to section 4 of the
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956, shall be conclu-
sive for the period beginning July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
" (i) The population of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of
Commerce.
" (j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
" (1) The Surgeon General shall, prior to the beginning of each
calendar quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the
amount to be paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the
[p. 501]
case of subsection (e) ) under the provisions of such subsection for
such period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State
(or the interstate agency) and information furnished by it, and such
other investigation, as the Surgeon General may find necessary.
" (2) The Surgeon General shall pay to the State (or to the inter-
state agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so
estimated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case
may be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph)
by which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for-any prior period under such subsec-
tion was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid
to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing
facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Surgeon General may determine.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 219
"GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
"SEC. 6. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to make grants to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith.
" (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Surgeon General and unless such project is included in a com-
prehensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) no grant
shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum
of the estimated reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Surgeon
General or in an amount exceeding $250,000, whichever is the smaller:
Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost; (3)
no grant shall be made for any project under this section until the
applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Surgeon General for
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof; and (4) no
grant shall be made for any project under this section unless such
project is in conformity with the State water pollution control plan
submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 5 and has been certi-
fied by the State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority
over other eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water
pollution control needs.
" (c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, con-
sideration shall be given by the Surgeon General to the public bene-
fits to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal
aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of construct-
ing and maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public
necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or
proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment works
after completion of the construction thereof. The sums appropriated
pursuant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be allotted by the
Surgeon General from time to time, in accordance with regulations,
as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio that the
population of each State bears to the population of all the States,
and (2) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio that the quotient
[p. 502]
-------
220 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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. The allotment of a State under the preceding
sentence shall be available, in accordance with the provisions of this
section, for payments with respect to projects in such State which
have been approved under this section. For purposes of this section,
population shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial
census for which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of
Commerce, and per capita income for each State and for the United
States shall be determined on the basis of the average of the per capita
incomes of the States and of the continental United States for the
three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are
available from the Department of Commerce.
" (d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year the sum of $50,000,000 for the purpose of making grants under
this section: Provided, That the aggregate of sums so appropriated
shall not exceed $500,000,000. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 per centum of the
funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall ba used for grants for
the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities of one
hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
" (e) The Surgeon General shall make payments under this section
through the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury.
Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construction
of the project for which the amount was paid. As used in this section
the term 'construction' includes preliminary planning to determine the
economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works, the engi-
neering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, pro-
cedures, and other action necessary to the construction of treatment
works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling,
improvement, or extension of treatment works; and the inspection and
supervision of the construction of treatment works.
"WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
"SEC. 7. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Public Health
Service a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the
Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who
shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President none
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall ba selected
from among representatives of various State, interstate and local gov-
ernmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to,
affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 221
private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an active
interest in the field of water pollution prevention and control, as well
as other individuals who are expert in this field.
" (2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to fill
a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking office
after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of one year
after such date, three at the end of two years after such date, and three
at the end of three years after such date, as designated by the Presi-
dent at the time of appointment. None of the membsrs appointed by
the President shall be eligible for reappointmsnt within one year after
the end of his preceding term, but terms commencing prior to the
enact-
[p. 503]
ment of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956
shall not be deemed 'preceding terms' for purposes of this sentence.
" (B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding
$50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes
or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5
U. S. C. 73b—2) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
" (b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Surgeon General on matters of policy relating to the
activities and functions of the Surgeon General under this Act.
" (c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the person-
nel of the Public Health Service.
"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
"SEC. 8. (a) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to any
State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such
pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such
waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters), which en-
dangers the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge originates, shall be subject to abatement as
herein provided.
-------
222 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate waters shall be
encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or pursuant
to court order under subsection (g), be displaced by Federal enforce-
ment action.
" (c) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports,
surveys, or studies, has reason to believe that any pollution referred to
in subsection (a) is occurring, or whenever requested by a State water
pollution control agency or the Governor of any State, he shall give
formal notification of any such pollution to the State water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and shall call promptly a conference of the State
water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, of the
State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or contribut-
ing to such pollution originates and of the State or States claiming to
be adversely affected by such pollution.
" (2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
" (3) Following this conference, the Surgeon General shall prepare
and forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of pollution of interstate waters subject to abatement under this
Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollu-
tion; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating
the pollution.
" (d) If the Surgeon General believes, upon the conclusion of the
conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates is
being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State water
[p. 504]
pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action. The
Surgeon General is to allow at least six months for the taking of such
action.
" (e) If such remedial action is not taken or action reasonably cal-
culated to secure abatement of such pollution is not taken, the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before
a board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each
State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such pollu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 223
tion originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by
such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the board and at least one member shall be a representative of the
Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the board
shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice
of said hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control
agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid
hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis of the
evidence presented at such hearing, the board shall make findings as
to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and
whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is baing made.
If the board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress
toward abatement is not being made it shall make recommendations
to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning the
measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to
secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall send such
findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging
any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, together with a
notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six months) to
secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send such findings
and recommendations and such notice to the State water pollution
control agency, and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States where such discharge or discharges originate.
" (f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
•with the written consent of the State water pollution control agency
(or any officer or employee authorized to give such consent) of the
State or States where the matter causing or contributing to the pollu-
tion is discharged or at the written request of the State water pollution
control agency (or any officer or employee authorized to make such
request) of any other State or States where the health or welfare of
persons is endangered by such pollution, may request the Attorney
General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abate-
ment of the pollution.
" (g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court
in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration
to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction
to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require.
-------
224 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (h) As used in this section, the term 'person' includes an indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and
political subdivision of the State.
[p. 505]
"COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
"SEC. 9. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any build-
ing, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable and
consistent with the interests of the United States and within any
available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter is
discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the pollu-
tion of such waters.
"SEC. 10. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
All regulations of the Surgeon General under this Act shall be subject
to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or employee of the
Public Health Service such of his powers and duties under this Act,
except the making of regulations, as he may deem necessary or
expedient.
" (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the
consent of the head of any other agency of the United States, may
utilize such officers and employees of such agency as may ba found
necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
" (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may ba neces-
sary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 11. When used in this Act—
" (a) The term 'State water pollution control agency' means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
" (b) The term 'interstate agency' means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact
approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 225
States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control
of pollution of waters.
" (c) The term 'treatment works' means the various devices ussd in
the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
" (d) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
" (e) The term 'interstate waters' means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of, boundaries between two
or more states.
" (f) The term 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes.
[p. 506]
"OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
"SEC. 12. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of the
United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or impair-
ing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections 13 through
17 of the Act entitled 'An Act making appropriations for the construc-
tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors and for other purposes', approved March 3, 1899, as amended,
or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United
States.
"SEPARABILITY
"SEC. 13. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
"SHORT TITLE
"SEC. 14, This Act may be cited as the 'Federal Water Pollution
Control Act'."
SEC. 2. The title of such Act is amended to read "An Act to provide
for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes."
-------
226 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SEC. 3. Terms of office as members of the Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board (established pursuant to section 6 (b) of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as in effect prior to the enactment of this Act)
subsisting on the date of enactment of this Act shall expire at the
close of business on such date.
SEC. 4. As soon as possible after the date of enactment of this Act the
Surgeon General shall promulgate Federal shares in the manner pro-
vided in subsection (h) of section 5 of the Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by this Act (and without regard to the date specified
therein for such promulgation), such Federal shares to be conclusive
for the purposes of section 5 of such Act for the period beginning
July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
SEC. 5. In the case of any discharge or discharges causing or contrib-
uting to water pollution with respect to which the actions by the
Surgeon General prescribed under paragraph (2) of section 2 (d) of
the Water Pollution Control Act, as in effect prior to the enactment of
this Act, have already been completed prior to such enactment, the
provisions of such section shall continue to be applicable; except that
nothing in this section shall prevent action with respect to any such
pollution under and in accordance with the provisions of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act.
SEC. 6. This Act may be cited as the "Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1956."
Approved July 9, 1956.
[P. 507]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 227
1.2d(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 543, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955)
EXTENDING AND STRENGTHENING THE WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
JUNE 14, 1955.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 890]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 890) to extend and strengthen the Water Pollution Control Act,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amend-
ments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are indicated in the bill as reported and are shown
by linetype and italics.
PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE BILL
The purpose of the bill here reported is to authorize the Public
Health Service, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, to continue and improve the pro-
gram it is carrying on under the Water Pollution Control Act (Public
Law 845, 80th Cong.). It would extend and improve the provisions
of that act, which is now scheduled to expire on June 30, 1956. The
changes which the bill would make in the act are based on experience
with its administration and on the views of public agencies, conserva-
tion interests, industry, and others which have testified before or
submitted material to the committee in connection with this
legislation.
The bill as reported reiterates the policy of the Congress to recog-
nize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
the States in controlling water pollution. The bill would continue and
extend Federal support of State and interstate water pollution control
programs by authorizing (1) continuation of Federal-State coopera-
tion in the development of comprehensive water pollution control
-------
228 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
programs; (2) increased technical assistance to States, particularly
on new or complex problems; (3) intensified and broadened research
to find solutions to new or complex pollution problems; (4) increased
[P-I]
aid through the conduct of and grants for demonstrations, studies,
and training in the field of water pollution control; (5) broadened
matching grants to States and interstate agencies for water pollution
control work; (6) continued encouragement of interstate cooperation;
and (7) assistance in the development of improved State water pollu-
tion control legislation.
The bill reaffirms the congressional policy that Federal enforce-
ment procedures are to be undertaken only after a reasonable oppor-
tunity has been given to State or interstate agencies to secure
abatement of interstate pollution. It further provides that initiation
of Federal court action shall be contingent on the consent of the State
in which the pollution originates or the request of the State where
the pollution produces adverse effects.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Hearings were held on S. 890 before the Subcommittee on Flood
Control—Rivers and Harbors on April 22, 25, and 26, 1955. Officials
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and representa-
tives of State and local governments, interstate water pollution con-
trol agencies, conservation organizations, the public health and
medical profession, and industry testified at these hearings or
presented their views for the record.
The committee has given careful consideration to the bill and to all
related comments and recommendations which were brought to its
attention. As a result of that consideration, S. 890 is being here re-
ported with amendments the desirability of which was indicated as a
result of the hearings and material presented to the committee since
introduction of the bill.
It is the view of the committee that the bill, if enacted, will provide
an orderly approach to water-pollution control with due regard to the
rights of the States.
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
A period of almost 7 years has elapsed since enactment of the Water
Pollution Control Act, the first comprehensive Federal legislation in
this field. Appreciable progress has been made in the prevention of
water pollution since enactment of this legislation. During this period
more than half of the States have improved their pollution-control
legislation, with consequent benefits to their programs. These im-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 229
proved State programs have contributed to the increased rate of con-
struction of pollution-abatement works by both municipalities and
industries.
The States and interstate agencies, in conjunction with the munici-
palities and industries involved, have made good progress in abating
pollution under their own legislative authority. However, activities
authorized under the Water Pollution Control Act, in addition to
helping to work out solutions of many interstate pollution problems,
have contributed much to the progress of the States in this field.
Continuation of this legislation, with improvements dictated by ex-
perience under the existing provisions, is now necessary.
The size of our pollution problem is constantly growing, for several
reasons. One cause for this growth is the tremendous expansion of
[p. 2]
industry, bringing with it a rapid increase not only in the volume,
but also the complexity of the wastes discharged into the waters of
the Nation. Another cause is the rapid increase in our population
and the increased urbanization of that population.
These same factors which cause an increase in the pollution load
to which our waters are subjected also result in an increased demand
for usable water. Expansion of industry and increases in population
alone would increase the need for water. To this, however, must
also be added the increase in the amount of usable water needed per
individual in the increased population, attributable to technological
advances and an amazing increase in use of water-consuming appli-
ances such as air-conditioning.
To meet this growing pollution load and the simultaneous increased
demands for usable water, all reasonable conservation measures must
be employed.
Research and technical investigations commenced under existing
law should be extended to furnish the basic information needed by
the States, interstate agencies, cities, and industries for the planning
and design of pollution abatement methods and works.
Federal authority for enforcement, amended and improved as the
result of experience and recommendations of various groups, would
be limited to situations of interstate pollution and action would be
taken only with the consent or at the request of an affected State.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
The bill here reported, while continuing the fundamental principles
and objectives of the existing law, would effect a number of significant
changes which the committee believes would permit the carrying out
of its purposes and objectives more effectively.
-------
230 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
RESEARCH AND RELATED FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
The bill would expand and strengthen the research and related
activities of the Public Health Service in the field of water pollution
control by specifically authorizing the Surgeon General—
(a) To conduct, encourage, and promote the coordination of re-
search, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies in
water pollution control and, for this purpose, to secure the help of
experts and consultants, to establish research fellowships, and to
provide training in technical matters relating to water pollution.
(b) To cooperate with and aid appropriate agencies, institutions,
and individuals in this field of work through grants-in-aid and con-
tracts with them for research, demonstrations, and training.
(c) In carrying out these functions, to collect and disseminate
information on research, investigations, and demonstrations.
GRANTS TO STATES FOR WATER-POLLUTION CONTROL
The bill would broaden the existing authority with respect to grants
to States and to interstate agencies for water-pollution control work.
It would authorize grants to States and interstate agencies to cover
part of the cost of their programs for the prevention and control of
water pollution. Unlike existing law, the grants would not be
[p. 3]
restricted to work in the field of water pollution caused by industrial
wastes. The bill also specifies the basis for determining the allot-
ments and payments to the States. Two million dollars a year, in
lieu of $1 million would be authorized for these grants.
ABATEMENT OF INTERSTATE POLLUTION
The bill would change the enforcement provisions of the act so that
a finding of interstate pollution would be issued after a public hearing
held before a hearing board, rather than issued by the Surgeon
General before the hearing is held. Further, Federal court action to
secure abatement of interstate pollution could be undertaken either
with the consent of the State in which the pollution originates or at
the request of the State where the effects of the pollution are felt.
Under the present act, such court action may be taken only with the
consent of the State in which the pollution originates.
The committee has also added a provision (the new sec. 1 (b) of
the amended Water Pollution Control Act) designed to make it clear
that the exercise of Federal enforcement authority over particular
waters of the United States will not impair the rights or jurisdiction
of the States relating to water pollution control and other activities
with respect to such waters. Of course, where a State fails to abate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 231
water pollution originating in its State and having interstate effects,
such failure would not prevent action under the enforcement provi-
sions of the Federal act. On the other hand, it is contemplated that
where constructive State or interstate programs, reasonably calcu-
lated to clear up and abate interstate pollution, have been or are
being inaugurated and are diligently pursued by the appropriate
State or interstate agencies, the Surgeon General will not invoke the
Federal enforcement provisions.
The committee believes the enforcement provisions of the amended
act represent a proper balance between interests of the State in which
the pollution originates and the State affected by it and that they
provide a reasonable mechanism for abating pollution having an
interstate effect.
OMISSIONS FROM EXISTING LAW
The bill does not continue the provision for loans to municipali-
ties for the construction of sewage treatment works. In the present
act the construction aid authorized was limited in amount and, thus
far, has never been implemented by appropriations. Moreover, the
committee believes that the proposed amendments outlined above,
which are aimed at strengthening State and interstate water pollu-
tion control programs, should encourage the early construction of
pollution abatement facilities by municipalities and industries. Also
eliminated from the existing law would be provisions which are no
longer effective either because they have already been executed (such
as the provision authorizing construction of research facilities) or be-
cause they relate to activities transferred to the Public Health Serv-
ice from the General Services Administration originally vested in the
Federal Works Agency.
[p. 4]
ANALYSIS BY SECTIONS
SECTION 1 OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill replaces the existing Water Pollution Control
Act with a new or amended act.
Declaration of policy (sec. 1)
Section 1 (a) of the act as amended by the bill declares it to be the
policy of the Congress in relation to water pollution control to (a)
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights
of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution; (b) sup-
port and aid technical research; and (c) provide Federal technical
services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies.
This section is substantially the same as section 1 of the existing
-------
232 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Water Pollution Control Act except to reflect changes in reorganiza-
tion of Federal agencies and to reflect changes made in the other
provisions of the act, such as deletion of financial aid for construction
of municipal sewage treatment facilities.
Section 1 (b) of the amended act provides that nothing in the act
shall be construed as impairing or affecting any right or jurisdiction
of the States with respect to their waters.
Comprehensive programs (sec. 2)
Section 2 of the amended act, as does the existing act, provides for
preparation or development by the Surgeon General of comprehensive
programs for control of pollution of all surface and underground
waters. This is to be done in cooperation with other Federal agencies,
with State water pollution control agencies, and interstate agencies,
and with the municipalities and industries involved, with due regard
being given to all legitimate uses of these waters. The proposed
changes would (1) add propagation of wildlife to the uses of water
which are considered in preparing comprehensive programs and (2)
clarify the present language relating to waters to be covered by
comprehensive programs.
Further, this section of the amended act would require the Surgeon
General, in cooperation with Federal, State, and interstate agencies,
and with the municipalities and industries involved, to prepare or
develop comprehensive programs; whereas existing law requires the
Surgeon General, with such cooperation, to prepare or adopt such
programs. The change in language was made to avoid the connota-
tion that "adoption" of the programs by the Surgeon General had a
binding effect on the area involved. These programs will continue to
be of a purely advisory nature.
Interstate cooperation and uniform laws (sec. 3)
As under the existing law, section 3 of the act as amended by the
bill would direct the Surgeon General to encourage interstate coopera-
tion, enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State
laws, and compacts between the States for the prevention and control
of water pollution. Congressional consent is given to negotiation of
interstate agreements for cooperative work in the field of water pollu-
tion control and for establishment of interstate agencies to carry out
the .agreements; but, as under existing law, no such agreements would
be binding without approval by the Congress.
[p. 5]
This section differs from existing law by reason of the omission of
some of the authority previously contained in this section, which
would now be contained elsewhere in the act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 233
Research, investigations, training, and information (sec. 4)
Section 4 of the amended act would expand and strengthen the
research and related activities of the Public Health Service by specif-
ically authorizing the Surgeon General in the field of water pollution
control to (1) collect and make available the results of and other in-
formation as to research, investigations, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the prevention and control of water pollution, including
appropriate recommendations in connection therewith; (2) make
grants to public or private agencies, institutions, and individuals for
research or training projects and for demonstrations, and provide for
the conduct of research, training, and demonstrations by contract
with public or private agencies and institutions and individuals with-
out regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes; (3)
secure the assistance and advice of expert consultants and scholars;
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public Health
Service in order to procure the assistance of the most promising
research fellows; (5) provide training in technical matters relating to
the causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel
of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
These provisions, which expand to some extent the provisions on
these subjects in the present act, are patterned after provisions in the
Public Health Service Act which authorize similar functions for the
Service in the various fields of health.
The Surgeon General also would be authorized, as under the pres-
ent act, upon request of any State water pollution control agency or
interstate agency, to conduct investigations and research and make
surveys concerning specific problems of water pollution with a view
to recommending a solution of such problems.
In addition, the Surgeon General would be authorized to collect
and disseminate such information relating to water pollution and
prevention and control thereof as he deems appropriate to carry out
the purposes of the act.
State grants for water pollution control programs (sec. 5)
Section 5 of the act as amended by the bill authorizes the appropri-
ation for each of the next 5 years of $2 million for grants to States
and interstate agencies to cover part of the cost of their water pollu-
tion control programs.
Allotments from these appropriations to the several States would
be made by the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations, on
the basis of population, extent of the water pollution problem, and
financial need of the respective States. Payments would cover a por-
tion of the cost of carrying on the States' approved plans, varying
in accordance with the relative State per capita income, from a low
-------
234 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of 33 Vs percent for the highest income State to a high of 66% percent
for the lowest income State.
Allotments to interstate agencies would be made in accordance
with regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon General finds reason-
able and equitable. The matching requirements for these agencies
would similarly be set in accordance with regulations designed to
place them on a similar basis to States.
[p. 6]
Regulations with respect to grants to States and interstate agencies
would have to be made after consultation with and, insofar as practi-
cable, agreement by States and interstate agencies.
The Surgeon General would approve plans, submitted by States and
by interstate agencies, which meet requirements prescribed by
regulation.
The amended act also would provide for the withholding of grants
if the State's or the interstate agency's plan were so changed that it no
longer complied with any requirement prescribed by regulation, or if
in administration of the plan there was a substantial failure to comply
with any such requirement. This withholding action would ba subject
to review in circuit courts of appeal, and then in the United States
Supreme Court, if the State or interstate agency were dissatisfied.
Payments under this section of the amended act would be made
on the basis of estimates in advance of expenditures by the States,
with subsequent adjustments in future payments being made to
compensate for errors in the estimates.
Under existing law, it should be noted, grants to States and to
interstate agencies are usable only for work in the field of water
pollution caused by industrial wastes. The funds are to be allotted
"equitably," with no indication being given in the law of the basis for
their distribution or payment. Also, only $1 million per year is
authorized to be appropriated for these grants.
Advisory board (sec. 6)
Section 6 of the amended act would increase the membership of
the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board in order to provide
increased public representation, as well as representation of those
Federal agencies with authority or interests in water resources. The
representative of the Federal Works Agency would be eliminated and
representatives would be added for the Department of Commerce,
the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation,
and the Federal Power Commission, thus increasing the Federal
membership from 5 to 8. The number of public members would be
increased from 6 to 7. The public members would be appointed by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 235
the President for staggered terms of office of 3 years' duration instead
of for 1-year terms as under the existing law. Minor technical
amendments have been made changing the provisions relating to pay
and to allowances for traveling and subsistence expenses for non-
government members to conform them more closely to the provisions
of the Public Health Service Act which deal with the other advisory
bodies of the Public Health Service.
The Board would advise, consult with, and make recommendations
to the Surgeon General on matters of policy under the act. As under
existing law, technical and clerical assistance needed by it would be
provided by the Public Health Service.
Abatement oj interstate pollution (sec. 7)
This section declares pollution of interstate waters which endangers
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than the State in
which the discharge originates to be subject to abatement as provided
in the section. Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of
reports, surveys, and studies, has reason to believe that any such
pollution is occurring, he would be required to give formal notification
thereof to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or
[p. 7]
contributing to the pollution, and to advise the water pollution
control agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such
discharges originate of the notification. Such notice also must specify
a reasonable time to secure abatement of the pollution.
If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution
is not taken within the time specified, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare would be authorized to call a public hearing before
a board which would be charged with making findings as to whether
pollution is occurring, and, in the event such is the case, the board
would make recommendations which it finds reasonable and equitable
to secure abatement. The board must consist of not less than 5
persons, a majority of whom must be persons other than officers or
employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and
1 of whom must be a representative of the Department of Commerce.
The State in which the pollution originates must be given an opportu-
nity to select one of the members of the board.
The Secretary would be directed to send a copy of the hearing
board's findings and recommendations to the persons causing or
contributing to the pollution, together with a notice specifying a
reasonable time (not less than 6 months) to secure abatement of
such pollution. A copy of the findings and recommendations and
notices also would be required to be sent to the State water pollution
-------
236 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
control agency and the interstate agency of the State or States where
the discharge originates.
If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution
within the time specified were not taken, the Secretary would send a
further notice. This notice would specify a reasonable time (not less
than 3 months) to secure abatement of the pollution. If action reason-
ably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution is not taken
within the time specified in the last notice, the Secretary may request
the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to
secure abatement of the pollution. Before the request for action can
be initiated the consent of the water pollution control agency of the
State or States where the matter causing or contributing to the
pollution originates must be obtained or a request must be received
from the water pollution control agency of any other State or States
where the health or welfare of any person is affected by the pollution.
Under the amended act, in addition to the evidence received by the
hearing board and its recommendations, the court would receive such
further evidence as it deems proper. It would be authorized to enter
such judgment as the public interest and the equities of the case
require.
The bill would delete the provision of the present act which pro-
hibits the enforcement jurisdiction of the Surgeon General in any
region or area where there are in effect provisions for sewage disposal
pursuant to agreement between the United States of America and any
public body (having jurisdiction in the matter) by stipulation entered
in the Supreme Court of the United States. This deletion was made
by the committee because it did not believe it necessary to continue
this preferential treatment to any area or public body in the United
States. (See New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921).)
Administration (sec. 8)
Section 8 of the Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the
bill would authorize the Surgeon General to prescribe necessary
regula-
[p.8]
tions, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, and to delegate his authority to officers and em-
ployees of the Public Health Service. The Secretary could also utilize
officers and employees of other agencies of the United States to assist
in carrying out the purposes of the bill, with the consent of the head
of such agencies.
Definitions (sec. 9)
Section 9 of the amended act contains definitions of "State water
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 237
pollution control agency," "interstate agency," "States," "interstate
waters," and "municipality."
The bill would eliminate the definition of the term "treatment
works" which is defined in the existing act. This term was used only
in connection with the construction features of the existing act, which
have been deleted by the bill.
The definition of "interstate agency" has been modified by requiring
the agency to have "substantial" powers or duties pertaining to the
control of pollution, thus making it clear that an agency of two or
more States having minor or incidental water pollution control in-
terests will not be considered an interstate agency for purposes of the
act. It has also been modified to emphasize its inclusion of agencies
established by interstate compacts approved by the Congress and
having such powers and duties.
The definition of "municipality" has been changed so as to include
counties specifically.
The definitions of "State" and "interstate waters" have not been
changed.
Other authority not affected (sec. 10)
Section 10 of the amended act is identical with section 11 of the
present act. It preserves the authority and functions of the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service and other officers and agencies
of the United States relating to water pollution control under other
legislation or treaties.
Separability (sec. 11)
Section 11 provides for separability of the act's various provisions
and is identical with section 12 of the present act.
Short title (sec. 12)
Section 12 of the amended act changes the short title from the
"Water Pollution Control Act" to the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act" to avoid confusion between it and State water pollution
control laws.
SECTION 2 OF THE BILL
Section 2 of the bill amends the title of the original act so as to
eliminate reference to the Federal Works Agency and to reflect
changes already effected by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 es-
tablishing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
SECTION 3 OF THE BILL
Section 3 of the bill provides that the terms of office of the present
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
members of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board shall expire
on the date of enactment of the bill.
[p. 9]
SECTION 4 OF THE BILL
Section 4 provides authority for the Surgeon General to promulgate
"Federal shares" for fiscal years 1956 and 1957 for purposes of State
grants under section 5 of the amended act.
SECTION 5 OF THE BILL
Section 5 declares it to be the intent of the Congress that any
Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any building,
installation, or other property shall cooperate, insofar as practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within
available appropriations, with the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or municipality
having jurisdiction over waters in which any matter is discharged from
such property, in preventing or controlling the pollution of such
waters.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): J
AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the [Federal Security Agency and the Federal Works Agency]
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
oj America in Congress assembled,
DECLARATION OF POLICY
Section 1. (a) [That in] In connection with the exercise of jursidiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the
public health and welfare by the [abatement of stream pollution] prevention and
control oj water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the
States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support and aid technical
research [to devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which
are not susceptible to known effective methods of treatment, and to provide
Federal technical services to State and interstate agencies and to industries, and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities, in the formu-
lation and execution of their stream pollution abatement programs] relating to
'Some sections of the existing law, rather than appearing in strict numerical order, have
been shifted so as correspond with like sections of the proposed bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 239
the prevention and control of water pollution, and to provide Federal technical
services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies in connection with the
prevention and control of water pollution. To this end, the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service [ (under the supervision and direction of the Federal Secu-
rity Administrator) and the Federal Works Administrator shall have the responsi-
bilities and authority relating to water pollution control vested in them respectively
by this Act.] shall administer this Act through the Public Health Service and under
the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affect-
ing any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including
boundary waters) of such States.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 2. [(a)] The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation, and in
cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution control agen-
cies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and industries
[p. 10]
involved, prepare or [adopt] develop comprehensive programs for eliminating or
reducing the pollution [of interstate waters and tributaries thereof] and improving
the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. In the development of
such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improvements
which are necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propa-
gation of fish and aquatic life and wild life, recreational purposes, and agricul-
tural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this [sub] section
the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investigations with any such
agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharge
of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may [deleteriously] adversely
affect such waters.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
[(b)] Sec. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities
by the States for the prevention and [abatement} control of water pollution;
encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State
laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollution; and encourage
compacts between States for the prevention and [abatement] control of water
pollution [; collection and disseminate information relating to water pollution and
the prevention and abatement thereof; support and aid technical research to
devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which are not
susceptible to known effective methods of treatment; make available to State
and interstate agencies, municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of
surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments relating to water pol-
lution and the prevention and abatement thereof conducted by the Surgeon
General and by authorized cooperating agencies; and furnish such assistance to
State agencies as may be authorized by law].
[(c)] (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States
to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law
or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance
for the prevention and [abatement] control of water pollution and the enforcement
of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agen-
cies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such
agreements and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or
-------
240 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved
by the Congress.
[SEC. 3. The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water-pollution
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make sur-
veys concerning any specific problem of water pollution confronting any State,
interstate agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view to
recommending a solution of such problem.
[SEC. 4. The Surgeon General shall prepare and publish, from time to time,
reports of such surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments made
under the authority of this Act as he may consider desirable, together with
appropriate recommendations with regard to the control of water pollution.]
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND TNFORMATION
Sec. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public Health Service and
encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate public
(whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions,
private agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote
the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and
studies relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution. In carry-
ing out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate
means, the results of and other information as to research, investigations, and
demonstrations relating to the prevention and control of water pollution,
including appropriate recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and institutions and to
individuals for research or training projects and for demonstrations, and
provide for the conduct of research, training, and demonstrations by contract
with public or private agencies and institutions and with individuals without
regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from, time to time and for such periods as he deems advisable,
the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and consultants as authorized
by section 15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
[p. 11]
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public Health Service
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and subsistence ex-
penses, as he may deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most promis-
ing research fellows; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the causes, prevention,
and control of water pollution to personnel of public agencies and other
persons with suitable qualifications.
(b) The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water pollution control
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of water pollution confronting any State, inter-
state agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, unth. a view to recom-
mending a solution of such problem.
(c) The Surgeon General shall collect and disseminate such, information relating
to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof as he deems appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
[SEC. 5. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to the pro-
visions of section 9 (c), to make loans to any State, municipality, or interstate
agency for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
by such State or municipality of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 241
other waste into interstate waters or into a tributary of such waters, and for the
preparation (either by its engineering staff or by practicing engineers employed
for that purpose) of engineering reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith. Such loans shall be subject, however, to the following limitations: (a)
No loan shall be made for any project unless such project shall have been approved
by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies and by the Surgeon
General, and unless such project is included in a comprehensive program devel-
oped pursuant to this Act; (b) no loan shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding SSVa per centum oi the estimated reasonable cost thereof, as determined
by the Federal Works Administrator, or in an amount exceeding $250,000, which-
ever amount is the smaller; (c) every such loan shall bear interest at the rate of
2 per centum per annum, payable semiannually; and (d) the bonds or other
obligation evidencing any such loan (1) must be duly authorized and issued
pursuant to State and local law, and (2) may, as to the security thereof and the
payment of principal thereof and interest thereon, be subordinated (to the extent
deemed feasible and desirable by the Federal Works Administrator for facilitating
the financing of such projects) to other bonds or obligations of the obligor issued
to finance such project or that may then be outstanding.
[SEC. 6. (a) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator, in
carrying out their respective functions under this Act, shall provide for the review
oi all reports of examinations, research, investigations, plans, studies, and surveys,
made pursuant to the provisions of this Act and all applications for loans under
section 5. In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works and of
approving loans in connection therewith, consideration shall be given to the
public benefits to be derived by the construction thereof, the propriety of Federal
aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and
maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public necessity for the
works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by the applicant for
the loan for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the works
after completion oi the construction thereof.
[SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, a sum not to exceed the sum of $22,500,000 for the
purpose oi making loans under section 5 of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended.
[SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Secu-
rity Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 30, 1956, the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted equitably and
paid to the States tor expenditure by or under the direction of their respective
State water-pollution agencies, and to interstate agencies for expenditure by them,
for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the
prevention and control oi water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended,
shall be allotted by the Surgeon General in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Federal Security Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settle-
ment by the General Accounting Office.
[(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each oi the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
[P. 12]
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed $800,000 to enable the Federal
Works Administrator to erect and to furnish and to equip such buildings and
facilities at Cincinnati, Ohio, as may be necessary for the use of the Public Health
-------
242 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Service in connection with the research and study of water pollution and the
training of personnel in work related to the control of water pollution. The
amount authorized for this purpose shall include the cost of preparation of draw-
ings and specifications, supervision of construction and other administrative
expenses incident to the work: Provided, That the Federal Works Agency shall
prepare the plans and specifications, make all necessary contracts and supervise
construction. Sums appropriated pursuant to this authorization shall remain
available until expended.
[(c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948, and
ending June 30, 1956, a sum not to exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable the
Federal Works Administrator to make grants to States, municipalities, or inter-
state agencies to aid in financing the cost of engineering, architectural, and eco-
nomic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and other action preliminary to the construction of
projects approved by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies
and by the Surgeon General. Grants made under this subsection with respect
to any project shall not exceed whichever of the following amounts is the smaller:
(1) $20,000, or (2) 33V3 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as deter-
mined by the Federal Works Administrator) of the action preliminary to the
construction of such project. Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.]
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Sec. 5. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated -for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1956, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and~mcluding the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1960, $2,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies
to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate mea-
sures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
(b) The portion oj the sums, appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for a fiscal
year which shall be available for grants to interstate agencies and the portion
thereof which shall be available for grants to States shall be specified in the Act
appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Surgeon General
shall from time to time make allotments to the several States, in accordance with
regulations, on the basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the water pollu-
tion problem, and (3) the financial need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any fiscal year the
Surgeon General shall pay to such State an amount equal to its Federal share (as
determined under subsection (i)) of the cost of carrying out its State plan approved
under subsection (f), including the cost of training personnel for State and local
water pollution control work and including the cost of administering the State plan.
(e) From, the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Surgeon General
shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies, in accordance with
regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon General finds reasonable and equitable.
He shall from time to time pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount
equal to such portion of the cost o] carrying out its plan approved under subsection
(/) as may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the cost of
training personnel for water pollution control work and including the cost of
administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations relating to the portion
oj the cost of carrying out the interstate agency's plan which shall be borne by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 243
United States shall be designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a
basis similar to that of the States.
(f) The Surgeon General shall approve any plan for purposes of this section
which is submitted by the State water pollution control ayency or, in the case of
an interstate agency, by such agency, and which meets such requirements as the
Surgeon General may prescribe by regulation.
(g) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to grants to States and
to interstate agencies under this section shall be made after consultation with a
conference Oj the State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies.
Insofar as practicable, the Surgeon General shall obtain the agreement, prior to
the issuance of any such regulations or amendments, of such State and interstate
agencies.
(h) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and opportunity
for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or interstate agency finds
that—
[p. 13]
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under this section has
been so changed that it no longer complies with a requirement prescribed by
regulation as a condition of approval of the plan; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to comply substantially
with such a requirement,
the Surgeon General shall notify such agency that no further payments will be
made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section
(or in his discretion thai further payments will not be made to the State, or to the
interstate agency, for projects under or parts of the plan affected by such failure)
until he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so
satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no further payments to such State, or
to such interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section (or shall limit
payments to projects under or parts of the plan in which there is no such failure).
(2) Ij any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the Surgeon Gen-
eral s action with respect to it under this subsection, it may appeal to the United
States Court oj Appeals for the circuit in which such State (or any of the member
State*, in the case of an interstate agency) is located. The summons and notice of
appeal may be served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by
the Surgeon General, unless contrary to the weight oj the evidence, shall be con-
clusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Surgeon
General to take further evidence, and the Surgeon General may thereupon make
new or modified findings of fact and may modify his previous action. Such new or
modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the weight
oj the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Sur-
geon General 01 to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari
or certification as provided in Title 28, United States Code, section 1254.
(i) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum less that per-
centage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per capita income of
such State bears to the per capita income of the continental United States (exclud-
ing Alaska), except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case be more than 66%
per centum or less that 33 '/i per centum, and (B) the Federal share of Hawaii and
Alaska shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be
66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Surgeon General between
-------
244 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on the basis of the average
oj the per capita incomes of the States and of the continental United States for the
three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department oj Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive for each
oj the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next succeeding such promul-
gation: Provided, That the Federal shares promulgated by the Surgeon General
pursuant to section 4 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments oj 1955,
shall be conclusive for the period beginning July 1, 1955, and ending June 30,1957.
(j) The population of the several States shall be determined on the basis of the
latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(k) The method oj computing and paying amounts pursuant to subsection (d)
or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Surgeon General shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar quar-
ter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be paid to each
State (or to each interstate agency in the case oj subsection (e)) under the
provisions oj such subsection for such period, such estimate to be based on
such records of the State (or the interstate agency) and information furnished
by it, and such other investigation, a-s the Surgeon General may find necessary.
(2) The Surgeon General shall pay to the State (or to the interstate agency,
from the allotment available therefor, the amount so estimated by him for any
period, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any sum (not previously
adjusted under this paragraph) by which he finds that his estimate of the
amount to be paid such State (or such interstate agency) for any prior period
under such subsection was greater or less than the amount which should have
been paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facilities of
the Treasury Department, in such installments as the Surgeon General may
determine.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 6. [(b)] (a) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service a
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board to be composed as follows: The Surgeon
General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who shall be Chairman
[p. 14]
of the Board, a representative of the Department of the Army, a representative
of the Department of the Interior, [a representative of the Federal Works Agency,
and a representative of the Department of Agriculture, designated by the Sec-
retary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Works Admin-
istrator, and the Secretary of Agriculture] a representative of the Department
oj Commerce, a representative of the Department of Agriculture, a representative
o'j the Atomic Energy Commission, a representative of the National Science Foun-
dation, and a representative of the Federal Power Commission, designated by the
Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission,
the Director oj the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the Federal
Power Commission respectively; and [six] seven persons (not officers or employees
01 the Federal Government) to bs appointed [annually] by the President. One of
the persons appointed by the President shall be an engineer who is expert in
sewage and industrial-waste disposal, one shall be a person who shall have shown
an active interest in the field of wildlife conservation and recreation, and, except as
the President may determine that the purposes of this Act will be better furthered
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 245
by different representation, one shall be a person representative of municipal
government, one shall be a person representative of State government, [and]
one shall be a perso;i representative of affected industry [.], one shall be a person
representative oj interstate agencies, and one shall be a person who shall have
shown an active interest m the field oj agriculture. Each member appointed by
the President shall hold office jor a term oj three years, except that (1) any mem-
ber appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his -predecessor was appointed shall be appointed jor the remainder of such.
term, and (2) the terms oj office of the members first taking office after June 30,
1955, shall expire as follows: two at the end of one year after such date, two at the
end o'j two years after such date, and three at the end of three years after such date,
as designated by the President at the time of appointment. None of the members
appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappointment within one year
after the end oj his preceding term, but terms commencing prior to the enactment
o'j the Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1955 shall not be deemed "pre-
ceding terms" for purposes of this sentence. [The members of the Board who are
not officers or employees of the United States shall be entitled to receive com-
pensation at a per diem rate to be fixed by the Federal Security Administrator,
together with an allowance for actual and necessary traveling and subsistence
expenses while engaged on the business of the Board. It shall be the duty of the
Board to review the policies and program of the Public Health Service as under-
taken under authority oi this Act and to make recommendations thereon in reports
to the Surgeon General. Such clerical and technical assistance as may be neces-
sary to discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel of
the Public Health Service.] The members of the Board who are not officers or
employees of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon General, shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time,
and while away from their homes or regular places oj business they may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by
law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed intermit-
tently.
(fa) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the
Surgeon General on matters of policy relating to the activities and /unctions of the
Surgeon General under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the
duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel of the Public Health
Service.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
[SEC. 2. (d) (1)] Sec. 7. (a) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent
to any State 01 States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge
into a tributary of such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of per-
sonc in a State other than that in which the discharge originates, [is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance and] shall be subject to abatement as herein
provided.
[(2)] (b) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys,
and studies, [finds] has reason to believe that any such pollution [declared to be a
public nuisance by paragraph (1) of this subsection] is occurring, he shall give
-------
246 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
formal notification thereof to the person or persons discharging any matter causing
[p. 15]
or contributing to such pollution and shall advise the water pollution control
agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate of such notification. The [This] notification [may outline
recommended remedial measures which are reasonable and equitable in that case
and] shall specify a reasonable time to secure abatement of the pollution. [If
action calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified
is not commenced, this failure shall again be brought to the attention of the
person or persons discharging the matter and of the water pollution agency or
interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge or discharges origi-
nate. The notification to such agency may be accompanied by a recommendation
that it initiate a suit to abate the pollution in a court of proper jurisdiction.
[(3) II', within a reasonable time after the second notification by the Surgeon
General, the person or persons discharging the matter fail to initiate action to
abate the pollution or the State water pollution agency or interstate agency fails
to initiate a suit to secure abatement, the Federal Security Administrator is
authorized to call a public hearing,] (c) // action reasonably calculated to secure
abatement oj the pollution within the time specified in the notification pursuant to
subsection (b) is not taken, the Secretary oj Health, Education, and Welfare is
authorized to call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution origi-
nate, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the [Administrator,]
Secretary, who may be officers or employees of the [Federal Security Agency]
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or of the water pollution control
agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate (except that [at least one of the members of the board shall be
a representative of] the water pollution control agency of the State or States where
such discharge or discharges originate shall be given an opportunity to select at
least one member of the Board and at least one member shall be a representative
of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the board shall be
persons other than officers or employees of the [Federal Security Agency] Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare). On the basis of the evidence presented
at such hearing, the board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to
in subsection (a) is occurring. If the board finds such pollution is occurring, it
[the board] shall make [its] recommendations to the [Federal Security Adminis-
trator] Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning the measures, if
any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such
pollution. The Secretary shall send a copy oj such findings and recommendations
to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such
pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six
months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send a copy of such
findings and recommendations and of such notice to the water pollution control
agency, and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such dis-
charge or discharges originate.
1(4) After affording the person or persons discharging the matter causing or
contributing to the pollution reasonable opportunity to comply with the recom-
mendations of the board, the Federal Security Administrator] (d) If action
reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified
in the notice prescribed in subsection (c) is not taken, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare shall send a further notice to such person or persons, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 247
shall send a copy thereof to the water pollution control agency, and to the inter-
state agency, ij any, oj the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate. Such further notice shall specify a reasonable time (not less than three
months) to secure abatement of such pollution. If action reasonably calculated
to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified in such further
notice is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, may, with the
consent of the water pollution agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to
give such consent) of the State or States in which the matter causing or contribut-
ing to the pollution is discharged or at the request of the water pollution control
agency (or any officei or employee authorized to make such request) oj any other
State or States where the health or welfare of any person or persons is adversely
affected by such pollution, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf
of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
[(5) Before or after any suit authorized by paragraph (4) is commenced, any
person who is alleged to be discharging matter contributing to the pollution,
abatement of which is sought, may, with the consent of the water pollution
agency (or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State
in which such matter is discharged, be joined as a defendant. The court shall
have power to enforce its judgment against any such defendant.]
[P. 16]
[(6)] (e) In any suit brought pursuant to [paragraph (4)] subsection (d) in
which two or more persons in different judicial districts are originally joined as
defendants, the suit may be commenced in the judicial district in which any dis-
charge caused by any of the defendants occurs.
[(7)] (/) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript of
the proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recommendation;
and [may] shall receive such further evidence as the court in its discretion deems
propel1. The court [, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the
physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved,]
shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judg-'
ment, as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. [The
jurisdiction of the Surgeon General, or any other agency which has jurisdiction
pursuant to the provisions of this Act, shall not extend to any region or areas
nor shall it affect the rights or jurisdiction of any public body where there are in
effect provisions for sewage disposal pursuant to agreement between the United
States oi America and any such public body by stipulation entered in the Supreme
Court of the United States. While any such stipulation or modification thereof
is in force and effect, no proceedings of any kind may be maintained by virtue of
this Act against such public body or any public agency, corporation, or individual
within its jurisdiction. Neither this provision nor any provision of this Act
shall be construed to give to the Surgeon General or any other person or agency
the right to intervene in the said proceedings wherein such stipulation was
entered.]
[(8)] (g) As used in this [subsection] section, the term "person" includes an
individual, corporation, partnership, association, a State, municipality, and [a]
political subdivision of [a] the State.
[SEC. 8. (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,000) as may
be necessary to enable it to carry out its lunctions under this Act.
[(e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
-------
248 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000) as may
be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
[SEC. G. (a) Five officers may be appointed to grades in the Regular Corps of
the Public Health Service above that of senior assistant, but not to a grade above
that oi director, to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Officers
appointed pursuant to this subsection in any fiscal year shall not be counted as
part of the 10 per centum of the original appointments authorized to be made in
such year under section 207 (b) of the Public Health Service Act; but they shall
for all other purposes be treated as though appointed pursuant to such section
207 (b).
[(b) The Federal Security Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the Federal Government, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
[(c) (1) Upon written request of the Federal Works Administrator, from time
to time submitted to the Federal Security Administrator, specifying (a) particular
projects approved by the Surgeon General, (b) the total estimated costs of such
projects, and (c) the total sum requested for loans which the Federal Works
Administrator proposes to make for such projects, the Federal Security Admin-
istrator shall transfer such total sum (within the amount appropriated therefor)
to the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for such projects
pursuant to section 5 hereof. In making such loans, the Federal Works Admin-
istrator shall adhere to the order or sequence of priority for projects established
by the Surgeon General and shall take such measures as, in his judgment, will
assure that the engineering plans and specifications, the details of construction,
and the completed treatment works conform to the project as approved by the
Surgeon General; and the Federal Works Administrator shall furnish written
reports to the Federal Security Administrator on the progress of the work.
1(2) The Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized (a) to hold, admin-
ister, exchange, refund, or sell at public or private sale any bonds or other obliga-
tions evidencing loans made under this Act; and (b) to collect, or provide for the
collection of, interest on and principal of such bonds or other obligations. All
moneys received as proceeds from such sales, and all moneys so collected, shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
[p. 17]
t(d) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator are each
authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out their re-
spective functions under this Act.]
ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 8. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act. All regulations of the
Surgeon General under this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary
oj' Health, Education, and Welfare. The Surgeon General may delegate to any
officer or employee oj the Public Health Service such of his powers and duties
under this Act, except the making oj regulations, as he may deem necessary or
expedient.
(b) The Secretary oj Health, Education, and Welfare, with the consent of the
head oj any other agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and em-
ployees oj such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the
purposes oj this Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 249
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, such sums as may be necessary to enable it to carry out
its junctions under this Act,
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 10. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the State health
authority, except that, in the case of any State in which there is a single State
agency, other than the State health authority, charged with responsibility for
enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of water pollution, it means such
other State [agency;] agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress,
or any other agency of two or more States, having substantial powers or duties
pertaining to the [abatement] control of pollution of [waters;] waters.
[(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the treat-
ment of sewage or industrial "waste of a liquid nature, including the necessary
intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances, and includes any extensions, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations hereof;]
[(d)] (c) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin [Islands;] Islands.
[(e)] (d) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other waters
that flow across, or form a part of, State [boundaries; and] boundaries.
[(f)] (e) The term "municipality" means a city, town, county, district, or
other public body created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over
disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. [11] 10. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limiting the
functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of the Public Health
Service, or of any other officer or agency oi the United States, relating to water
pollution, or (2) affecting or impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1924, or sections 13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899, as amended, or (3)
afi'ecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [12] 11. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision of
this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall
not be affected thereby.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [13] 12. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act".
[p. 18]
-------
250 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2d(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 1446, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955)
EXTENDING AND STRENGTHENING THE WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
JULY 26, 1955.—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 S. 890]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 890) to extend and strengthen the Water Pollution Control Act,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amend-
ments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Page 2, line 21, following the word "pollution" insert "of interstate
waters and tributaries thereof".
Page 8, line 3, strike out the words "Insofar as practicable, the" and
insert "The".
Page 12, line 19, strike out "seven" and insert "nine".
Page 13, line 4, following the word "government," insert "one shall
be a person representative of county government, one shall be a
person representative of water suppliers,".
Page 13, line 14, strike out the word "two" and insert "three".
Page 13, line 15, strike out the word "two" and insert "three".
Page 18, line 2, following the word "court" insert ", giving due
consideration to the practicability and to the physical and economic
feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved,".
Page 19, line 22, strike out the word "State" and strike the period
after the word "boundaries" and insert the following: "between two
or more States."
PURPOSE
The bill would amend the Water Pollution Control Act by replacing
it with new provisions designed to extend and strengthen the act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 251
The bill as reported reemphasizes the policy of the Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary rights and responsibilities
of the States in controlling water pollution.
[p. 1]
S. 890 as passed by the Senate would provide a legislative base for
the cooperative program which the Public Health Service is carrying
on with the State and interstate pollution-control agencies. The
objective of these Federal activities is to support and assist State and
interstate agencies.
The committee is impressed with the seriousness of the increasing
water-pollution problem and the need to control pollution as a sig-
nificant measure for conserving the Nation's water resources. There
are extensive public expenditures for construction of large-scale proj-
ects to develop national water resources. The abatement and pre-
vention of water pollution is essential to the full realization of these
developments. The committee is convinced that primary respon-
sibility for regulatory control of water pollution should remain with
duly constituted State and interstate authorities. Regulatory author-
ity at the Federal level should be limited to interstate pollution prob-
lems and used on a standby basis only for serious situations which
are not resolved through State and interstate collaboration. Con-
sidering our industrial and metropolitan expansions, water pollution
is an involved and complex problem from both the administrative
and technical points of view. The committee believes there is real
need for Federal assistance designed to support, stimulate, and
complement the State efforts.
The legislation now under consideration would amend the existing
Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 845, 80th Cong.). The
act terminates on June 30, 1956.
The bill would provide for continuing essential assistance to the
national water-pollution-control program by authorizing: (1) Intensi-
fied research to determine the effects of new pollutants on public
health and on other water uses and to develop feasible methods of
treatment; (2) technical assistance to States, particularly on new
and complex problems; (3) demonstrations, studies, and training; (4)
matching grants to States and interstate agencies for use in developing
their programs; (5) encouragement of interstate cooperation through
regional councils and interstate compacts; and (6) State-interstate-
Federal collaboration on program development and development of
improved State pollution-control legislation.
GENERAL STATEMENT
i" '
A public hearing on this bill was held by the committee on July 20,
1955. In addition to the testimony presented at the hearing, the
-------
252 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
committee has received numerous expressions, resolutions, and letters
from national organizations, States, interstate agencies, industry, and
individuals interested in water pollution control legislation. These
representations were preponderantly in support of S. 890 as amended
and passed by the Senate. The committee is impressed with this
evidence of public interest and awareness of the significance of the
problem.
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first compre-
hensive Federal legislation in this field. Since its enactment co-
operative State-interstate-Federal efforts, together with those of
municipalities, industry, conservation, and other interests, have
brought about substantial progress. During that period more than
half of the States have improved their legislation and strengthened
their
[p. 2]
programs. On the whole, the committee is impressed with the prog-
ress that has been made, and believes that this bill as amended
represents improved legislation based on the experience gained.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
S. 890 adds three significant improvements to Public Law 845 by:
(1) Intensifying the national research effort in water pollution; (2)
providing a broader basis for support to State and interstate pollution-
control agencies; and (3) providing a reasonable and equitable mech-
anism for Federal-State cooperation in resolving serious interstate
pollution problems.
Research in water-pollution control
A most important need is for research to determine the impact of
new pollutants on public health and other vital water uses, and to
find more practical and economically feasible abatement measures.
To this end the bill provides for a broadened and intensified national
research effort by authorizing the Public Health Service to: (1) Sup-
plement its direct research operations through contract research; thus
making available for special projects the assistance of other labora-
tories having specialized personnel and equipment not needed by the
Federal Government on a continuing basis; (2) make research grants
to universities and other research institutions to stimulate essential
studies; and (3) award research fellowships to attract scarce scientific
talents to this field,
Support to State and interstate programs
The bill would authorize program grants to State and interstate
agencies as a means of stimulating the continuing development of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 253
their programs for controlling water pollution. These grants would
be allotted to the State and interstate agencies on a formula basis.
The authorization for grants is limited to the first 5 years of the act
with a ceiling of $2 million per annum. The bill modifies the present
law by requiring the grants to be on a matching basis, and by author-
izing their use for all essential phases of water-pollution control at
the discretion of State and interstate authorities.
The Surgeon General is to obtain agreement of States and interstate
agencies prior to issuing regulations or amendments thereto with
respect to program grants to such States or agencies, as authorized
by section 5 of the act. The intent of this provision is that no such
regulation or amendment thereof shall be applicable to any State or
interstate agency which would be contrary to the water-pollution-
control laws or policies of such State or interstate agency, and the
agreement of such State or interstate agency to such regulation would
indicate conformance of such regulation with its laws and policies.
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
With respect to membership of the Water Pollution Control Ad-
visory Board, the committee has increased the number of Presiden-
tially appointed non-Federal members from 7 to 9. The committee
believes that the additional members representing county govern-
ment and water suppliers would broaden and strengthen the Board.
Several groups submitted material in support of this point of view.
[p. 3]
State-interstate-Federal collaboration on interstate pollution problems
With respect to interstate pollution—where pollution from one
State affects the health and well-being of the people of another
State—the bill authorizes a clear procedure designed to assist in the
solution of such problems through cooperative State action. The
Federal program would be available to aid in this work. Should a
situation develop where a serious interstate pollution problem is not
solved through joint State or interstate action, the bill authorizes
Federal court action if requested by the affected State or with the
consent of the State wherein the pollution originates. The bill modi-
fies the present law by clarifying the procedures short of court action
and adds the provision by which Federal court action can be taken if
requested by the affected State.
It is the intent of the committee that the Surgeon General will work
with State water-pollution control authorities and, where they exist,
with interstate authorities, before proceeding with enforcement pro-
visions of section 7. Further, where State or interstate actions are
taken which demonstrate reasonable progress toward solution of
-------
254 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pollution problems, the Surgeon General shall not initiate interstate
Federal enforcement measures.
The committee believes the procedures authorized in the bill con-
stitute a reasonable balance between the primary rights of the States
to control water pollution within their boundaries, and the rights of
States seriously affected by pollution from another State to have avail-
able to them a practical remedy.
The committee has restored the provision in the existing act that the
courts, before entering a judgment, are to give consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing
abatement of any pollution proved.
Definitions
The committee has defined the term "interstate waters" to mean all
rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow across, or form a part of,
boundaries between two or more States. For purposes of this act the
committee believes this is an improved and clearer definition.
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill
Section 1 of the bill supersedes the existing Water Pollution Control
Act with a new act.
Policy of Congress
Section 1 (a) declares to be the policy of Congress to recognize,
preserve, and protect the primary rights and responsibilities of the
States in preventing and controlling water pollution; to support and
aid technical research; and to provide Federal technical services and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies.
Section 1 (b) provides that nothing in the act shall be construed as
impairing or affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with
respect to their waters.
Development of comprehensive programs
The Surgeon General, in cooperation with other Federal agencies,
with State water-pollution-control agencies and interstate agencies,
and with municipalities and industries involved, giving due regard to
[p. 4]
all legitimate uses of waters, will prepare or develop comprehensive
programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters
and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary conditions of
surface and underground waters. The Surgeon General is authorized
to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition
of any waters in any State or States and of the discharges of any
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 255
sewage, industrial wastes, or substances which may adversely affect
such waters (sec. 2) .
Cooperation with States
The Surgeon General will encourage cooperative activities between
States for the prevention and control of water pollution; encourage
the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State
laws relating to water pollution; and encourage compacts between
States for the prevention and control of water pollution (sec. 3 (a) ) .
The consent of Congress is given to any two or more States to
negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts for cooperative work
and mutual assistance in the field of water-pollution control, but no
such agreement or compact is to be binding upon any State or party
thereto unless and until it has been approved by the Congress (sec.
Research and related activities of the Public Health Service
The research and related activities of the Public Health Service in
the field of water-pollution control would be expanded and strength-
ened by specifically authorizing the Surgeon General:
1. To conduct, encourage, and promote the coordination of re-
search, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies in
water-pollution control and, for this purpose, to secure the help of
experts and consultants, to establish research fellowships, and to pro-
vide training in technical matters relating to water pollution.
2. To cooperate with and to aid appropriate agencies, institutions,
and individuals in this field of work through grants-in-aid and con-
tracts with them for research, demonstrations, and training.
3. In carrying out these functions, to collect and disseminate
information on research, investigations, and demonstrations (sec. 4) .
State grants for water-pollution-control programs
Section 5 of the act authorizes the appropriation for each of the
next 5 years of $2 million for grants to States and interstate agencies
to cover part of the cost of their water-pollution-control programs.
It authorizes grants to States and interstate agencies to aid in the
establishment and maintenance of adequate measures for the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, such grants to be used for
meeting costs, under approved plans, of establishing and maintaining
adequate water-pollution prevention and control measures, including
costs of training personnel and administering the State and interstate
agency plans. The portion of the appropriations available for the
States and the portion available for the interstate agencies are to be
specified separately in the appropriation acts.
Allotments to the several States would bs made by the Surgeon
-------
256 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
General in accordance with regulations, on the basis of population,
extent of water-pollution problem, and financial need of respective
States. Allotments to interstate agencies would ba made in accord-
[p. 5]
ance with regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon General finds
reasonable and equitable.
The State allotments would be available for paying the Federal
share (described below) of the cost of carrying out State plans. The
Federal share is defined as a percentage which equals 100 percent
minus the percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 percent as the
per capita income of the State bears to the per capita income of the
continental United States (excluding Alaska). However, the Federal
share could not exceed a maximum of 66% percent nor could it be less
than 33 Va percent; and the Federal share would be fixed at 50 percent
for Hawaii and Alaska, and at 66% percent for Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands.
For interstate agencies, the Federal share of the cost of their
programs would be determined in accordance with regulations de-
signed, as far as possible, to place such agencies on a basis similar to
the States.
The Surgeon General is to approve plans, submitted by States
and by interstate agencies, which meet requirements prescribed by
regulation.
Regulations and amendments with respect to grants to States and
interstate agencies would have to be made after consultation with,
and agreement by States and interstate agencies.
This section also provides for termination of a grant if the change
in the State's or the interstate agency's plan, or administration
thereof, no longer complies with requirements prescribed by regula-
tion. This action would be subject to review in circuit courts of
appeal, and then in the United States Supreme Court if the State
or interstate agency is dissatisfied.
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
Section 6 would increase the membership of the Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board in order to provide increased public represen-
tation as well as representation of those Federal agencies with author-
ity or interest in water resources. The Board would consist of: The
Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer designated by him, represent-
atives of the Departments of the Army, Interior, Commerce, and
Agriculture, and the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science
Foundation, and the Federal Power Commission, and Presidential
appointees representing the fields of sewage and industrial waste dis-
posal, wildlife conservation, and, unless better furthered by different
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 257
representation, the fields of municipal government, State government,
county government, water suppliers, affected industry, recreation, and
agriculture. Provision is made for staggered terms of office of 3 years'
duration for members appointed by the President. Technical changes
relating to pay and allowances for travel and subsistence expenses for
non-Government members also have been made.
The Board would advise, consult with, and make recommendations
to the Surgeon General on matters of policy under the act; technical
and clerical assistance needed by the Board would be provided by the
Public Health Service.
Abatement of interstate pollution
The pollution of interstate waters, which endangers the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharges
originate, is declared to be subject to abatement as provided in the act.
[p. 6]
Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys, and
studies, has reason to believe that any such pollution is occurring,
he would be required to give formal notification thereof to the person
or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to the
pollution, and to advise the water pollution control agency or inter-
state agency of the State or States where such discharges originate of
the notification. Such notice also must specify a reasonable time to
secure abatement of the pollution.
If action reasonably calculated to sscure abatement of the pollution
is not taken within the time specified, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare would be authorized to call a public hearing before
a board which would be charged with making findings as to whether
pollution is occurring, and, in the event such is the case, the board
would make recommendations which it finds reasonable and equitable
to secure abatement. The board must consist of not less than 5 per-
sons, a majority of whom must be persons other than officers or em-
ployees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and
1 who must be a representative of the Department of Commerce. The
State in which the pollution originates would bs given an opportunity
to select one of the members of the board.
The Secretary would be directed to send a copy of the hearing
board's findings and recommendations to the persons causing or con-
tributing to the pollution, together with a notice specifying a reason-
able time (not less than 6 months) to secure abatement of such
pollution. A copy of the findings and recommendations and notices
also would be required to be sent to the State water pollution control
agency and the interstate agency of the State or States where the
discharge originates.
-------
258 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution
within the time specified were not taken, the Secretary would send a
further notice. This notice would specify a reasonable time (not less
than 3 months) to secure abatement of the pollution. If action
reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution is not
taken within the time specified in the last notice, the Secretary may
request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United
States to secure abatement of the pollution. Before the request for
action can be initiated the consent of the water pollution control
agency of the State or States where the matter causing or contribut-
ing to the pollution originates must be obtained or a request must
be received from the water pollution control agency of any other
State or States where the health or welfare of any person is affected
by the pollution.
The court giving due consideration to the practicability and to
the physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any
pollution proved is to have jurisdiction to enter such judgment and
orders enforcing such judgment, as the public interest and equities
of the case may require (sec. 7).
Administration
The Surgeon General would be authorized to prescribe necessary
regulations subject to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and to delegate his authority under the act to
officers and employees of the Public Health Service. The Secretary
could also utilize officers and employees of other agencies of the United
[p. 7]
States to assist in carrying out the purposes of the act, with the con-
sent of the head of such agencies ( sec. 8).
Definitions
Section 9 provides that the term "State water pollution control
agency" means the State health authority, or the State agency charged
with the enforcement of pollution laws.
The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control
of water pollution.
The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of boundaries between two or
more States.
The term "municipality" means a city, town, county, district, or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 259
other public body created by State law and having jurisdiction over
the disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
Existing authority
The act preserves the authority and functions of the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service and other officers and agencies of
the United States relative to water pollution control under other
legislation or treaty (sec. 10).
Separability
Section 11 provides that if any provision of this act, or the applica-
tion of any provision of this act to person or circumstance, is held
invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or circum-
stances, and the remainder of this act, shall not be affected thereby.
Short title
Section 12 porvides that this act may be cited as the "Federal
Water Pollution Control Act."
Section 2 of the bill
Section 2 of the bill amends the title of the original act so as to
eliminate reference to the Federal Works Agency and to reflect
changes already effected by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953
establishing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Section 3 of the bill
Section 3 of the bill provides that the terms of office of the present
members of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board shall expire
on the date of enactment of the bill.
Section 4 of the bill
Section 4 of the bill provides authority for the Surgeon General to
promulgate Federal shares for fiscal years 1956 and 1957 for purposes
of State grants under section 5 of the amended act.
Section 5 of the bill
Section 5 of the bill declares it to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any
building, installation, or other property shall cooperate, insofar as
practicable and consistent with the interests of the United States and
within available appropriations, with the Department of Health,
[p. 8]
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters in which any matter is
discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the
pollution of such waters.
-------
260 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
MAJOR CHANGES IN HOUSE BILL
1. Language of existing law concerning preparation or adoption of
comprehensive programs restored to specify that such programs bs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof as well as improving the sanitary condition of
surface and underground waters.
2. Definitely require that agreement of States and interstate agen-
cies be obtained prior to issuance of regulations with respect to grants
to States and interstate agencies.
3. Expands number of Presidentially appointed members of Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board to provide representation of county
government and water suppliers.
4. Restores provision of existing act that court prior to entering
judgment is to give due consideration to the practicability and to
the physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any
pollution proved.
5. Definition of "interstate waters" limited to waters that flow
across, or form a part of, boundaries between two or more States.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill are shown
as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman): 1
AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the [Federal Security Agency and the Federal Works Agency] Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives oj the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
DECLARATION OF POLICY
Section 1. (a) [That in] In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the
public health and welfare by the [abatement of stream pollution] prevention and
control of water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the
States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support and aid technical
research [to devise and perfect methods of treatment of industrial wastes which
are not susceptible to known effective methods of treatment, and to provide
Federal technical services to State and interstate agencies and to industries, and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities, in the formu-
lation and execution of their stream pollution abatement programs] relating to
the prevention and control oj water pollution, and to provide Federal technical serv-
"Some sections of the existing law, rather than appearing in strict numerical order, have
been shifted so as correspond with like sections of the proposed bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 261
ices and financial aid to State and interstate agencies in connection with the preven-
tion and control of water pollution. To this end, the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service [(under the supervision and direction of the Federal Security
Administrator) and the Federal Works Administrator shall have the responsibili-
ties and authority relating to water pollution control vested in them respectively
[p. 9]
by this Act.] shall administer this Act through the Public Health Service and under
the supervision and direction oj' the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(fa) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting
any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including bound-
ary waters) oj such States.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 2. [(a)] The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation, and in
cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution control
agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and industries in-
volved, prepare or [adopt] develop comprehensive programs for eliminating or
reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improv-
ing the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. In the develop-
ment oil such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improve-
ments which are necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies,
propagation of fish and aquatic life and wild hfe, recreational purpcsss, and agri-
cultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this [subjection
the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint investigations with any such
agencies oi the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges
oi: any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may [deleteriously] adversely
affect such waters.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
[(b)] SEC. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention and [abatement] control of water pollution; encourage
the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State laws relating
to the prevention and control of water pollution; and encourage compacts between
States for the prevention and [abatement] control of water pollution [; collection
and disseminate information relating to water pollution and the prevention and
abatement thereof; support and aid technical research to devise and perfect
methods of treatment of industrial wastes which are not susceptible to known
effective methods of treatment; make available to State and interstate agencies,
municipalities, industries, and individuals the results of surveys, studies, investiga-
tions, research, and experiments relating to water pollution and the prevention
and abatement thereof conducted by the Surgeon General and by authorized
cooperating agencies; and furnish such assistance to State agencies as may be
authorized by law].
[(c)] (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States
to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law
or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance
for the prevention and [abatement] control of water pollution and the enforcement
of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies,
joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agree-
ments and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obliga-
tory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by the
Congress.
-------
262 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
[SEC. 3. The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water-pollution
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem of water pollution confronting any Stat3, interstate
agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view to recommending
a solution of such problem.
[SEC. 4. The Surgeon General shall prepare and publish, from time to time,
reports of such surveys, studies, investigations, research, and experiments made
under the authority of this Act as he may consider desirable, together with ap-
propriate recommendations with regard to the control of water pollution.]
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
Sec. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public Health Service and
encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate public
(whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions,
private agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the
coordination oj, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution. In carrying
out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is authorized to—
[p. 10]
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate
means, the results of and other information as to research, investigations, and
demonstrations relating to the prevention and control of water pollution, in-
cluding appropriate recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and institutions and to
individuals for research or training projects and for demonstrations, and pro-
vide for the conduct of research, training, and demonstrations by contract with
public or private agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard
to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, jrom time to time and for such periods as he deems advisable,
the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and consultants as authorized by
section 15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public Health Service
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and subsistence ex-
penses, as he may deem, necessary to procure the assistance of the most
promising research fellows; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the causes, prevention,
and control oj water pollution to personnel oj public agencies and other persons
with suitable qualifications.
(b) The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water pollution control
agency or interstate agency, conduct investigations and research and make surveys
concerning any specific problem oj water pollution confronting any State, interstate
agency, community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view to recommending
a solution of such problem.
(c) The Surgeon General shall collect and disseminate such information relating
to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof as he deems appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
[Sec. 5. The Federal Works Administrator is authorized, subject to the pro-
visions of section 9 (c), to make loans to any State, municipality, or interstate
agency for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
by such State or municipality of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or
other waste into interstate waters or into a tributary of such waters, and for the
preparation (either by its engineering staff or by practicing engineers employed
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 263
for that purpose) of engineering reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith. Such loans shall be subject, however, to the following limitations: (a)
No loan shall be made for any project unless such project shall have been approved
by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies and by the Surgeon
General, and unless such project is included in a comprehensive program developed
pursuant to this Act; (b) no loan shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 33% per centum oi the estimated reasonable cost thereof, as determined
by the Federal Works Administrator, or in an amount exceeding $250,000, which-
ever amount is the smaller; (c) every such loan shall bear interest at the rate of
2 per centum per annum, payable semiannually; and (d) the bonds or other
obligation evidencing any such loan (1) must be duly authorized and issued
pursuant to State and local law, and (2) may, as to the security thereof and the
payment of principal thereof and interest thereon, be subordinated (to the extent
deemed feasible and desirable by the Federal Works Administrator for facilitating
the financing of such projects) to other bonds or obligations of the obligor issued
to finance such project or that may then be outstanding.
[Sec. 6. (a) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator, in
carrying out their respective functions under this Act, shall provide for the review
of all reports o£ examinations, research, investigations, plans, studies, and surveys,
made pursuant to the provisions of this Act and all applications for loans under
section 5. In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works and of
approving loans in connection therewith, consideration shall be given to the
public benefits to be derived by the construction thereof, the propriety of Federal
aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and
maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public necessity for the
works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed by the applicant for
the loan for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the works
after completion of the construction thereof.
[SEC. 7. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, a sum not to exceed the sum of $22,500,000 for the
purpose of making loans under section 5 of this Act. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended.
[p. HI
[SEC. 8. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Secu-
rity Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1,
1948, and ending June 39, 1956, the sum of $1,000,000, to be allotted equitably and
paid to the States for expenditure by or under the direction of their respective
State water-pollution agencies, and to interstate agencies for expenditure by them,
for the conduct of investigations, research, surveys, and studies related to the
prevention and control of water pollution caused by industrial wastes. Sums
appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until expended,
shall be allotted by the Surgeon General in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Federal Security Administrator, and shall be paid prior to audit or settle-
ment by the General Accounting Office.
[(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each oi the five fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1953, a sum not to exceed $800,000 to enable the Federal
Works Administrator to erect and to furnish and to equip such buildings and
facilities at Cincinnati, Ohio, as may be necessary for the use of the Public Health
Service in connection with the research and study of water pollution and the
-------
264 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
training of personnel in work related to the control of water pollution. The
amount authorized for this purpose shall include the cost of preparation of draw-
ings and specifications, supervision of construction and other administrative ex-
penses incident to the work: Provided, That the Federal Works Agency shall
prepare the plans and specifications, make all necessary contracts and supervise
construction. Sums appropriated pursuant to this authorization shall remain
available until expended.
[ (c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works Agency
for each of the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948, and
ending June 30, 1956, a sum not to exceed the sum of $1,000,000 to enable the
Federal Works Administrator to make grants to States, municipalities, or inter-
state agencies to aid in financing the cost of engineering, architectural, and eco-
nomic investigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and other action preliminary to the construction of
projects approved by the appropriate State water pollution agency or agencies
and by the Surgeon General. Grants made under this subsection with respect
to any project shall not exceed whichever of the following amounts is the smaller:
(1) $20,000, or (2) 33Vs per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as deter-
mined by the Federal Works Administrator) of the action preliminary to the
construction of such project. Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall
remain available until expended]
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Sec. 5 (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1956, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1960, $2,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies
to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate
measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) jor a fiscal
year which shall be available for grants to interstate agencies and the portion
thereof which shall be available for grants to States shall be specified in the Act
appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Surgeon General
shall from time to time make allotments to the several States, in accordance with
regulations, on the basis of (1) the population, (2) the extent of the water pollution
problem, and (3) the financial need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any fiscal year the
Surgeon General shall pay to such State an amount equal to its Federal share (as
determined under subsection (i)) of the cost of carrying out its State plan
approved under subsection (f), including the cost of training personnel for State
and local water pollution control work and including the cost of administering
the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Surgeon General
shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies, in accordance with
regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon General finds reasonable and equitable.
He shall jrom time to time pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount
equal to such portion of the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection
(f) as may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the cost of
training personnel for water pollution control work and including the cost of ad-
ministering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations relating to the portion
of the cost of carrying out the
[P- 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 265
interstate agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States shall be designed
to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis similar to that of the States.
(j) The Surgeon General shall approve any plan for purposes of this section
•which, is submitted by the State water pollution control agency or, in the case of an
interstate agency, by such agency, and which meets such requirements as the
Surgeon General may prescribe by regulation.
(g) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to grants to States
and to interstate agencies under this section shall be made after consultation with
a conference oj the State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies.
The Surgeon General shall obtain the agreement, prior to the issuance of any
such regulations or amendments, of such State or interstate agencies.
(h) (1) "Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice and opportunity
for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or interstate agency finds
that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under this section has
been so changed that it no longer complies with a requirement prescribed by
regulation as a condition of approval of the plan; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to comply substan-
tially with such a requirement.
the Surgeon General shall notify such agency that no further payments will be
made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may be, under this sec-
tion (01 in his discretion that further payments will not be made to the State, or
to the interstate agency, for projects under or parts of the plan affected by such
failure) until he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he
is so satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no further payments to such State,
or to such interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section (or shall limit
payments to projects under or parts of the plan in -which, there is no such failure.)
(2) I) any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the Surgeon Gen-
eral's action with respect to it under this Subsection, it may appeal to the United
States Court oj Appeals for the circuit in which, such State (or any of the member
States, in the case of an interstate agency) is located. The summons and notice
oj appeal may be served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by
the Surgeon General, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be con-
clusive, but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Surgeon
General to take further evidence, and the Surgeon General may thereupon make
new or modified findings of fact and may modify his previous action. Such new
or modified findings oj fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the
weight oj the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of
the Surgeon General or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the
court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certioran or certification as provided in Title 28, United States Code, section 1254.
(i) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum less than
percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per capita income
o; such. State bears to the per capita income of the continental United States (ex-
cluding Alaska), except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case be more than
66% per centum or less than 3316 per centum, and (B) the Federal share for
Hawaii and Alaska shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands shall be 662/3 per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Surgeon General between
July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on the basis of the average
of the per capita incomes of the States and of the continental United States for the
three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available from
-------
266 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Department of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive for each of
the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next succeeding such promulga-
tion: Provided, Thai the Federal shares promulgated by the Surgeon General
pursuant to section 4 oj the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1955,
shall be conclusive for the period beginning July 1,1955, and ending June 30, 1957.
(j) The population oj the several States shall be determined on the basis of the
latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(k) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to subsection (d) or
(e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Surgeon General shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar
quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be paid to
each State (or to each interstate agency in the case of subsection (e) under
the provisions of such subsection for such period, such estimate to be based on
such records of the State (or the interstate agency) and information furnished
by it, and such other investigation, as the Surgeon General may find necessary.
(2) The Surgeon General shall pay to the State (or to the interstate agency)
from the allotment available therefor, the amount so estimated by him for any
[p. 13]
period, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any sum (not previously
adjusted under this paragraph) by which he finds that his estimate of the
amount to be paid such State (or such interstate agency) for any prior period
under such subsection was greater or less than the amount which should have
been paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facilities of
the Treasury Department, in such installments as the Surgeon General may
determine.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 6 f(b)] (a) There is hereby established in the Public Health Service a
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board to be composed as follows: The Surgeon
General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who shall be Chairman
of the Board, a representative of the Department of the Army, a representative
of the Department of the Interior, [a representative of the Federal Works Agency,
and a representative of the Department of Agriculture, designated by the Secre-
tary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Works Administrator,
and the Secretary of Agriculture] a representative of the Department of Com-
merce, a representative of the Department of Agriculture, a representative of the
Atomic Energy Commission, a representative of the National Science Foundation,
and a representative of the Federal Power Commission, designated by the Secre-
tary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the
Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the Federal
Power Commission, respectively; and [six] nine persons (not officers or employees
of the Federal Government) to be appointed [annually] by the President. One
of the persons appointed by the President shall be an engineer who is expert in
sewage and industrial-waste disposal, one shall be a person who shall have shown
an active interest in the field of wildlife conservation and recreation, and, except
as the President may determine that the purposes of this Act will be better fur-
thered by different representation, one shall be a person representative of mu-
nicipal government, one shall be a parson representative of State government,
[and] one shall be a person representative of county government, one shall be a
person representative of water suppliers, one shall be a person representative of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 267
affected industry[.], one shall be a person representative of interstate agencies, and
one shall be a person who shall have shown an active interest in the field of
agriculture. Each member appointed by the President shall hold office for a term
oj three years, except that (1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall
be appointed for the remainder of such term, and (2) the terms of office of the mem-
ben; first taking office after June 30,1955, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, three at the end oj two years after such date, and three
at the end of three years after such date, as designated by the President at the time
oj appointment. None of the members appointed by the President shall be eligible
for reappointment within one year after the end of his preceding term, but terms
commencing prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act amend-
ments oj 1955 shall not be deemed "preceeding terms" for purposes of this sentence,
[The members of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United States
shall be entitled to receive compensation at a per diem rate to be fixed by the
Federal Security Administrator, together with an allowance for actual and neces-
sary traveling and subsistence expenses while engaged on the business of the
Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to review the policies and program of
the Public Health Service as undertaken under authority of this Act and to make
recommendations thereon in reports to the Surgeon General. Such clerical and
technical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the duties of the Board
shall be provided from the personnel of the Public Health Service.] The members
oj the Board who are not officers or employees oj the United States, while attend-
ing conferences or meetings of the Board or while otherwise serving at the request
Oj the Surgeon General, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be
fixed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding $50
per diem, including travel time, and ichile away jrom their homes or regular
places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu oj subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U. S. C. 73 b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently.
(b) The board shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the
Surgeon General on matters of policy relating to the activities and functions of the
Surgeon General under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the
duties Oj the Board shall be provided from the personnel of the Public Health
Service.
[p. 14]
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
[SEC. 2. (d) (1)] Sec. 7. (a) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to
any State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such pollution
is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into
a tributary of such waters), which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a
State other than that in which the discharge originates, [is hereby declared to be
a public nuisance and] shall be subject to abatement as herein provided.
[(2)] (b) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports, surveys,
and studies, [finds] has reason to believe that any such pollution [declared to be a
public nuisance by paragraph (1) oi this subsection] is occurring, he shall give
formal notification thereof to the person or persons discharging any matter causing
or contributing to such pollution and shall advise the water pollution control
agency or interstate agency oi the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate oi such notification. The [This] notification [may outline recom-
-------
268 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mended remedial measures which are reasonable and equitable in that case and]
shall specify a reasonable time to secure abatement of the pollution. [If action
calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified is not
commenced, this failure shall again be brought to the attention of the person or
persons discharging the matter and of the water pollution agency or interstate
agency of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate. The
notification to such agency may be accompanied by a recommendation that it
initiate a suit to abate the pollution in a court of proper jurisdiction.
[(3) Ii, within a reasonable time after the second notification by the Surgeon
General, the person or persons discharging the matter fail to initiate action to
abate the pollution or the State water pollution agency or interstate agency fails
to initiate a suit to secure abatement, the Federal Security Administrator is author-
ized to call a public hearing,] (c) // action reasonably calculated to secure abate-
ment of the pollution within the time specified in the notification pursuant to
subsection (b) is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is
authorized to call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution origi-
nate, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the [Administrator,]
Secretary, who may be officers or employees of the [Federal Security Agency]
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare or of the water pollution control
agency or interstate agency of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate (except that [at least one of the members of the board shall be a
representative of] the water pollution control agency of the State or States where
such discharge or discharges originate shall be given an opportunity to select at
least one member of the Board and at least one member shall be a representative
of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the board shall
be persons other than officers or employees of the [Federal Security Agency] De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare). On the basis of the evidence
presented at such hearing, the board shall make findings as to whether pollution
referred to in subsection (a) is occurring. If the board finds such pollution is
occurring, it [the board] shall make [its] recommendations to the [Federal Security
Administrator] Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning the meas-
sures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of
such pollution. The Secretary shall send a copy of such findings and recommenda-
tions to the person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to
such pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than
six months) to secure abatement oj such pollution, and shall also send a copy of
such findings and recommendations and of such notice to the water pollution
control agency, and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where
such discharge or discharges originate.
[(4) After affording the person or persons discharging the matter causing or
contributing to the pollution reasonable opportunity to comply with the recom-
mendations of the board, the Federal Security Administrator] (d) If action
reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pollution within the time specified
in the notice prescribed in subsection (c) is not taken, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare shall send a further notice to such person or persons, and
shall send a copy thereof to the water pollution control agency, and to the inter-
state agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate. Such further notice shall specify a reasonable time (not less than three
months) to secure abatement of such pollution. If action reasonably calculated to
secure abatement oj the pollution within the time specified in such further notice
is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may, with the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 269
sent of the water pollution agency (or
[p.15]
of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State or States in
which the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged or at the
request of the water pollution control agency (or any officer or employee authorized
to make such request) of any other State or States where the health or welfare of
any person or persons is adversely affected by such pollution, request the Attorney
Genera) to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the
pollution.
[(5) Before or after any suit authorized by paragraph (4) is commenced, any
person who is alleged to be discharging matter contributing to the pollution,
abatement of which is sought, may, with the consent of the water pollution agency
(or of any officer or agency authorized to give such consent) of the State in which
such matter is discharged, be joined as defendant. The court shall have power
to enforce its judgment against any such defendant.]
1(6)] (e) In any suit brought pursuant to [paragraph (4)] subsection (d) in
which two or more persons in different judicial districts are originally joined as
defendants, the suit may be commenced in the judicial district in which any dis-
charge caused by any of the defendants occurs.
[(7)] (/) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript of
the proceedings before the board and a copy of the board's recommendation;
and [may] shall receive such further evidence as the court in its discretion deems
proper1. The court, giving due consideration to the practicability and to the
physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved,
shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judg-
ment, as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. [The juris-
diction of the Surgeon General, or any other agency which has jurisdiction pursu-
ant to the provisions of this Act, shall not extend to any region or areas nor
shall it aftect the rights or jurisdiction of any public body where there are in effect
provisions for sewage disposal pursuant to agreement between the United States
Oi America and any such public body by stipulation entered in the Supreme Court
oi the United States. While any such stipulation or modification thereof is in force
and eftect, no proceedings of any kind may be maintained by virtue of this Act
against such public body or any public agency, corporation, or individual within
its jurisdiction. Neither this provision nor any provision of this Act shall ba
construed to give the Surgeon General or any other person or agency the right
to intervene in the said proceedings wherein such stipulation was entered.]
[(8)] (g) As used in this [subsection] section, the term "person" includes an
individual, corporation, partnership, association, a Siate, municipality, and [a]
political subdivision of [a] the State.
[Sec. 8. (d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Security
Agency for each oi the eight fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30,1956, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $2,000,000) as may be
necessary to enable it to carry out its iunctions under this Act.
[(e) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Works
Agency for each of the eight fiscal years during the psriod beginning July 1, 1948,
and ending June 30, 1956, such sum (not to exceed the sum of $500,000) as may
be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
[SEC. 8. (a) Five officers may be appointed to grades in the Regular Corps of
the Public Health Service above that oi senior assistant, but not to a grade above
that of director, to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act. Officers
-------
270 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
appointed pursuant to this subsection in any fiscal year shall not be counted as
part o£ the 10 per centum of the original appointments authorized to be made in
such year under section 207 (b) of the Public Health Service Act; but they shall
for all other purposes be treated as though appointed pursuant to such section
207 (b).
[(b) The Federal Security Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the Federal Government, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
[(c) (1) Upon written request of the Federal Works Administrator, from time
to time submitted to the Federal Security Administrator, specifying (a) particular
projects approved by the Surgeon General, (b) the total estimated costs of such
projects, and (c) the total sum requested for loans which the Federal Works
Administrator proposes to make for such projects, the Federal Security Admin-
istrator shall transfer such total sum (within the amount appropriated therefor)
[p-16]
to the Federal Works Administrator for the making of loans for such projects
pursuant to section 5 hereof. In making such loans, the Federal Works Admin-
istrator shall adhere to the order or sequence of priority for projects established
by the Surgeon General and shall take such measures as, in his judgment, will
assure that the engineering plans and specifications, the details of construction,
and the completed treatment works conform to the project as approved by the
Surgeon General; and the Federal Works Administrator shall furnish written
reports to the Federal Security Administrator on the progress of the work.
[ (2) The Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized (a) to hold, admin-
ister, exchange, refund, or sell at public or private sale any bonds or other obliga-
tions evidencing loans made under this Act; and (b) to collect, or provide for the
collection of, interest on and principal of such bonds or other obligations. All
moneys received as proceeds from such sales, and all moneys so collected, shall
be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
[(d) The Surgeon General and the Federal Works Administrator are each
authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out their respec-
tive functions under this Act.]
ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 8. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out his junctions under this Act. All regulations of the Sur-
geon General under this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary oj
Health, Education and Welfare. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer
or employee oj the Public Health Service such of his powers and duties under this
Act, except the making oj regulations, as he may deem necessary or expedient.
(b) The Secretary oj Health, Education, and Welfare, with the consent of the
head oj any other agency oj the United States, may utilize such officers and
employees oj such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the
purposes of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, such sums as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 10. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the State health
authority, except that, in the case of any State in which there is a single State
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 271
agency, other than the State health authority, charged with responsibility for
enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of water pollution, it means such
other State [agency;] agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress,
on any other agency of two or more States, having substantial powers or duties
pertaining to the [abatement] control of pollution of [waters;] waters.
[(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the treat-
ment of sewage or industrial waste of a liquid nature, including the necessary
intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances, and includes any extensions, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations thereof;]
[(d)] (c) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin [Islands;] Islands.
[(e)] (d) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other waters
than flow across, or form a part of [, State] boundaries [; and] between two or
more States; and
[(f)] (e) The term "municipality" means a city, town, county, district, or other
public body created by or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over
disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.
OTHER AUTHORITY WOT EFFECTED
SEC. [11] 10. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limiting the
functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of the Public Health
Service, or of any other officer or agency of the United States, relating to water
pollution, or (2) affecting or impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act,
1924, or section 13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropria-
[p. 17]
tions for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899, as amended,
or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [12] 11. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision of
this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall
not be affected thereby.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [13] 12. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution Control
Act."
[p. 18]
-------
272 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2d(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.E. EEP. No. 2479,84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
JUNE 26,1956.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 890].
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 890) to extend
and strengthen the Water Pollution Control Act, 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 and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following: That the Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 466—466J) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"DECLARATION OF POLICY
"Section 1. (a) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits result-
ing to the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of
water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights
oj the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and financial
aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in connection
with the prevention and control of water pollution. To this end, the
Surgeon General of the Public Health Service shall administer this
Act through the Public Health Service and under the supervision and
direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
" (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 273
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to
the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
[P.I]
"COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
"Sec. 2. The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation,
and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pol-
lution control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the munici-
palities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive
programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters
and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface
and underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive
programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are
necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propa-
gation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose
of this section, the Surgeon General is authorized to make joint in-
vestigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in
any State or States, and if the discharges of any sewage, industrial
wastes, or substance which may adversely affect such waters.
"INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
"Sec. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States for the prevention and control of water pollu-
tion; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable,
uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control of water
pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention
and control of water pollution.
" (b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) coopera-
tive effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of
water pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise,
as they may deem dssirable for making effective such agreements
and compacts. IVo such, agreement or compact shall be binding or
obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has
been approved by the Congress.
"RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
"Sec. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public
Health Service and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance
to other appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate or
local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and
-------
274 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordi-
nation of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and
studies relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollu-
tion. In carrying out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is authorized
to—
" (1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to re-
search, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the preven-
tion and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
" (2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research, train-
ing, and demonstrations by contract with public or private agen-
cies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
[p. 2]
" (3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
" (4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public
Health Service with such stipends and allowances, including
traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to
procure the assistance of the most promising research fellowships:
Provided, That the total sum authorized to be appropriated for
any fiscal year for fellowships pursuant to this subparagraph shall
not exceed $100,000; and
" (5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel
of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
" (b) The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water
pollution control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations
and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of
water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community,
municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a
solution of such problem.
" (c) The Surgeon General shall, in cooperation with other Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect
and disseminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water
quality and other information insofar as such data or other information
relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 275
"GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
"Sec. 5. (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
grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting
the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the
prevention and control of water pollution.
" (b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants
to States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
" (c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the
Surgeon General shall from time to time make allotments to the sev-
eral States, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the
population, (2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the
financial need of the respective States.
" (d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
fiscal year the Surgeon General shall pay to such State an amount
equal to its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of
the cost of carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f),
including the cost of training personnel for State and local water
pollution control work and including the cost of administering the
State plan.
" (e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the
Surgeon General shall from time to time make allotments to interstate
agencies, in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon
General finds reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time
pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such
portion of the cost of carrying out its plan approved undsr subsection
(f) as may be deter-
[P-3]
mined in accordance with regulations, including the cost of training
personnel for u>ater pollution control work and including the cost of
administering the interstate agency's plan. The regulations relating
to the portion of the cost of carrying out the interstate agency's plan
which shall be borne by the United States shall be designed to place
such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis similar to that of the
States.
" (/) The Surgeon General shall approve any plan for the preven-
tion and control of water pollution which is submitted by the State
water pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency,
by such agency, if such plan—
" (1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
-------
276 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
" (2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Surgeon General
may from time to time reasonably require to carry out his
functions under this Act;
" (3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be fol-
lowed in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its
administration;
" (4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program, for prevention and control of water pollution;
and
" (5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan.
The Surgeon General shall not disapprove any plan without first giv-
ing reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
" (9) W Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice
and opportunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency
or interstate agency finds that—
" (A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with a
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
" (B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement,
the Surgeon General shall notify such agency that no further pay-
ments will be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case
may be, under this section (or in his discretion that further payments
will not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects
under or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied
that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
the Surgeon General shall make no further payments to such State,
or to such interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section
(or shall limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan in
which there is no such failure).
" (2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Surgeon General's action with respect to it under this subsection, it
may appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in
which such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an inter-
state agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may be
served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 277
Surgeon General, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall
be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the
case to the Surgeon General to take further evidence, and the Surgeon
General may thereupon make
[p. 4]
new or modified findings of fact and -may modify his previous action.
Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive
unless contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court shall have
jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Surgeon General or to set it
aside, in whole or in part. The judgmznt of the court shall be subject
to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari
or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code, section 1254.
" (h) (1) The 'Federal share' for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the continental United States (excluding Alaska), except that (A) the
Federal share shall in no case be more than 68% per centum or less
than 33Vs per centum, and (B) the Federal share for Hawaii and
Alaska shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands shall be 66% per centum.
" (2) The 'Federal shares' shall be promulgated by the Surgeon
General between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered
year, on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the
States and of the continental United States for the three most recent
consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available from the
Department of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive for
each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next suc-
ceeding such promulgation: Provided, That the Federal shares pro-
mulgated by the Surgeon General pursuant to section 4 of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendmsnts of 1956, shall be conclusive for the
period beginning July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
" (i) The population of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of
Commerce.
" (j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
" (1) The Surgeon General shall, prior to the beginning of each
calendar quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the
amount to be paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the
case of subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for
such period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State
(or the interstate agency) and information furnished by it, and such
other investigation, as the Surgeon General may find necessary.
-------
278 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (2) The Surgeon General shall pay to the State (or to the inter-
state agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so
estimated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case
may be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph)
by which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such subsection
was greater or less than the amount which should have been paid to
such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such sub-
section. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing facili-
ties of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the Surgeon
General may determine.
"GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
"Sec. 6. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to make grants to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith.
[p. 5]
" (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Surgeon General and unless such project is included in a com-
prehensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) no grant shall
be made for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the
estimated reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Surgeon
General or in an amount exceeding $250,000, whichever is the smaller:
Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost; (3) no
grant shall be made for any project under this section until the appli-
cant has made provision satisfactory to the Surgeon General for
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof; and (4) no
grant shall be made for any project under this section unless such
project is in conformity with the State water pollution control plan
submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 5 and has been certified
by the State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over
other eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water
pollution control needs.
" (c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, consid-
eration shall be given by the Surgeon General to the public benefits to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 279
be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid in such
construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and
maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public necessity
for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or proposed
by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring proper
and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment works after
completion of the construction thereof. The sums appropriated pur-
suant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be allotted by the
Surgeon General from time to lime, in accordance with regulations,
as follows: (1) 50 per centum 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 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. The allotment of a State under the preceding sentence shall
be available, in accordance with the provisions of this section, for
payments with respect to projects in such State which have been ap-
proved under this section. For purposes of this section, population
shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial census for
which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of Commerce,
and per capita income for each State and for the United States shall
be determined on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes
of the States and of the continental United States for the three most
recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce.
" (d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year the sum of $50,000,000 for the purpose of making grants under
this section: Provided, That the aggregate of sums so appropriated
shall not exceed $500,000,000. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 per centum of the
funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be used for grants for
the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities of one
hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
" (e) The Surgeon General shall make payments under this section
through the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury.
[p. 6]
Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construc-
tion oj the project for which the amount was paid. As used in this
section the term 'construction' includes preliminary planning to de-
termine the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works,
the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investiga-
tions and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifi-
cations, procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of
-------
280 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
treatment works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works; and the
inspection and supervision of the construction of treatment works.
"WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
"Sec. 7. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Public Health
Service a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the
Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who
shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President none
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected
from among representatives of various State, interstate and local gov-
ernmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to,
affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public
and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an active
interest in the field of water pollution prevention and control, as well
as other individuals who are expert in this field.
" (2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to fill
a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking office
after June 30,1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of one year
after such date, three at the end of two years after such date, and three
at the end of three years after such date, as designated by the Presi-
dent at the time of appointment. None of the members appointed by
the President shall be eligible for reappointmsnt within one year after
the end of his preceding term, but terms commencing prior to the en-
actment of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956
shall not be deemed 'preceding terms' for purposes of this sentence.
" (B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding
$50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes
or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, in-
cluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
736-2) for persons in the Government service employed intermittently.
" (b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Surgeon General on matters of policy relating to the ac-
tivities and functions of the Surgeon General under this Act.
" (c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 281
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel
of the Public Health Service.
[p. 7]
"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE
WATERS
"Sec. 8. (a) The pollution of interstate waters in or adjacent to any
State or States (whether the matter causing or contributing to such
pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches such wa-
ters after discharge into a tributary of such waters), which endangers
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which
the discharge originates, shall be subject to abatement as herein
provided.
" (b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate waters shall be en-
couraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to
court order under subsection (g), be displaced by Federal enforce-
ment action.
" (c) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports,
surveys, or studies, has reason to believe that any pollution referred to
in subsection (a) is occurring, or whenever requested by a State water
pollution control agency or the Governor of any State, he shall give
formal notification of any such pollution to the State water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States
where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and shall call promptly a conference of the State
water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, of the
State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or con-
tributing to such pollution originates and of the State or States
claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution.
" (2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
" (3) Following this conference, the Surgeon General shall prepare
and forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of pollution of interstate waters subject to abatement under this
Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of the pollu-
tion; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abating
the pollution.
" (d) If the Surgeon General believes, upon the conclusion of the
conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates
-------
282 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State
water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action.
The Surgeon General is to allow at least six months for the taking
of sucTi action.
" (e) If sucTi remedial action is not taken or action reasonably
calculated to secure abatement of such pollution is not taken, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall call a public
hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the dis-
charge or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution
originated,, before a board of five or more persons appointed by the
Secretary. Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing
to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely
affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one
member of the board and at least one member shall be a representative
of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the
board shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior
notice of said hearing shall be given to the State water pollution con-
trol agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the
aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis
[p. 8]
of the evidence presented at such hearing, the board shall make find-
ings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring
and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being
made. If the board finds such pollution is occurring and effective
progress toward abatement is not being made it shall make recom-
mendations to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and
equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall
send such findings and recommendations to the person or persons
discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution,
together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six
months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send
such findings and recommendations and such notice to the State water
pollution control agency, and to the interstate agency, if any, of the
State or States where such discharge or discharges originate.
" (f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
with the written consent of the State water pollution control agency
(or any officer or employee authorized to give such consent) of the
State or States where the matter causing or contributing to the pollu-
tion is discharged or at the written request of the State water pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 283
control agency (or any officer or employee authorized to make such
request) of any other State or States where the health or welfare of
persons is endangered by such pollution, may request the Attorney
General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abate-
ment of the pollution.
" (g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court
in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration
to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to
enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require.
" (h) As used in this section, the term 'person' includes an indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and
political subdivision of the State.
"COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL
INSTALLATIONS
"Sec. 9. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any build-
ing, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable and
consistent with the interests of the United States and within any avail-
able appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter is
discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the pollu-
tion of such waters.
"ADMINISTRATION
"Sec. 10. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
All regulations of the Surgeon General under this Act shall be subject
to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or employee of the
Public
[p. 9]
Health Service such of his powers and duties under this Act, except
the making of regulations, as he may deem necessary or expedient.
" (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the
consent of the head of any other agency of the United States, may
utilize such officers and employees of such agency as may be found
necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
" (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the De-
-------
284 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be
necessary to enable it to carry out its junctions under this Act.
"DEFINITIONS
"Sec. 11. When used in this Act—
" (a) The term 'State water pollution control agency' means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
" (b) The term 'interstate agency' means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact ap-
proved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pollu-
tion of waters.
" (c) The term 'treatment works' means the various devices used in
the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
" (d) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
" (e) The term 'interstate waters' means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of, boundaries between two or
more States.
" (f) The term 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes.
"OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
"Sec. 12. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or oj the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of the
United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or impair-
ing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections 13 through
17 of the Act entitled 'An Act making appropriations for the construc-
tion, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and
harbors and for other purposes', approved March 3,1899, as amended,
or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of the United
States.
-------
STATI/TES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 285
"SEPARABILITY
"Sec. 13. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
[p. 10]
"SHORT TITLE
"Sec. 14. This Act may be cited as the 'Federal Water Pollution
Control Act'."
Sec. 2. The title of such Act is amended to read "An Act to provide
for water pollution control activities in the Public Health Service of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes."
Sec. 3. Terms of office as members of the Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board (established pursuant to section 6 (b) of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as in effect prior to the enactment of this Act)
subsisting on the date of enactment of this Act shall expire at the close
of business on such date.
Sec. 4. As soon as possible after the date of enactment of this Act
the Surgeon General shall promulgate Federal shares in the manner
provided in subsection (h) of section 5 of the Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by this Act (and without regard to the date specified
therein for such promulgation), such Federal shares to be conclusive
for the purposes of section 5 of such Act for the period beginning July
1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
Sec. 5. In the case of any discharge or discharges causing or con-
tributing to water pollution with respect to which the actions by the
Surgeon General prescribed under paragraph (2) of section 2 (d) of
the Water Pollution Control Act, as in effect prior to the enactment
of this Act, have already been completed prior to such enactment, the
provisions of such section shall continue to be applicable; except that
nothing in this section shall prevent action with respect to any such
pollution under and in accordance with the provisions of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by this Act.
Sec. 6. This Act may be cited as the "Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1956."
-------
286 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
And the House agree to the same.
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
JOHN J. DEMPSEY,
By JOHN A. BLATNIK,
GEO. A. DONDERO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
DENNIS CHAVEZ,
ROBERT S. KERR,
ALBERT GORE,
By ROBT. S. KERR,
EDWARD MARTIN,
FRANCIS CASE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 11]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to
the bill (S. 890) to extend and strengthen the Water Pollution Control
Act, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accom-
panying conference report:
The House amendment struck out all of the Senate bill after the
enacting clause and inserted a new text. The agreement reached in
conference differs from both the Senate bill and the House amend-
ment. The following discussion explains these differences, except
differences which are clerical, conforming, or purely technical.
Section 1: The Senate bill, in its statement of policy, indicates that
Federal financial aid and services will be given only to States and
interstate agencies (as provided elsewhere in the bill).
The House amendment added municipalities to the political agencies
which may be assisted to reflect inclusion in section 6 of provisions for
financial aid for construction of municipal sswage treatment works.
The conference agreement adopts the House amendment.
Section 2: The House amendment is identical with the Senate bill,
except that the House amendment restricts the pollution with respect
to which comprehensive programs for elimination or reducing pollu-
tion may be developed to pollution of "interstate waters and tribu-
taries thereof."
The conference agreement is identical with the House amendment.
Section 4: The Senate bill (in subsec. (a) (4) authorized the Sur-
geon General to establish and maintain research fellowships.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 287
The comparable provision of the House amendment was similar,
except that it authorized the Surgeon General to provide and main-
tain opportunities for study by students, and limited the total sums
which may be appropriated for this purpose to $100,000 for any
fiscal year.
The conference agreement differs from the House amendment in
providing for research fellowships rather than opportunities for study;
it adopts, however, the $100,000 limitation contained in the House
amendment.
The House amendment added a subsection (c) to the bill, which
provided that the Surgeon General shall collect and disseminate basic
data on chemical, physical, and biological water quality, and certain
other information, relating to water pollution prevention and control.
The Senate bill contained no comparable provision.
The conference agreement provides that in collecting and dissemi-
nating such data he shall cooperate with Federal, State, and local
agencies having related responsibilities.
Section 5: Subsection (a) of the Senate bill, in authorizing grants to
State and interstate agencies for the administration of their water
pollution control programs, provided that grants should be made for
the fiscal years 1956 through 1960, that the maximum appropriated
[p.12]
for a year should be $2 million, and that funds appropriated should
remain available until expended.
The comparable provision of the House amendment, similar to the
Senate bill in other respects, provided that the grants should be made
for the fiscal years 1957 through 1961 and that the maximum appro-
priated should be $5 million; it also struck out the provision which
permits the funds so appropriated to remain available until expended.
The conference agreement is identical with the Housa amendment,
except that in lieu of the $5 million limitation, such agreement contains
a $3 million limitation.
Subsection (f) in the Senate bill provided that the Surgeon General
should approve any plan for the purposes of the section if it meets
requirements prescribed in regulations of the Surgeon General.
The House amendment set forth in the bill the requirements which
must bs met by the State plans and provided that such a plan shall be
approved only if it—
(1) Provides for administration, or for supervision of the
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or interstate agency concerned;
(2) Provides for making reports to the Surgeon General;
(3) Sets forth the plans, policies, and mathods to ba followed
-------
288 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in carrying out the plan;
(4) Provides for the extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
and
(5) Provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for proper and efficient
administration of the plan.
The House amendment also provided for affording opportunity for
a hearing to the State or interstate agency bsfore disapproving a plan
submitted by it.
The conference substitute is substantially the same as the House
amendment.
Subsection (h) (2) in the conference agreement, except for certain
date changes, is identical with the Senate bill. It was not included
in the House amendment.
Section 6: Section 6 of the House amendment contained authoriza-
tion for grants to be made to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal
or interstate agency for the construction of sewage-treatment works.
Such authorization was not contained in the bill as it passed the
Senate. The House amendment authorized $50 million annually for
construction grants, up to a total of $500 million. It also provided
that at least 50 percent of the funds appropriated would be used for
the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities of 125,000
population or less, and that no grant would be made for any project
in an amount exceeding 33 % percent of the reasonable cost of the
project or $300,000, whichever is the smaller.
The agreement reached by the conferees retains the total amounts
for grants but limits the grant for any project to 30 percent of the
reasonable cost of the project, or $250,000, whichever is the smaller.
In addition, the conferees agreed to a formula for the allotment of
funds among the States which is as follows: (1) 50 percent to be al-
lotted in the ratio that the population of each State bears to the popula-
tion of all States, and (2) 50 percent to be allotted in the ratio that the
[p. 13]
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
quotient for all States.
In addition, the House amendment was amended by the conferees
to provide that the projects to be constructed must be in conformity
with the State water pollution control plan submitted pursuant to the
provisions of section 5 of the bill and must have bsen certified by the
State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over other
eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 289
control needs. The funds would be made available to the municipality
in which the treatment plant would be constructed.
The conferees deleted a provision in the House amendment which
provided that the rates of pay for laborers and mechanics engaged in
the construction of treatment works would not be less than the pre-
vailing local wage rates for similar work as determined in accordance
with Public Law 403 of the 74th Congress, approved August 30, 1935,
as amended.
The conferees also deleted a provision which provided for setting
aside at least 10 percent of the total authorized sums for advance-
planning grants. While the conferees were favorably disposed toward
aid for advanced planning, they felt that the problem was adequately
taken care of under existing laws and other provisions of this section.
Section 7: Subsection (a) in the Senate bill provided for an advisory
board having members representative of, generally speaking, the
following agencies and interests: The Surgeon General, Department
of the Army, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce,
Department of Agriculture, Atomic Energy Commission, the National
Science Foundation, the Federal Power Commission, an engineer
expert in sewage and industrial-waste disposal, a person interested in
wildlife conservation and recreation, municipal governments, State
governments, affected industry, interstate agencies, a person interested
in agriculture.
In contrast, the House amendment provided that the Board would
be composed of the Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer
designated by him (who would be chairman) and nine members ap-
pointed by the President from persons other than Federal officers and
employees. The amendment provided for the selection of the ap-
pointed members from among representatives of various State, inter-
state, and local governmental agencies, of public or private interests
contributing to, affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of
other public and private agencies, organizations, or groups actively
interested in water-pollution prevention and control, as well as other
individuals who are experts in this field.
Except for a technical date change and other technical changes, the
House amendment was identical in other respects with the Senate
bill. The substitute agreed upon in conference is the same as the
House bill, except for one technical change.
Section 8: Both the Senate bill and the House amendment contain
provisions relating to enforcement measures against pollution of inter-
state waters. While both provisions have the same end in view there
is considerable difference between them in the manner in which this
end is reached. The following discussion describes the differences
between the Senate bill and the conference agreemsnt (which, except
-------
290 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for a technical change, is identical with the House amendment).
[p. 14]
Subsection (a) is the same in both the Senate bill and conference
agreement.
Subsection (b) of the conference agreement provides for the en-
couragement of State and interstate action to abate pollution of inter-
state waters, but that Federal enforcement action shall not displace
State and interstate action, except as otherwise provided by or pur-
suant to a court order under the section.
Under subsection (b) of the Senate bill the Surgeon General would
give notice simultaneously to persons who are causing the pollution
and to the appropriate State agency or interstate agency. The notice
would specify a reasonable time within which abatement of the pollu-
tion should be secured. Under the House amendment the Surgeon
General would first call a conference of the State and interstate
agencies concerned. If, after such a conference, the Surgeon General
believes reasonable progress is not being made he would notify the
State agency to take necessary remedial action. He would allow 6
months for the taking of such action. At that time the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare would call a public hearing.
The provision of the conference agreement which provides for the
hearing differs from the Senate bill in that each State adversely
affected by the pollution must also be given opportunity to select a
member of the hearing board. In the Senate bill only the State where
the pollution originates and the Department of Commerce must be
given such an opportunity. The conference agreement also requires
that three weeks notice of the hearing be given to the State, interstate
agencies, and to the persons who are causing the pollution in question.
After the hearing, under the Senate bill, the Secretary would send
the findings and recommendation of the board (if any) to the person
causing the pollution together with a notice specifying a reasonable
time (not less than 6 months) to secure abatement of the pollution.
If action has not been taken within that period, then an additional 3
months is given.
The conference agreement does not provide for this additional 3
months period.
The Senate bill provided that where there is a joinder of defendants
in different judicial districts, the action may be brought in any judicial
district where the discharge caused by one of the defendants occurred.
This provision was not included in the House amendment or in the
conference agreement.
The House amendment, in the provision giving the courts jurisdic-
tion of actions brought under this section, provides that the court shall
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 291
give due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and
economic feasibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved.
This provision was not included in the Senate bill. The conference
agreement is the same as the House amendment.
Section 9: This section of the conference agreement, which appears
also in the House amendment, declares the congressional intent that
Federal agencies discharging matter into any waters shall cooperate
with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and State,
interstate, and local agencies, in preventing or controlling the pollu-
tion of such waters.
The identical provision was contained in the Senate bill, but as
section 5 of the bill rather than as a section of the amended Water
Pollution Control Act.
[p. 15]
Section 11: This section, containing definitions, was the same in the
Senate bill and the House amendments except that the House amend-
ment defined "treatment works" and made some changes in the
definition of "interstate waters."
The term "treatment works" was defined in the House bill to mean
the various devices used in the treatment of sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature, including the necessary intercepting sewers,
outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and their
appurtenances and includes any extensions, improvements, remodel-
ing, additions, and alterations thereof. The conference agreement is
the same as the House amendment.
The Senate bill defined "interstate waters" to mean all rivers, lakes,
and other waters that flow across, or form a part of State boundaries.
The conference agreement (which is the same as the House bill)
defines the term to mean all rivers, lakes, and other waters that flow
across, or form a part of boundaries between two or more States.
Section 4 (of the bill): Section 4 of the conference agreement is the
same, except for certain date changes, as the Senate bill. It was not
included in the House bill.
This section relates to promulgation of "Federal shares" for pur-
poses of section 5 of the amended Water Pollution Control Act
(relating to grants to State and interstate agencies for their water
pollution control programs) for the first 3 years.
Section 5 (of the bill): Section 5 of the conference agreement was
not included in the Senate bill. It preserves the legality of any Fed-
eral action relating to abatement of interstate pollution already begun
under the existing law.
Section 6 (of the bill): This section contains a short title for the bill.
It is the same as the House amendment (which differed from the
-------
292
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Senate bill only in the date).
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
JOHN J, DEMPSEY,
By JOHN A. BLATNIK,
GEO. A. DONDERO,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 16]
1.2d(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.2d(4)(a) Vol. 101 (1955), June 17: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
8623, 8627
EXTENSION AND STRENGTHENING
OF THE WATER POLLUTION CON-
TROL ACT
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 547, S. 890.
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill (S. 890) to
extend and strengthen the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, which had been re-
ported from the Committee on Public
Works with amendments,
* * * * *
[p. 8623]
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I ask unani-
mous consent that the committee
amendments be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
committee amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Mr.
President, on behalf of the Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], who is
absent on official business, I desire to
clarify one point relative to the pending
bill, S. 890, to extend the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.
Section 7 of the bill as reported by
the comittee provides additional en-
forcement authority to the Federal Gov-
ernment, and this has been a matter of
some concern.
Is it the intent of the committee that
the Federal Government, under the pro-
visions of the bill, shall take over, pre-
empt, or supersede the enforcement
authority of the States or interstate pol-
lution control agencies in the matter of
control or abatement of pollution?
Mr. CHAVEZ. That is not the intent
of the committee.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Then
would it be correct to state that where a
State, or an interstate agency, is pro-
ceeding under a comprehensive, effec-
tive program for control and abatement
of pollution, the Surgeon General would
not invoke the Federal enforcement
provisions?
Mr. CHAVEZ. The Surgeon General
would not invoke the Federal enforce-
ment provisions of section 7 of the bill
where a State or an interstate agency
is proceeding under a comprehensive,
effective program for control and abate-
ment of pollution.
Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. I
think the chairman of the committee
has correctly stated the intent of the
committee when it reported the bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent to have a
paragraph from the report printed in
the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the excerpt
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
293
from the report (No. 543) was ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE BILL
The purpose of the bill here reported is
to authorize the Public Health Service, un-
der the supervision and direction of the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare, to
continue and improve the program it is car-
rying on under the Water Pollution Control
Act (Public Law 845, 80th Cong.). It would
extend and improve the provisions of that
act, which is now scheduled to expire on
June 30, 1956. The changes which the bill
would make in the act are based on experi-
ence with its administration and on the
views of public agencies, conservation inter-
ests, industry, and others which have testi-
fied before or submitted material to the
committee in connection with this legisla-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
[p. 8627]
1.2d(4)(b) Vol. 102 (1956), June 13: Amended and passed House;
House insists on its amendments and asks for conference, pp. 10278,
10281
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the bill (S. 890) to ex-
tend and strengthen the Water Pollution
Control Act.
*****
[p.10278]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BLATNIK
Strike ovit all after the enacting clause and
insert the provisions of the bill H R. 9540
as passed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House insist on its amendment
and ask a conference with the Senate
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 10281]
1.2d(4)(c) Vol. 102 (1956), June 14: Senate disagrees to House amend-
ments and agrees to conference, pp. 10323; 10327
THE SO-CALLED BLATNIK ANTI-
POLLUTION BILL
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I now yield
to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I do not
know how anyone could appreciate more
than does the Senator from Oregon the
wonderful cooperation he always re-
ceives from the majority leader. It is
only indicative of the complete impar-
tiality and fairness with which the ma-
jority leader treats his colleagues on the
floor of the Senate in performing his
duties as majority leader.
I rise, Mr. President, to pay a very
brief but deserving word of commenda-
tion to Representative BLATNIK, of Min-
nesota, for what I consider to be a great
act of statesmanship which he performed
in the House of Representatives in con-
nection with the bill known as the
Blatnik antipollution bill. I speak as a
member of the District of Columbia
Committee of the Senate. As the record
shows, for some years past I have been
doing the best I could in the Senate in
an effort to have Congress recognize the
importance of enacting antipollution
legislation.
As I have pointed out in past speeches,
-------
294
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
there flows through the Capital of the
United States the filthiest river in the
world. There is not in any other
country a single river which is so filthy
as the river which flows practically
within stone's throw of the Capitol of
the United States. It is a disgusting
national disgrace that within the city
boundaries of Washington, D.C., there
flows a river so filthy that in some places
there is sewage sludge of a depth of from
12 to 14 feet. Flowing through the Capi-
tal of the United States is a river which
ought to be one of the great recreational
streams of America, but it is so filthy
that it is not safe for a single child to go
wading in the river, let alone go swim-
ming in it. The river is so filthy that
when a canoe capsizes and throws the
occupant into the river, a doctor is more
concerned about what may happen to
the body of the person by way of pos-
sible disease infection, than he is about
the exposure to which the person may
have been subjected, or the fact that
he came near drowning
Those are the facts, Mr. President. So
the Representative from Minnesota is
deserving of the commendation of every
citizen of the District of Columbia for
what he has succeeded in doing on the
House side in getting the Blatnik bill
passed, in the face of some claims of
very false economy. I think the bill
will stand to his everlasting credit.
I hope that we on the Senate side will
be as wise as the Members on the House
side were yesterday when they passed
the Blatnik bill. As I said to Repre-
sentative BLATNIK in a personal conver-
sation this morning, and as I now want
to say on the floor of the Senate, that,
as a member of the District of Columbia
Committee, I intend to do everything
within my power to obtain favorable
consideration of the Blatnik antipollu-
tion bill in the Senate; and I call upon
the members of the Senate District of
Columbia Committee for the quickest
possible action on the Blatnik proposal.
I hope the newspapers of the District
of Columbia will wake up to this local
issue and proceed to give us their help
immediately, because they have a great
social responsibility in the District of
Columbia to be of maximum assistance
in educating the public in regard to the
meritorious features of the Blatnik bill.
I hope to live so long, Mr. President,
as to see the Potomac River become a
recreational river. I hope to live so long,
Mr. President, as to see the Potomac
become a river in which the youngsters
of the District of Columbia, and of the
Nation as they come here, can go swim-
ming. I hope to see it become a beauti-
ful recreational stream, as it should be.
I hope also to live so long as to see the
Congress of the United States use the
Potomac River as a sort of pilot-plant
operation, demonstrating to the Nation
what can be done in the matter of clean-
ing streams and preventing their pollu-
tion, because here again, as in so many
other phases of natural resource prob-
lems, there is a great responsibility rest-
ing on the Congress to leave to future
generations of Americans a heritage in
their rivers and streams. We should see
to it that we leave them in better condi-
tion than we find them. We ought to
leave the Potomac River to the very next
generation of American boys and girls as
a clean river, a non-polluted river; and,
in my judgment, the passage of the
Blatnik bill will be a good step in that
direction.
Mr. NEUBKRGER subsequently said:
Mr. President, I wish to add my com-
ments to those of the distinguished sen-
ior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]
concerning the very able leadership of
Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK, of Min-
nesota, in securing the passage by the
House of Representatives of the stream
pollution bill.
We in the Northwest are particularly
interested in this subject, because much
of the aquatic life in our region, such
as our great migratory runs of Chinook
salmon, has been damaged by sewage
and offal in our rivers. For this rea-
son I am glad to join my colleague in
expressing deep appreciation for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
295
demonstrated leadership of Representa-
tive BLATNIK, of Minnesota, and for the
very capable and enlightened manner in
which he persuaded his colleagues in
the House of Representatives to pass a
very forward-looking bill for the elimi-
nation of stream pollution. It is my
sincere and earnest hope that the Senate
will likewise pass the bill when it comes
before us in the near future.
EXTENSION OF WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the bill (S. 890) to
extend and strengthen the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act,
* $ # * #
[p. 10323]
Mr. CHAVEZ. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the bill, S. 890, just sent to
conference, be printed as passed by the
House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
[p.10327]
1.2d(4)(d) Vol. 102 (1956), June 27: Conference report submitted in
House and agreed to, pp. 11149; 11154
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (S. 890)
to extend and strengthen the Water Pol-
lution Control Act, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the man-
agers on the part of the House be read
in lieu of the report.
* # * # #
[p.11149]
Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] yield for
a question on the conference report?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. As you recall, I sup-
ported an amendment to section 6 to
provide for advance planning, making
available up to 10 percent of the funds
available under this grant section for
this planning in order to clarify the
situation and to make sure that funds
under the grant program would be avail-
able for this advance planning. I believe
this to be one of the great need areas in
this field. I understand, as contained
in the conference report on page 14, that
it was the opinion of the conferees that
the broad general language under sec-
tion 6, and under the act, gives the Sur-
geon General this authority, and as a
matter of fact the conference report
specifically so states. Thus the matter is
clarified beyond a doubt both in the
wording in the act as approved by the
conference and as further clarified in
the conference report. Thus, the Sur-
geon General in the future will have
authority to provide needed funds under
the grant section for advance planning.
This, as you know, was a matter of con-
cern to the full committee, and to my-
self, as well as to the House on the
passage of the bill. Is this interpretation
of the Surgeon General's authority as
regards advance planning correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. I wish to say to the
gentleman from Florida, that is correct.
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.11154]
-------
296
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2d(4)(e) Vol. 102 (1956), June 27: Conference report submitted in
Senate, and agreed to, pp. 11075-11076
EXTENSION OF WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT—CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of confer-
ence on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House
to the bill (S. 890) to extend and
strengthen the Water Pollution Control
Act. I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAIRD
in the chair). The report will be read
for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report see House pro-
ceedings of June 27,1965, pp. 11149-11154,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
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. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I wish
to make a brief statement with reference
to the conference report, for the benefit
and information of the Senate.
The committee of conference of the
two Houses met on Senate bill 890. The
bill is designed to extend the Water Pol-
lution Control Act—Public Law 845, 80th
Congress—which terminates on June 30,
1956. The Water Pollution Control Act,
enacted in 1948, was the first compre-
hensive legislation in this field. In the
meantime, substantial progress has been
made in the field of water pollution con-
trol, with more than half of the States
having made improvements in their
water pollution control laws, resulting in
strengthened programs.
The conferees recognized that the pol-
lution of water is a very serious problem,
and that as our population increases and
industry expands, we must take all steps
possible to assure an adequate potable
water supply for our Nation. Therefore,
this proposed legislation is extremely
important to the welfare of everyone,
and will provide a basis for implement-
ing and extending the work now under
way.
The bill is designed to encourage the
States to prepare comprehensive pro-
grams for water pollution control, and
to urge upon them the enactment of uni-
form laws relating to water pollution
control. It requires the Surgeon Gen-
eral to conduct and encourage and assist
in coordinating research, investigations,
and demonstrations, and to publish in-
formation relating to water pollution
control.
The States would be given financial
assistance in the conduct of their water
pollution control programs, with $3 mil-
lion authorized annually for such assist-
ance. There would also be authorized
$50 million annually, up to a total of
$500 million in the aggregate, for con-
struction of treatment works. The Fed-
eral share would be limited to 30 percent
of the total cost of each construction
project, but not in excess of $250,000. At
least 50 percent of the funds authorized
for construction grants would be for
municipalities of 125,000 population or
under.
[p. 11075]
A Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board would be established, and would
be made up of nine non-Federal mem-
bers, appointed by the President, under
the chairmanship of the Surgeon Gen-
eral.
The bill also includes provisions under
which pollution of interstate waters hav-
ing an interstate effect may be subject
to Federal enforcement procedures. The
provisions call for full consultation with
States and interstate pollution control
agencies prior to public hearing and
subsequent court action. The court
shall, in determining the order to be
issued by it, give due consideration to
the practicability and physical and eco-
nomic feasibility of securing abatement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
of any pollution proved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
297
[p. 11076]
1.2e ALASKA'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS
June 25,1959, P.L. 86-70, §28(a), (b), 73 Stat. 148
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
SEC. 28. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 5 (h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C., supp. V, sec. 466d (h) (1)), relating
to Federal share for purposes of matching for program operation, is
amended by striking out " (excluding Alaska)" and inserting in lieu
thereof " (including Alaska) " and by striking out, in clause (B), "and
Alaska".
(b) Subsection (d) of section 11 of such Act (33 U.S.C., supp. V,
sec. 466j (d)), is amended by striking out "Alaska,".
[p. 148]
1.2e(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS
H. B. REP. No. 369, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
ALASKA OMNIBUS ACT
MAY 19,1959.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. ASPINALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7120]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (H.R. 7120) to amend certain laws of the Unitsd States
in light of the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, and for
other purposes, having considered the sams, report favorably thereon
without amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.
-------
298 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
DISCUSSION
The purposes of H.R. 7120 were aptly summarized by the spokes-
man for the Bureau of the Budget, Mr. Harold Seidman, in his appear-
ance before the committee at the hearing on H.R. 6091 and its com-
panions in this way:
H.R. 6091 is designed to make those changes in Federal
laws which have become necessary and desirable because of
Alaska's admission into the Union "on an equal footing with
the other States in all respects whatever." The President
recommended in his 1960 budget message that, where neces-
sary, changes should be made in Federal laws "to apply to
Alaska the same general laws, rules, and policies as are ap-
plicable to other States." The bill would (1) make Alaska
eligible to participate in a number of Federal grant-in-aid
programs on a comparable basis with the other States;
*******
Examples of the first category mentioned by Mr. Seidman are the
provisions of * * * section 28 relating to the Water Pollution
Control Act, * * *. Those sections are designed to apply to Alaska
the same apportionment and matching formulas that are applicable
to other States.
[p. 2]
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Section 28 provides certain amendments to the Water Pollution
Control Act.
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 5 (h) (1) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. This section defines the term
"Federal share" which is used for determining the portion of the cost
of the water pollution control program in each State which will ba
borne by the Federal Government. The amendments would eliminate
the special treatment for Alaska so that Alaska would, for purposes of
[p.13]
the definition, no longer be excluded from the continental United
States and would have its Federal share determined, as in the case of
the other States, on the basis of its relative per capita income.
Under section 47, these amendments would be effective for pro-
mulgations of the Federal shares made after per capita income data
for Alaska for a full year are available from the Department of
Commerce.
Subsection (b) of this section of the bill amends section 11 (d) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which defines "State," to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 299
eliminate the special mention of Alaska. This is a purely technical
amendment.
[p. 14]
SEC. 28. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 5(h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C., Sup. V, sec. 466d(h) (1)), relating
to Federal share for purposes of matching for program operation, is
amended by striking out " (excluding Alaska)" and inserting in lieu
thereof " (including Alaska)" and by striking out, in clause (B), "and
Alaska."
(b) Subsection (d) of section 11 of such Act (33 U.S.C.., Sup. V,
sec. 466j (d)), is amended by striking out "Alaska,".
[p. 31]
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U.S.C., Supp. V. Sec. 466
SEC. 5. (h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per
centum less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per
centum as the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita
income of the continental United States [ (excluding Alaska) ] (in-
cluding Alaska), except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33 % psr centum, and (B)
[p. 56]
the Federal share for Hawaii [and Alaska] shall be 50 per centum,
and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
*******
SEC. 11. When used in this Act—
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, [Alaska,] Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
[P. 57]
-------
300 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2e(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 331, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
ALASKA OMNIBUS BILL
MAY 28,1959.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. GRUENING, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1541]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (S. 1541) to amend certain laws of the United States
in light of the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended
do pass.
Committee action on the measure, which has bipartisan sponsorship,
was unanimous.
[P.I]
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Section 28 provides certain amendments to the Water Pollution
Control Act.
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 5 (h) (1) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. This section defines the term
"Federal share" which is used for determining the portion of the cost
of the water pollution control program in each State which will be
borne by the Federal Government. The amendments would eliminate
the special treatment for Alaska so that Alaska would, for purposes of
the definition, no longer be excluded from the continental United
States and would have its Federal share determined, as in the case
of the other States, on the basis of its relative per capita income.
Under section 47, these amendments would be effective for promul-
gations of the Federal shares made after per capita income data for
Alaska for a full year are available from the Department of Commerce.
Subsection (b) of this section of the bill amends section 11 (d) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which defines "State," to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 301
eliminate the special mention of Alaska. This is a purely technical
amendment.
[P. 17]
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U.S.C., Supp. V. Sec. 466
SEC. 5. (h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per
centum less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per
centum as the per capita income of such State bsars to the per capita
income of the continental United States [(excluding Alaska)] (in-
cluding Alaska), except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33% per centum, and (B)
[p.48]
the Federal share for Hawaii [and Alaska] shall b3 50 par centum,
and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
SEC. 11. When used in this Act—
# & # £ ^ ^! ijS
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, [Alaska,] Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
[p. 49]
-------
302 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2e(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 105 (1959)
1.2e(3)(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed House, p. 9478
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2e(3)(b) June 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 9676
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2e(3)(c) June 11: House concurs in Senate amendments, with
amendment, p. 10570
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2e(3)(d) June 12: Senate concurs in House amendments, p. 10594
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2f HAWAII'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS
June 12,1960, P.L. 86-624, §23(a), 74 Stat. 417
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
SEC. 23. (a) (1) Subsection (h) of section 5 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, relating to Federal share for purposes of pro-
gram operation grants, is amended by striking out "continental United
States" and inserting in lieu thereof "United States," by striking out
" (including Alaska)," and by striking out, in clause (B) of paragraph
(1), "for Hawaii shall be 50 per centum, and."
(2) Such subsection is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new paragraphs:
" (3) As used in this subsection, the term 'United States' means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
[p. 417]
" (4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita
income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per
centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be
included as part of the 'United States.' Promulgations made there-
after but before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year
period are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 303
on satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full
year or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for such
two years."
*******
[p. 418]
1.2f(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS
H.E. REP. No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
AMENDING CERTAIN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN
LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF THE STATE OF
HAWAII INTO THE UNION
MAY 2, I960.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
fp. 1]
EQUALIZED TREATMENT
Of these sections of the bill which will put the conduct of Federal
activities in Hawaii on a par with their conduct elsewhere, the most
important are those which revise the method for computing various
Federal grants-in-aid in Hawaii. These include the sections dealing
with * * * , the Water Pollution Control
[p. 2]
Act (sec. 24).
[p. 3]
-------
304 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Subsection (a) of section 24 of the bill amends section 5 (h) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466d). This section
defines the term "Federal share" which is used for determining the
portion of the cost of the water pollution control program in each
[p. 12]
State which will be borne by the Federal Government. The amend-
ments would eliminate the special treatment of Hawaii so that Hawaii
would have its Federal share determined, as in the case of the other
States, on the basis of its relative per capita income and so that, in
determining the Federal shares for the States, the per capita income of
each State would be compared with the per capita income of the 50
States (including Hawaii) and the District of Columbia.
These amendments would be effective for promulgations of the
Federal shares made after Hawaii is admitted. The provisions relat-
ing to computations made before per capita income data for a full 3
years are available for Alaska have been transferred from the Alaska
Omnibus Act (Public Law 86-70) to this bill and the amendments
[p. 13]
SEC. 25. (a) (1) Subsection (h) of section 5 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, relating to Federal share for purposes of pro-
gram operation grants, is amended by striking out "continental United
States" and inserting in lieu thereof "United States," by striking out
" (including Alaska)", and by striking out, in clause (B) of paragraph
(1), "for Hawaii shall be 50 per centum, and".
(2) Such subsection is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new paragraphs:
" (3) As used in this subsection, the term 'United States' means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
" (4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita
income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 par
centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be
included as part of the 'United States'. Promulgations made there-
after but before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-
year period are available from the Department of Commerce shall be
based on satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one
full year or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for
such two years."
*******
[p. 32]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 305
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 466(d) and 466(j)
SEC. 5. (h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per
centum less that percentage which bears the sams ratio to 50 per
centum as the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita
income of the [continental United States (including Alaska) ] United
States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case be more than
66% per centum or less than 33 Va per centum, and (B) the Federal
share [for Hawaii shall bs 50 per centum, and] for Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
/2) * * *
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita income
of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 p?r centum
and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be included
as part of the "United States". Promulgations made thereafter but
before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year period
are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based on sat-
isfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full year or,
when such data are available for a two-year period, for such two years.
$ * $ * * * *
1.21(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS
S. REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960)
HAWAII OMNIBUS BILL
JUNE 24,1960. Ordered to be printed
Mr. LONG of Hawaii, from the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11602]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United
States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
-------
306 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as amended,
do pass.
*******
[p.l]
Subsection (a) of section 23 of the bill amends section 5 (h) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466d). This section
defines the term "Federal share" which is used for determining the
portion of the cost of the water pollution control program in each
State which will be borne by the Federal Government. The amend-
ments would eliminate the special treatment of Hawaii so that Hawaii
would have its Federal share determined, as in the case of the other
States, on the basis of its relative per capita income and so that, in
determining the Federal shares for the States, the per capita income
of each State would be compared with the per capita income of the 50
States (including Hawaii) and the District of Columbia.
These amendments would be effective for promulgations of the
Federal shares made after Hawaii is admitted. The provisions relat-
ing to computations made before per capita income data for a full 3
years are available for Alaska have been transferred from the Alaska
Omnibus Act (Public Law 86-70) to this bill and the amendments
made by it.
[p. 13]
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
62 Stat. 1155, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 466(d) and 466(j)
SEC. 5. (h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per
centum less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per
centum as the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita
income of the [continental United States (including Alaska) ] United
States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case be more than
66% per centum or less than 33 Vs per centum, and (B) the Federal
share [for Hawaii shall be 50 per centum, and] for Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands shall be 66% per centum.
(2) * * *.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita income
of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per centum
and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be included
as part of the "United States." Promulgations made thereafter but
before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year period
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 307
are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based-on sat-
isfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full year or,
when such data are available for a two-year period, for such two
years.
He $ HI* * $ $
[p. 41]
1.2f(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 106 (1960)
1.2f(3)(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10355
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2f(3) (b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14684
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2f(3)(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amendments, p. 15009
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.2g THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
OF 1961
July 20,1961, P.L. 87-88, 75 Stat. 204
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a more effective
program of water pollution control, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) the last
sentence of section 1 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 466 (a)) is amended to read as follows: "To this end, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called the 'Secretary') shall administer this Act."
(b) Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (c) (3), and the first sentence of
section 10 (a), of such Act are each amended by striking out "Surgeon
General" and "Surgeon General's" wherever they appear therein and
inserting in lieu thereof "Secretary" and "Secretary's," respectively.
(c) Sections 4 (a) and 7 (c) of such Act are each amended by strik-
ing out "Public Health Service" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Department of Health, Education, and Welfare".
(d) Sections 7 (a) (2) (B) and 10 (b) of such Act are each amended
by striking out "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and
inserting in lieu thereof "Secretary".
-------
308 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(e) Section 10 (a) of such Act is amended by striking out the second
and third sentences thereof.
SEC. 2. Section 2 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by inserting " (a)" after "SEC. 2." and by inserting at the
end of such section the following:
" (b) (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that any
such storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute
for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the
source.
" (2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose shall be
determined by these agencies, with the advice of the Secretary, and
his views on these matters shall bs set forth in any report or presenta-
tion to the Congress proposing authorization or construction of any
reservoir including such storage.
" (3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in deter-
mining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a part,
and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality control in
a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equitably
in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
[p. 204]
" (4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this
Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the
benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features
shall be nonreimbursable."
SEC. 3. (a) The proviso in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of
section 4 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to
read as follows: "Provided, That the Secretary shall report annually
to the appropriate committees of Congress on his operations under this
paragraph;".
(b) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by inserting at the
end thereof the following new subsections:
" (d) (1) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary
shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including
conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments
as may be necessary):
" (A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 309
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
" (B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and meas-
ure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those
pollutants created by new technological developments; and
" (C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to control
water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
" (2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed $25,000,000.
" (e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain fisld labora-
tory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in ths Mid-
dle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the midwestern
area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and
one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research, investigations,
experiments, field demonstrations and studies, and training related to
the prevention and control of water pollution. Insofar as practicable,
each such facility shall be located near institutions of higher learning
in which graduate training in such research might be carried out.
" (f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the waters
of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and projected
future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying conditions of
waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water quality
needs of those to be served by such waters, an evaluation of municipal,
industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal practices with
respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solving water
pollution problems (including additional waste treatment measures)
with respect to such waters."
SEC. 4. (a) Subsection (a) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by inserting immediately following
"June 30, 1961, $3,000,000" the following: ", and for each succeeding
fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
$5,000,000."
[p. 205]
(b) Subsection (f) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph
(4) thereof, by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (5)
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "; and", and by
adding after such paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
" (6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section 6(b) (4)."
-------
310 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect July 1, 1961.
(d) The amendment made by subsection (b) of this section shall
take effect July 1, 1962.
SEC. 5. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b) of section 6 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows: " (2) ex-
cept as otherwise provided in this clause, no grant shall be made for
any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated
reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary, or in an
amount exceeding $600,000, whichever is the smaller: Provided, That
the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Provided further, That,
in the case of a project which will serve more than one municipality
(A) the Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines to be reason-
able and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served by such
project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such project, and
shall then apply the limitations provided in this clause (2) to each
such share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made under this section with
respect to each such share, and the total of all the amounts so deter-
mined or $2,400,000, whichever is the smaller, shall bs the maximum
amount of the grant which may be made under this section on account
of such project, and (B) for the purpose of the limitation in the last
sentence of subsection (d), the share of each municipality so deter-
mined shall be regarded as a grant for the construction of treatment
•works;".
(b) Subsection (b) of such section 6 is further amended by striking
out "and" at the end of clause (3) and by inserting before the period
at the end of clause (4): "; and (5) no grant shall be made under this
section for any project in any State in an amount exceeding $250,000
until a grant has been made thereunder for each project in such State
(A) for which an application was filed with the appropriate State
water pollution control agency prior to one year after the date of en-
actment of this clause and (B) which the Secretary determines met
the requirements of this section and regulations thereunder as in effect
prior to the date of enactment of this clause".
(c) The third sentence of subsection (c) of such section 6 is
amended to read as follows: "Sums allotted to a State under the pre-
ceding sentence which are not obligated within six months following
the end of the fiscal year for which they were allotted because of a
lack of projects which have been approved by the State water pollu-
tion control agency under subsection (b) (1) of this section and
certified as entitled to priority under subsection (b) (4) of this sec-
tion, shall be re-allotted by the Secretary, on such basis as he de-
termines to be reasonable and equitable and in accordance with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 311
regulations promulgated by him, to States having projects approved
under this section for which grants have not been made because of
lack of funds: Provided, however, That whenever a State has funds
subject to reallocation and the Secretary finds that the need for a
project in a community in such State is due in part to any Federal
institution or Federal construction activity, he may, prior to such
reallocation, make an additional grant with respect to such project
[p. 206]
which will in his judgment reflect an equitable contribution for the
need caused by such Federal institution or activity. Any sum made
available to a State by reallotment under the preceding sentence shall
be in addition to any funds otherwise allotted to such State under this
Act. The allotments of a State under the second and third sentences
of this subsection shall be available, in accordance with the provisions
of this section, for payments with respect to projects in such State
which have been approved under this section."
(d) Subsection (d) of such section 6 is amended to read as follows:
" (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 end-
ing June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1964,
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $100,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $100,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967. Sums so appropriated shall remain available
until expended: Provided, That at least 50 percsnt of the funds so
appropriated for each fiscal year shall be used for grants for the con-
struction of treatment works servicing municipalities of 125,000
population or under."
(e) Section 6 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
" (f) The Secretary shall take such action as may be nscsssary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this sec-
tion shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the
same type of work on similar construction in the immediate locality,
as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act
of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat.
1494; 40 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5)."
SEC. 6. (a) The first sentence of subsection (a) (1) of section 7 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as fol-
-------
312 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lows: "There is hereby established in the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, com-
posed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall be chairman, and
nine members appointed by the President, none of whom shall ba
Federal officers or employees."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (a) (2) (A) of such section 7
is amended by inserting before the period at the end therof: ", and
(iii) the term of any member under the preceding provisions shall be
extended until the date on which his successor's appointment is
effective."
(c) Members of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board (es-
tablished pursuant to section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as in effect prior to enactment of this Act) serving im-
mediately before the date of enactment of this Act shall be members
of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, established by the
amendment made by subsection (a) of this section, until the expira-
tion of the terms of office for which they were appointed.
SEC. 7. (a) Subsection (a) of section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows:
[p. 207]
"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
"SEC. 8. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject
to abatement as provided in this Act."
(b) Subsection (b) of such section 8 is amended by striking out
"interstate waters" and inserting in lieu thereof "interstate or navi-
gable waters".
(c) Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of such section 8 is amended
to read as follows:
" (c) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of
the Governor and of the State water pollution control agency for the
State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any
municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution
of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a
State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing
or contributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notification
thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 313
if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate and shall call promptly a conference of such agency or agen-
cies and of the State water pollution control agency and interstate
agency, if any, of the State or States, if any, which may be adversely
affected by such pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of
any State, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of
interstate or navigable waters which is endangering the health or
welfare of persons only in the requesting State in which the discharge
or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originate,
give formal notification thereof to the water pollution control agency
and interstate agency, if any, of such State and shall promptly call a
conference of such agency or agencies, unless, in the judgment of the
Secretary, the effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses of the
waters is not of sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal
jurisdiction under this section. The Secretary shall also call such a
conference whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he
has reason to believe that any pollution referred to in subssction (a)
and endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than
that in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurring."
(d) Paragraph (3) (A) of subsection (c) of such section 8 is
amended by striking out "interstate" and inserting in lieu thereof
"interstate or navigable."
(e) Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of such section 8 are amended
to read as follows:
" (d) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the confer-
ence or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such
pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of any
persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate
State water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial
action. The Secretary shall allow at least six months from the date
he mahes such recommendations for the taking of such recommended
action.
" (e) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pol-
lution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing
[p. 208]
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge
or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated,
before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Sec-
retary. Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing
to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely
affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one
-------
314 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
member of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a
representative of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a
majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or
employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At
least three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the
State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or pol-
luters. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the
Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress
toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds
such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abatement
thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Sec-
retary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to ba reasonable
and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary
shall send such findings and recommendations to the person or persons
discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, to-
gether with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six
months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send
such findings and recommendations and such notice to the State water
pollution control agency and to the interstate agency, if any, of the
State or States where such discharge or discharges originate.
" (f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
" (1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to
such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General to
bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement
of pollution, and
" (2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor
of such State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution."
(f) Subsection (h) of such section 8 is amended to read as follows:
" (h) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-
section (e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be en-
titled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not
exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away from
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 315
their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by
law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
" (i) As used in this section the term—
" (1) 'person' includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
[p. 209]
" (2) 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to
State law."
SEC. 8. Section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentences:
"In his summary of any conference pursuant to section 8 (c) (3) of
this Act, the Secretary shall include references to any discharges
allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal propsrty. Notice
of any hearing pursuant to section 8 (e) involving any pollution al-
leged to be effected by any such discharges shall also be given to the
Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property involved and
the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board conducting
such hearing shall also include references to any such discharges
which are contributing to the pollution found by such Hearing Board."
SEC. 9. Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by striking out subsections (d) and (e) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
" (d) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
" (e) The term 'interstate waters' means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters."
SEC. 10. Section 301 (b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
319), is amended by striking out all beginning with "Provided," in the
first proviso to the colon at the end of the second proviso and inserting
in lieu thereof the following: "Provided, That the cost of any con-
struction or modification authorized under the provisions of this sec-
tion shall be determined on the basis that all authorized purposes
served by the project shall share equitably in the benefits of multiple
purpose construction, as determined by the Secretary of the Army
or the Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be: Provided further,
That before construction or modification of any project including
water supply provisions for present demand is initiated, State or
local interests shall agree to pay for the cost of such provisions in
-------
316 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
accordance with the provisions of this section: And provided further,
That not to exceed 30 per centum of the total estimated cost of any
project may be allocated to anticipated future demands where State
or local interests give reasonable assurances, and there is reasonable
evidence, that such demands for the use of such storage will bs made
within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated
to water supply within the life of the project".
SEC. 11. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1961".
Approved July 20, 1961, 12:25 p.m.
[p. 210]
1.2g(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H. R. REP. No. 306,87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1961
APRIL 25, 1961.—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. 6441]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 6441) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for a more effective program of water pollution control, hav-
ing considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as ammended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Page 2, line 5, strike out "7, and 8" and insert in lieu thereof "and
7".
Page 2, line 24, strike out "; and".
Strike out line 25 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3.
Page 3, line 3, strike out " (c)" and insert in lieu thereof " (b)".
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 317
Page 4, line 11, strike out "4" and insert " (4) ".
Page 4, line 12, strike out "5" and insert " (5)".
Page 4, line 13, strike out the comma and insert in lieu thereof a
semicolon.
Page 4, line 14, strike out "5" and insert " (5)".
Page 4, strike out lines 20 and 21 and insert in lieu thereof:
follows: " (2) no grant shall be made for any project in an
amount
Page 10, line 2, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof a
comma and the following:
unless, in the judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pol-
lution on the legitimate uses of the waters is not of such signifi-
cance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under this
section.
[p.l]
Page 12, line 19, strike out " (b)" and insert in lieu thereof " (f)".
The committee amendments are technical amendments correcting
punctuation and numbering errors and a typographical omission of
language agreed to unanimously by the committee.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 6441 is to extend and strengthen the Federal
water pollution control program and to assist the States and local
communities in providing for more effective programs of water
pollution control at all levels of government.
The bill as amended would (1) vest in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare full responsibility for the conduct of the Fed-
eral water pollution control program authorized by this act; (2)
authorize the establishment and maintenance of field laboratory and
research facilities in various parts of the country, and the conduct of
water quality studies of the Great Lakes; (3) increase grants to State
and interstate agencies for the operation of their water pollution con-
trol programs from $3 million to $5 million annually and extend the
authorization for such grants to June 30, 1971; (4) increase the au-
thorization of appropriations for waste treatment works construction
grants from $50 million to $100 million annually and the total authori-
zation from $500 million to $1 billion; (5) increase maximum allow-
able grants from $250,000 to $800,000 and substitute sliding scale
formula for present 30-percent grant limitation; (6) $2.4 million ceil-
ing on grants for projects serving more than one municipality; (7)
require priority for all previously filed applications under $250,000;
(8) retain existing Federal enforcement jurisdiction over interstate
waters and expand Federal pollution abatement enforcement author-
-------
318 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ity to all navigable waters and coastal waters whether or not there is
a showing of interstate pollution if abatement action is requested by
a State or a municipality with the concurrence of the State; (9) au-
thorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue final
orders in enforcement actions; and (10) include discharges from
Federal installations in all administrative findings and recommenda-
tions in Federal abatement actions.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Public hearings were held by the committee on March 14, 15, 16,
and 29, 1961, on H.R. 4036 which is superseded by H.R. 6441, the bill
here reported, at which testimony was received from witnesses repre-
senting municipal and county government associations; State health,
engineering, and pollution control administrators; conservation and
civic groups; industry and labor representatives; and the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. The committee considered the bill
during 4 days of executive session.
NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION
Water has become the No. 1 resource problem confronting the
United States today.
The water problem is directly related to our country's rapid popu-
lation and economic growth. This growth is creating a major im-
pact on water resources from a rapidly growing demand for water to
tp.2]
produce the things we need to eat, wear, and use, and for an ample
supply of clean, safe water for drinking and for recreation.
By 1980 our population is expected to reach the 232-274 million
range. Probably the most significant population growth trend is
that toward urbanized living. By 1980 more than 90 percent of our
people will live in cities and towns, half of these in cities over 50,000
population or their suburbs.
In addition to population growth and concentration, the phenom-
enal growth of industry will also continue. Production of goods in-
creased sevenfold from 1900 to 1950 and is expected to double the
1950 figures by 1975.
The result of population and economic-industrial growth will ba a
tremendous increase in fresh water use. By 1980, our estimated fresh
water needs will total 600 billion gallons a day—nearly double present
water use.
In the past, we met rising demands for water largely through con-
struction of storage facilities to increase the amount of water available
for use. Now, however, the limit of the amount of dependable water
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 319
supply is in sight. The maximum dependable fresh water supply we
can ever hope to develop by engineering works is estimated to be
600-650 billion gallons a day by the year 2000. This is our fixed
water supply—foreseeably all the Nation will ever have to support
continued population and economic growth.
By 1980 the developsd dependable fresh water supply is expscted
to total about 515 billion gallons a day. Therefore, by 1980 demand
will exceed supply by 85 billion gallons. It is obvious that the
Nation's water needs from now on must ba mst by using the same
water over and over. Thus, the highest priority in water resources
developments must be given to the all-important need of providing
for the cleanliness of the limited water supply so that it can be used
and reused in meeting the Nation's increasing requirements for water
for all purposes.
Water reuse on a large scale is already a necessity. Some of the
water in every stream is used one or more times with much greater
reuse of streams in developed areas. During low flows it is estimated
that the flow of the Ohio River is used 3.7 times. Five- and six-time
reuse of water in our major river basins is a certain prospect.
Water must be of suitable quality to be reusable, however. Used
water is invariably polluted water and pollution degrades its physical,
chemical, biological, and aesthetic qualities. Multiple water reuse,
therefore, will require highly effective pollution control to protect
and conserve water quality if streams are to serve each downstream
community, industry, farm, and recreation area.
We have entered the era in water resource conservation and devel-
opment in the United States where water quality management must
have the highest priority in supplying present and future water sup-
ply needs. An important segment of water quality management has
been and will be accomplished by providing storage of good quality
waters for water supply purposes and for dilution of downstream pol-
lution. For the Nation as a whole, however, water quality manage-
ment can best be affected by the prevention and control of pollution.
More "new" water can be provided to meet needs by controlling pol-
lution than by any other means. Pollution control has the advantage
of permitting the use of an already available distribution system, the
[p. 3]
waterways of the country, to deliver water of satisfactory quality to
the points where it is needed.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
H.R. 6441 will establish the more effective Federal water pollution
control program needed to assist the States and local communities
-------
320 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in obtaining the highly effective pollution control necessary to protect
and conserve the water quality of the Nation's waterways. The
committee strongly urges favorable action on this measure.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
Administration of the program
The committee has watched carefully the progress and develop-
ment of the national water pollution control program and particularly
the supporting role of the Federal Government. The committee has
always believed that the objectives of the program should be given
high priority in an appropriate administrative framework in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Existing law provides that the pollution control program be ad-
ministered by the Surgeon General through the Public Health Service
under the supervision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. The administrative status of the program has not changed
since 1948 when it was originally established despite a great increase
in program activities, responsibilities, personnel, and appropriations.
During public hearings the committee heard testimony favoring the
establishment of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Presi-
dent has urged the establishment of a "special unit" in the Public
Health Service to administer both air and water pollution control
programs.
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, recognizing the
need to upgrade pollution control activities in his department, asked
the committee for "* * * time to take a complete fresh look at the
situation and the various proposals for dealing with it."
In order to give the Secretary complete flexibility in effectuating
his decision relating to the proper administrative status of this pro-
gram the bill approved by the committee would transfer responsibility
for the administration of the Federal water pollution control program
from the Surgeon General to the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
This action is in conformity with recommendation No. 14 of the
first report of the Hoover Commission on Organization of the Execu-
tive Branch of the Government (H. Doc. 55, 81st Cong.) which states:
Under the President, the heads of departments must hold full
responsibility for the conduct of their departments. There must
be a clear line of authority reaching down through every step
of the organization and no subordinate should have authority
independent from that of his superior.
The committee hopes that in reaching any decision on this matter
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare takes into considera-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 321
tion the fact that the water pollution control program established in
[p. 4]
1956 and strengthened by this bill goes far beyond the usual public
health legislation in that it assigns to his Department the responsi-
bility for controlling water pollution to conserve water for all uses—
propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes,
industrial and agricultural (including irrigation) supplies, and other
legitimate purposes, as well as public water supplies and protection
of the public health.
States rights and responsibilities
The bill reaffirms and clarifies congressional policy to recognize,
preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of the
States in preventing and controlling water pollution.
Nothing in the bill is intended to impair or in any manner affect
any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters of
the States, including but not limited to the power, authority, and
jurisdiction of the States to enforce State water pollution control
laws and regulations.
The committee has exercised extreme care to assure that the
language of the bill will allow continued comprehensive action by the
States in the field of water pollution control. There certainly can
be no assumption that the Federal interest in the field of water pollu-
tion abatement authorized by this bill is so dominant as to preclude
State action. The proposition is well established that the protection
of the health and welfare of the citizens of a State is a proper subject
for the exercise of the State police power. The bill provides specifi-
cally for cooperation with the States and its aim is to encourage and
assist States and local communities in their efforts to control water
pollution, not to usurp or preempt their rights, powers, or responsibili-
ties in this field.
Research and studies
Research has always been recognized as a basic Federal water
pollution control responsibility. The need for a much greater Federal
research effort was consistently recognized during the hearings on
the bill.
At least six permanent regional water pollution control laboratories,
fully equipped and staffed with skilled laboratory and field project
personnel, are badly needed to support expanding programs in com-
prehensive program development, special field study projects on
specific problems, basic data, and enforcement; also, much needed
increases in technical assistance to State and local agencies and in
connection with projects and other Federal water resources agencies.
-------
322 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
At present the Public Health Service must establish temporary
facilities, make such use of the Sanitary Engineering Center in
Cincinnati as distance permits, rely on the facilities of others, or
contract for needed laboratory services.
The bill authorizes the establishment of regional water pollution
control laboratories in various sections of the country. The specific
locations mentioned in the bill are not intended to exclude any other
area where such facilities are needed to carry out the cooperative
Federal-State-local pollution control program authorized by this bill.
The bill also authorizes a continuing study of the quality of the
waters of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes constitute the largest
single source of fresh water in this hemisphere. They must be
[p. 5]
protected from pollution caused by population and industrial growth
and increased shipping,
State and interstate program grants
A significant provision in existing law is that providing for matching
grants to State and interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the
costs of establishing and maintaining adequate water pollution control
programs.
State programs in this field have expanded under the grant program.
States having relatively large appropriations have used grant funds
principally for increased research and special studies often by con-
tract. Those having smaller appropriations have used the grant
funds for such purposes as increasing technical staffs and field studies,
accelerating enforcement action, purchasing special laboratory and
field equipment, and engaging in applied research. The program
grant authorization expires with this fiscal year unless extended by
this bill.
The bill increases the appropriation authority for program grants
to State and interstate agencies from $3 million to $5 million an-
nually and extends the authorization to June 30, 1971.
The clear purpose of these grants is to provide for extension or
improvement of State and interstate programs for prevention and
control of water pollution. It is expected that the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare will establish administrative proce-
dures to insure that these grant funds are used solely for this purpose.
State plans to be submitted as a prerequisite to receiving such
program grants will be required to include criteria used by the States
in determining priority of projects for Federal grants for the con-
struction of municipal treatment works authorized by this legislation.
The committee believes such criteria should place emphasis on con-
trolling and preventing pollution of surface waters.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 323
Grants for waste treatment plant construction
Under existing law there is authorized $50 million annually in Fed-
eral grants to communities to assist them in the construction of needed
waste treatment facilities. This program has been in operation since
1956. During the 5 years immediately preceding enactment of the
program (1952-56) contract awards for sewage treatment plant con-
struction averaged $222 million. Over the past 4 years contract
awards for sewage treatment plant construction have averaged almost
$360 million annually—an increase of 62 percent over the 5-year
average before Federal financial assistance became available.
Under the construction grant program as of March 31, 1961, a
total of 2,671 grant offers have been made aggregating $219.3 million.
These in turn supported construction of projects having eligible costs
totaling $1.27 billion. Every Federal dollar expended has been
matched by over $4.80 in local funds.
Despite the great progress made as a result of Federal financial
assistance, much more remains to be done. Construction since 1957
has been largely offset by new needs and the number of needed
projects remains at 5,100 sewage treatment plants. According to the
Public Health Service, 4,136 new plants are required for 23 million
people in communities now discharging raw untreated sewage, and
communities where existing treatment works are obsolete and require
replacement. Another 991 communities need major additions and
[p. 6]
enlargements of existing inadequate plants to provide satisfactory
treatment for 19 million persons.
In addition to the backlog of treatment plant needs, population
growth will continue to create new needs. If municipalities are to
catch up by 1970, they will have to spend an average of $600 million
a year to eliminate the backlog, provide for new population, and to
replace the plants that will become obsolete.
In order to stimulate construction up to $600 million a year the bill
authorizes an increase in Federal financial assistance from the present
$50 million annually to $100 million annually and an increase in the
total grant authorization from $500 million to $1 billion.
The committee is impressed with the need for providing more
effective incentives to those communities requiring larger installa-
tions, which involve construction costs of considerable magnitude.
The need for construction of treatment plants by municipalities ex-
ceeding 50,000 population amounts to about 30 percent of total needs,
yet these cities have received less than 15 percent of the Federal grant
funds under existing legislation. Further stimulation of projects in
these areas is desirable. To provide Federal financial assistance to
-------
324 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
achieve more effectively the required stimulus of necessary construc-
tion within this group of communities, the bill provides a sliding scale
formula which would provide a stimulus to larger communities more
nearly comparable to that now provided for smaller communities.
The increased appropriation authorizations would make available
Federal grants for more projects, and hence would benefit both larger
and: smaller communities.
The bill would limit the Federal grant to 30 percent of the first
$1 million of the estimated reasonable cost of a project, plus 15 percent
of the next $2 million, plus 10 percent of the remainder of such cost,
but subject to an $800,000 ceiling; however, no grant of more than
$250,000 shall be approved for a project in any State until all appli-
cations filed prior to the effective date of enactment of this bill have
first been approved.
In order to encourage the construction of projects serving more than
one municipality, the bill would apply this ceiling to each munici-
pality's share of the cost of the project. The grant for joint projects
would be the total amount each participating municipality would
have been awarded had it constructed a separate facility with a
ceiling of $2.4 million for such projects. The purpose of this provision
is to make each governmental unit served by the project eligible for
a construction grant and it is applicable to projects now in operation
serving more than one municipality as well as prospective joint
projects. The committee encourages adjacent communities to band
together for the construction and operation of joint treatment and
disposal works, utilizing such financial arrangements and methods as
authorized by State statute.
The bill would also provide for reallocation of construction grant
funds of a State that are not obligated for the construction of approved
projects within 18 months after allocation. These funds would then
be reallotted to States which are in a position to go forward (during
the next 6 months) with projects that have been approved by the
State water pollution control agency. Such reallocation authority
would assure use of the full amount appropriated each year for
construction of needed projects.
[p. 7]
The bill also requires that with respect to work performed on
sewage-treatment projects the taking of such action as may bs neces-
sary to insure payment of wages at rates not less than those prevailing
on similar construction in the immediate locality as determined by
the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.
These provisions now apply to all direct Federal construction as well
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 325
as to contracts for school, hospital, housing, and airport projects
constructed with Federal-aid funds.
Enforcement jurisdiction extended to navigable waters
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Federal enforce-
ment authority applies to pollution of any interstate waters, which
the act defines to include "all rivers, lakes, and other waters that
flow across, or form a part of, boundaries between two or more
States." Under this definition almost all coastal waters are excluded;
so are waters which, though they may be navigable, do not cross or
form part of State boundaries.
The present law, for instance, excludes from enforcement jurisdic-
tion the greater part of the Great Lakes and their tributaries, the
coastal waters of the Nation, many important coastal streams, intra-
state water bodies such as the Detroit River, those of Florida, and all
rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters of Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. International boundary streams such
as the St. Lawrence, Niagara, lower Colorado, and Rio Grande Rivers
are untouchable under the act. The same situation exists as to
international streams flowing across the northern and southern
borders of the United States into our international neighbors. Ex-
amples are the Red River of the North in Minnesota, Lake Champlain
in New York, Souris and Riviere Rivers in North Dakota, and the
Flathead and Kootenai Rivers in Montana. In addition, the Missouri
River from the Kansas State line to just above St. Louis is an un-
touchable area under existing law. The greater part of the Hudson
River is excluded, as are important reaches of the Tennessee, Colum-
bia, Colorado, and Merrimack Rivers. Of the estimated 26,000 water
bodies in the United States, there are only an estimated 4,000 of an
interstate nature.
In addition, Federal enforcement authority covers only pollution of
interstate waters, denned as above, which "endangers the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharge
originates * * *." Thus only pollution having an interstate effect is
subject to abatement under the existing law.
The effect of this limitation is to require Federal enforcement offi-
cials to trace the noxious effects of some polluter's discharge through
the discharges of often hundreds of other polluters to some point in
another State where the effect can be segregated from its host of
acquired companions and found to endanger the health or welfare
of persons. The enforcement process is then, by reason of the wording
of the present law, intrinsically slow, expensive, and far less efficient
than possible.
The bill amends existing law by extending the authority for Federal
-------
326 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
abatement enforcement action to the pollution of any navigable waters
(including coastal waters) which endanger the health and welfare of
any persons.
[P. 8]
Enforcement procedures
The bill makes a number of changes in existing law relating to pro-
cedures in initiating and carrying out Federal enforcement actions.
First, in addition to requests from a State water pollution control
agency or the Governor of any State to initiate action, as provided
in existing law, the Federal Government would be required to enter
a case if a municipality, with the concurrence of the State, requests
such action.
Second, the bill makes Federal enforcement procedures available
not only in cases where the pollution discharge crosses State lines,
but also whenever there is pollution affecting legitimate uses of the
water of any navigable stream whether or not there is interstate
pollution. Federal jurisdiction in intrastate pollution situations, how-
ever, would be exercised only upon request from the State or from a
municipality with the concurrence of the State. No direct Federal
action can be initiated in such a case without such a request being
made by the affected State.
Third, the bill clarifies and strengthens the role of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare in the enforcement process by pro-
viding that the findings and recommendations of the hearing boards
shall be the Secretary's findings and recommendations, except to the
extent modified by him and authorizing him to issue an order (instead
of a notice) based on his findings and recommendations for abatement
of any pollution found to exist. To afford adequate protection for
the parties in interest, provision is made in the bill for an appeal
from the Secretary's order to be taken within 60 days to the U.S.
court of appeals. (If such appeal is not taken the order shall be final.)
Fourth, if action reasonably calculated to carry out the Secretary's
order is not taken, he could request the Attorney General to bring
a civil action in the U.S. district court to enforce any order issued by
him or, after appeal, by a U.S. court of appeals. Existing law requires
State consent to any Federal court action necessary to obtain an order
to carry out tha Secretary's recommendations. No such consent is
required under the new procedures since the purpose of Federal court
action under the bill is to obtain enforcement of either the Secretary's
final order or an order of the court of appeals following an appeal
from the Secretary's order. It is the hope of the committee that
State water pollution control agencies will be consulted in all phases
of the enforcement proceedings, including issuance of final orders, in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 327
order to assure the continuance of close Federal-State relations in
this field.
Discharges from Federal installations
The bill amends existing law to provide that summaries of confer-
ences prepared as a result of an enforcement action shall include
references to discharges from Federal installations and that notices of
hearings pursuant to the enforcement section shall be sent to Federal
agencies having jurisdiction over any Federal property involved and
that findings and recommendations of the hearing board shall also
include references to discharges from Federal property which are con-
tributing to pollution found by the hearing boards.
[p. 9]
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT NAVIGABLE WATERS
AGAINST POLLUTION
It is well settled that the jurisdiction of Congress over waters
capable of use as highways of interstate or foreign commerce, which
is derived from the commerce clause of the Constitution, extends as
well to intrastate (The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563 (U.S. 1870); Ex
Parte Boyer, 109 U.S. 629 (1883); The Katie, 40 F. 480, 489 (1889))
as to interstate waters (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 197 (1824)).
The power to regulate commerce necessarily embraces all matters
pertaining to navigation on such waters but is not limited to naviga-
tion. As the Supreme Court declared in Gilman v. Philadelphia (3
Wall. 713, 724 (U.S. 1865)):
Commerce includes navigation. The power to regulate com-
merce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the
extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States
which are accessible from a State other than those in which they
lie. For this purpose they are the public property of the Nation,
and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress.
Congress and the courts have long assumed that as "public property
of the Nation" the quality of navigable waters of the United States
is within the protection of the Congress. For over 61 years the
pollution of navigable waters by refuse has been prohibited by section
13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 407) without
regard to its effect on navigation. That section prohibits, among
other things, the discharge or deposit into any navigable waters of
the United States of—
any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than
that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a
liquid state.
The power of Congress to protect such waters against pollution was
-------
328 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
early upheld in Scow No. 36 (144 F. 932 (1906)) where the Circuit
Court of Appeals, First Circuit, declared (p. 934):
The power of the Federal Government over the navigable
waters of its ocean harbors is absolute, general, and without
limitations, except such as are prescribed in the Constitution;
and, in the exercise of such power in the interest of and for the
protection of commerce, it may well prescribe the manner in
which the harbors shall be used; and, in the interest of sanitation
and health, and of the general welfare, it may well protect its
public waters from pollution.
Thirty years later, this authority was reaffirmed by the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in La Merced (84 F. 2d 444, 446
(1936)) where it said:
"* * * [W]e see no reason for limiting 'refuse matter of any
kind or description whatever' to such refuse matter only as would
impede or obstruct navigation." To the same effect United
States v. Ballard Oil Co. of Hartford, Inc. (195 F. 2d 369 (1952)).
[p-10]
United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (1940) (311 U.S.
377) dispelled any doubts as to the authority of Congress to exercise
its jurisdiction over navigable waters of the United States for objects
not related to the protection of navigation. There the Court con-
sidered, among other issues, the authority of Congress to require, as
a condition to a Federal license for the erection of a dam for power
only, in waters under its jurisdiction, compliance with provisions not
essential to or even concerned with navigation as such. Rejecting
the argument that the right of the United States to the use of the
waters is limited to navigation, the Court upheld the plenary power
of the Congress over navigable waters in broad terms, declaring
(pp. 426-427):
In our view, it cannot properly be said that the constitutional
power of the United States over its waters is limited to control
for navigation. By navigation respondent means no more than
operation of boats and improvement of the waterway itself. In
truth the authority of the United States is the regulation of
commerce on its waters. Navigability, in the sense just stated,
is but a part of this whole. Flood protection, watershed develop-
ment, recovery of the cost of improvements through utilization
of power are likewise parts of commerce control * * *. That au-
thority is as broad as the needs of commerce * * *. The license
conditions to which objection is made have an obvious relation-
ship to the exercise of the commerce power. Even if there were
no such relationship the plenary power of Congress over naviga-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 329
ble waters would empower it to deny the privilege of constructing
an obstruction in those waters. It is no objection to the terms and
to the exertion of the power that "its exercise is attended by the
same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of
the States." The congressional authority under the commerce
clause is complete unless limited by the fifth amendment.
If, in the general interest of protecting and promoting commerce,
flood control and watershed development are legitimate concerns of
Congress, as the Court has said, the protection of navigable waters
against pollution which, as held in Scow No. 36, supra, is "in the
interest of sanitation and health, and of the general welfare," seems
quite clearly to be within the domain of congressional control.
PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
It is the committee's view that the hearing process under the bill
is plainly subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1006,
1007). The proceedings would constitute "adjudication" within the
meaning of that act, but the result would be the same even if they
were considered "rulemaking," since in either case sections 7 and 8
are applicable when there is a requirement that the administrative
action be based on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing
(5 U.S.C. 1003, 1004). The bill expressly requires that findings by
the hearing board be based on the evidence presented at the hearing,
and this language brings the procedure squarely within the provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act.
[p. 11]
Among the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act is assur-
ance that the requirements of fairness will be met, from the beginning
to the end of administrative proceedings. Section 8 (5 U.S.C. 1007)
specifically requires that, upon a decision by subordinate officers or
upon a review of that decision by the agency, the parties must be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit for the consideration of
the deciding officers proposed findings and conclusions or exceptions
to the decisions, with supporting reasons. These provisions were
undoubtedly designed to preclude action, at any stage of the proceed-
ing, without adequate notice to parties affected and opportunity for
them to be heard, and to import into administrative procedures the
requirement that those who are brought into contest with the Gov-
ernment in a quasi-judicial proceeding aimed at the control of their
activities are entitled to be fairly advised of what the Government
proposes and to be heard upon its proposals before it issues its final
command.
The bill expressly requires the Secretary, like the hearing board, to
-------
330 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
act solely on the basis of the evidence at the hearing. These proce-
dures were developed carefully after consultation with Department
officials and others. They are identical, in all major respects, to
recommendations contained in proposed legislation submitted to Con-
gress and this committee by the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare in May 1960, and again on January 18,1961. The present
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has also approved these
procedures.
STATE MATCHING GRANTS
The suggestion has been made that increased Federal grant alloca-
tions for treatment-plant construction authorized by this bill be made
only to those States providing financial assistance for such construc-
tion to the local communities located within the State. The principle
of State matching has worked well in other programs but unfortu-
nately experience has shown that the States have never exhibited a
willingness to provide meaningful financial assistance to local com-
munities for treatment-plant construction.
The seriousness of the Nation's water pollution problem makes it
imperative that the Federal Government move as rapidly as possible
in helping to solve what has become more than a local or State prob-
lem. The lack of adequate treatment facilities, both municipal and
industrial, is nationwide and is the primary cause of the overall
pollution problem. To stimulate construction of municipal waste
treatment plants as rapidly as possible the present grant program was
enacted, not requiring State financial participation, but requiring only
that the local community qualifying for the grant be able to finance
the non-Federal share of the cost.
Since the enactment of Public Law 660 five States—Maine, Ver-
mont, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Georgia—have initiated
financial assistance programs predicated on the Federal program.
These States are to be commended for their foresight and willingness
to participate in a true Federal-State-local partnership. The com-
mittee believes that other States will in the future enact similar
programs, thereby further stimulating the construction of waste-treat-
ment facilities. The committee does not, however, see any good
[p-12]
coming from the denial of the increased funds provided in this bill to
a community merely because the State in which that community is
located does not provide similar financial assistance. Whether or not
the Federal Government should meet its national responsibilities
cannot be predicated on whether State governments are meeting their
State responsibilities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 331
The existing program has worked well. The suggestion to require
State matching funds before increased Federal assistance as provided
in this bill could be made available would delay the steady progress
being made. The effect of such a suggestion would be to negate the
purpose of the additional grant funds authorized by this bill.
ACID-MINE DRAINAGE STUDY
The problem of acid-mine drainage from abandoned coal mines
was brought to the committee's attention during public hearings.
In many areas of the country this has been causing an increasingly
serious pollution problem. It is particularly acute in the States of
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois.
The annual discharge of millions of tons of chemically polluted
water from the thousands of abandoned coal mines in these and other
coal-producing States causes untold damage to domestic and industrial
water supplies, adversely affects recreation and tourist facilities, and
impairs the operation of steamboats, barges, powerplants, and river
and harbor structures.
The committee believes that the first and most urgent requirement
is for an expeditious and comprehensive study of the nature and
scope of the problem as well as a feasibility survey of various pro-
posed solutions.
Under existing provisions of law authorizing the carrying out of
investigations and studies relating to the causes, control, and pre-
vention of water pollution, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare should undertake such a study relating to pollution caused
by acid-mine drainage from abandoned coal mines and report to
the committee within a year with recommendations for appropriate
action.
[p. 13]
-------
332
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
STATE ALLOTMENTS
Following is a table showing approximate apportionments of con-
struction grant funds under H.R. 6441 and existing authorization:
Water pollution control construct/on grant program
State allotments based on
appropriation of—
State allotments based on
appropriation of—
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia .
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
$50,000,000
(under exist-
ing law)
1,122,100
423,725
591,750
1,011,250
2,045,725
633,025
620,200
338,150
454,500
899,700
1,123,275
522,850
591,925
1,751,125
1,040,825
896,425
764,950
1,072,475
975,100
631,725
760,125
1,117,725
1,403,175
928,000
1,166,500
$100,000,000
(under
H.R. 6441)
2,244,200
847,450
1,183,500
2,022,500
4,091,450
1,266,050
1,240,400
676,300
909,000
1,799,400
2,246,550
1,045,700
1,183,850
3,502,250
2,081,650
1,792,350
1,529,900
2,144,950
1,950,200
1,263,450
1,520,250
2,235,450
2,806,350
1,856,000
2,333,000
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire . .
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands . . . .
. .. $1,061,125
516,425
686,650
355 525
525,775
. . . 1,113,800
614,275
, . . 2,735,600
. . . 1,261,125
661,375
. . . 1,655,825
863,450
661,250
. . 2,099,250
525,425
. . . 1,023,850
680,700
.. 1,124,075
.. 1,713,575
596,600
548,650
. . 1,024,725
769,700
871,450
981,850
453,825
.. 1,171,675
816,125
$2,122,250
1,032,850
1,373,300
711 050
1,051,550
2,227,600
1,228,550
5,471,200
2,522,250
1,322,750
3,311,650
1,726,900
1,322,500
4,198,500
1,050,850
2,047,700
1,361,400
2,248,150
3,427,150
1,193,200
1,097,300
2,049,450
1,539,400
1,742,900
1,963,700
907,650
2,343,350
1,632,250
SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
Section 1. Administration and States rights
Subsection (a) provides that the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare shall administer the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Subsection (b) provides that nothing in this act shall be construed
as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of
the States with respect to the waters of such States, including, but
not limited to, the power, authority, and jurisdiction of such States
to enforce State water pollution control laws and regulations.
Section 2. Research
Subsection (a) eliminates the $100,000 per year limit on appropria-
tions for pollution control advance study research fellowships.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to establish, equip, and main-
tain field laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 333
to, one to be located in the northeastern area of the United States,
one in the southeastern area, one in the midwestern area, one in the
southwestern area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one in the State
of Alaska, for the conduct of research, investigations, experiments,
field demonstrations and studies, and training relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution. Insofar as practicable, each
such facility shall be located near institutions of higher learning in
which graduate training in such research might be carried out. In
addition, the Secretary is directed to conduct research and technical
development work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of
[p. 14]
the waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present
and projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying
conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the
water quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an evalua-
tion of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal
practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means
of solving water pollution problems (including additional waste treat-
ment measures) with respect to such waters.
Section 3. State program grants
Subsection (a) authorizes increased grants to State and interstate
water pollution control agencies for the operation of their programs
from $3 million to $5 million and extends such authorization through
June 30, 1971.
Subsection (b) provides that State programs submitted pursuant
to this act set forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects for construction grants.
Section 4. Waste treatment plant construction grants
Subsection (a) provides that no construction grant shall be made
for any project in an amount exceeding whichever of the following
is the smaller: (a) $800,000, or (b) the total of 30 percent of the first
$1 million of the reasonable cost of the project as determined by the
Secretary, plus 15 percent of the next $2 million of such cost, plus 10
percent of the remainder of such cost. The grantee must agree to
pay the remaining cost. In the case of a project serving more than
one municipality, each municipality to be served by such project
shall be eligible for a grant based on its share of the estimated reasona-
ble cost of such project, and the total of all the amounts so determined,
or $2,400,000, whichever is the smaller, shall be the maximum amount
of the grant which may be made under this section for a joint project.
Subsection (b) provides that no construction grant shall be made
in any State in an amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant has been
-------
334 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
made to each project for which an application was filed with the
appropriate State water pollution control agency prior to the enact-
ment of this legislation.
Subsection (c) provides for reallocation of construction grant funds
of a State that are not obligated for the construction of approved
projects within 18 months. These funds would then be reallotted to
States which are in a position to go forward with approved projects.
Subsection (d) increases the authorization of appropriations for
waste treatment works construction grants from $50 million to $100
million annually and the total aggregate authorization from $500
million to $1 billion.
Subsection (e) would make the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act
applicable to projects awarded construction grants under this
legislation.
Section 5. Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
Subsection (a) continues the existing Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Advisory Board and names as its chairman the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare or his designee.
Subsection (b) provides that the term of any Advisory Board mem-
ber, normally expiring after 3 years, shall be extended until the date
on which his successor's appointment is effective.
[P-15]
Section 6. Enforcement measures against pollution of navigable waters
(a) The pollution of navigable waters which endangers the health
or welfare of any persons is made subject to abatement.
(b) State and interstate action to abate pollution is encouraged and
shall not be displaced by Federal action except as otherwise provided.
(c) A conference, initiating Federal enforcement procedures, must
be called—
(1) Upon request of a State or municipality with State con-
currence when the pollution endangers the health or welfare of
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge
originates.
(2) Whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, and studies, the
Secretary has reason to believe that such interstate pollution is
occurring.
(3) Upon request of a State or municipality with State con-
currence when the pollution is endangering the health or welfare
of persons only in the requesting State, unless, in the judgment
of the Secretary, the effect of such intrastate pollution is not of
such significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction.
(d) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the conference
or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 335
pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of any
persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate
State water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial
action. The Secretary shall allow at least 6 months from the date
he makes such recommendations for the taking of such recommended
action.
(e) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action is not taken or action which in the judgment of the Secretary is
reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollution is not
taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near
one or more of the places where the discharge or discharges causing
or contributing to such pollution originated, before a hearing board
of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State in
which any discharge causing or contributing to such pollution origi-
nates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollu-
tion shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the hearing
board and at least one member shall be a representative of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the hearing board
shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. At least 3 weeks' prior notice of
such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control agen-
cies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid
hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis of the
evidence presented at such hearing, the hearing board shall make
findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is oc-
curring and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is
being made. If the hearing board finds such pollution is occurring and
effective progress toward abatement is not being made it shall make
recommendations to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any,
which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of
such pollution. Such findings and recommendations shall be the
findings and recommendations of the Secretary except to the extent,
on the basis of the evidence at such hearing, he believes additional or
different
[p. 16]
findings or recommendations are warranted. The Secretary
shall send his findings and recommendations to the person or persons
discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution,
together with an order specifying a reasonable time, but not less than
6 months from the date of issuance of such order, to secure abatement
of such pollution in accordance with such findings and recommenda-
tions. Such order shall become final on the 60th day after the date
of its issuance unless an appeal is taken. The Secretary shall also
-------
336 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
send a copy of such findings and recommendations and such order to
the water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
attending the hearings as a party of record.
(f) An appeal may be taken from any such order of the Secretary
by any person who has been made subject to such order to the U.S.
court of appeals for the circuit in which any discharge or discharges
causing or contributing to the pollution subject to abatement by such
order originates by filing with such court a notice of appeal within
60 days from the date of issuance of the order. The jurisdiction of
the court shall attach upon the filing of such notice. A copy of such
notice shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the
Secretary or any officer designated by him for that purpose and to
any other person who received a copy of the Secretary's order. The
Secretary shall thereupon file in the court the record of the proceed-
ings before the hearing board as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code, together with his findings of fact and recom-
mendations. Such findings of the Secretary, if supported by sub-
stantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole, shall be
conclusive, but the court for good cause shown may remand the case
to the Secretary for the taking of additional evidence in such manner
and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper.
The Secretary may thereupon make or cause to be made new or
modified findings of fact and recommendations, and he shall file with
the court the record of such further proceedings, the new or modified
findings and recommendations, and his recommendations, if any, for
the setting aside or modification of his original order. Such new or
modified findings shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substan-
tial evidence when considered on the record as a whole.
(g) Upon the basis of the record of the proceedings filed with it,
the court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order affirming or setting
aside, in whole or in part, the order of the Secretary. The judgment
of the court shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of
the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section
1254 of title 28 of the United States Code.
(h) The U.S. district courts shall have jurisdiction of any civil
action brought by the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary
to enforce any order issued under this section by the Secretary, or
by a U.S. court of appeals.
(i) Members of any hearing board appointed pursuant to subsection
(e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the United
States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by such
board or otherwise engaged on the work of such board, receive com-
pensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100
per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 337
regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5
[p. 17]
U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
(j) As used in this section, the term "person" includes an individ-
ual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and
political subdivision of a State.
(k) As used in this section, the term "municipality" means a city,
town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created
by or pursuant to State law.
Section 7. Discharges from Federal installations
This section provides that in his summary of any conference
pursuant to section 8 (c) (3) of this act, the Secretary shall include
references to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from
any Federal property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 8 (e)
involving any pollution alleged to be effected by any such discharges
shall also be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the
property involved and the findings and recommendations of the hear-
ing board conducting such hearing shall also include references to any
such discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such
hearing board.
Section 8. Definitions
This section redefines the terms "State" and "interstate waters" as
follows:
The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters.
Section 9. Savings clause
This section provides that abatement procedures in effect prior to
the enactment of this act are to continue to be applicable to abatement
action underway before the enactment of this bill.
Section 10. Short title
This section provides that the bill may be cited as the "Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961."
[p. 18]
MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 6441
We, the undersigned members of the Committee on Public Works,
are strongly in favor of water conservation and the prevention of
-------
338 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
water pollution; however, we feel that this bill does not give proper
recognition to the responsibilities of the States to participate, along
with the Federal Government and municipalities, in the costs of con-
struction of necessary sewage and waste treatment works; that it
imposes unwarranted obligation upon the Federal Government to
finance the construction of facilities which are the primary respon-
sibility of State and local governments; and that the responsibilities
and interests of the States are abrogated beyond reason or necessity
by the new Federal enforcement measures to secure abatement of
pollution.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTE TREATMENT WORKS
Public Law 660, 84th Congress, authorizes the appropriation of $50
million for each fiscal year, not to exceed an aggregate of $500 million,
of which total sum $232,473,000 has been appropriated for fiscal
years 1957 through 1961, for the purpose of making grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters. H.R. 6441 would increase this authorization to $100 million
for each fiscal year, not to exceed an aggregate of $1 billion.
We found no indication that municipalities, or the States, gen-
erally are unable to finance the costs of constructing waste treatment
works. The problem appears to be primarily one of the priority
assigned by municipalities to the construction of sewage treatment
works in their capital financing program and the reluctance of most
States to assume any responsibility for the construction of treatment
works. Justification for Federal construction grants in this field
would, therefore, appear to rest primarily on their value as incentives
to accelerate needed construction and to motivate the States to recog-
nize and accept their rightful responsibility therefor, rather than on
a concept of financial aid to equalize the financial abilities of munici-
palities and States generally.
No provision is made in existing law or in H.R. 6441 for the States
to share in financing the construction grant program. We believe
that the States have a primary responsibility in this area; however,
only five States (Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Georgia) have grant programs of an applicable type in operation at
this time.
There was evidence before the committee that 5,127 communities
serving 42 million people now require sewage treatment plants, plant
enlargement, or additional treatment, with the total estimated cost
of such backlog municipal waste treatment needs being in excess of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 339
$2 billion. Calculations by the Public Health Service indicate that
[p. 19]
the elimination of this backlog in 10 years, together with needs im-
posed by population growths and obsolescence of existing works, will
require an average annual expenditure of $600 million, or a total of
$6 billion. If this urgent need for treatment works is to be met, it
is essential that the States participate in the costs of providing essen-
tial treatment facilities.
There was convincing testimony before the committee that sub-
sidized sewage treatment plant construction under the Federal grant
program has tended merely to displace unsubsidized construction, and
that rather than stimulating construction of treatment plants the
Federal grant program has created a sprag and slowdown in the
previous rise in municipal expenditures for unsubsidized sewage
treatment plants since communities stand in line and wait for their
grants, and there isn't enough Federal money to go around.
An increase in the Federal grants, without any requirement for
State matching, will merely create an additional displacement of un-
subsidized construction and will further tend to hold back rather than
stimulate pollution control efforts on the part of the States and
municipalities themselves, by promoting the decline in the construc-
tion of sewage treatment works independent of Federal grants.
The President of the United States clearly expressed the fallacy of
such legislation in his message (Document No. 346, 86th Cong., 2d
sess.) disapproving a similar bill (H.R. 3610) enacted by the 86th
Congress, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
increase the annual authorizations for treatment plant construction
grants from $50 million to $90 million, and to increase the aggregate
from $500 million to $900 million.
The President said:
Because water pollution is a uniquely local blight, primary
responsibility for solving the problem lies not with the Federal
Government but rather must be assumed and exercized, as it has
been, by States and local governments. This being so, the defects
of H.R. 3610 are apparent. By holding forth the promise of a
large-scale program of long-term Federal support, it would tempt
municipalities to delay essential water pollution abatement efforts
while they waited for Federal funds.
The rivers and streams of our country are a priceless national
asset. I accordingly, favor wholeheartedly appropriate Federal
cooperation with States and localities in cleaning up the Nation's
waters and in keeping them clean. This administration from the
beginning has strongly supported a sound Federal water pollu-
-------
340 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion control program. It has always insisted, however, that the
principal responsibility for protecting the quality of our waters
must be exercised where it naturally reposes—at the local level.
Polluted water is a threat to the health and well-bsing of all
our citizens. Yet pollution and its correction are so clossly
involved with local industrial processes and with public water
supply and sewage treatment, that the problem can be success-
fully met only if State and local governments and industry as-
sume the major responsibility for cleaning up the Nation's rivers
and streams.
[p. 20]
The Federal Government can help, but it should stimulate State
and local action rather than provide excuses for inaction—which
an expanded program under H.R. 3610 would do.
The House of Representatives agreed with the President and
sustained his veto of the bill
These objectionable features are now back in H.R. 6441. In fact
this bill is even worse, for it authorizes the appropriation of larger
sums than the bill vetoed last year.
Furthermore, H.R. 6441 would double the present authorization
for construction grants in spite of the fact that Federal loans and
grants are made available for the construction of sewage treatment
plants through other Federal programs.
The Housing and Home Finance Agency, through the Community
Facilities Administration, makes loans of Federal funds for periods,
up to 40 years for the full cost of construction of public facilities,
including sewage-treatment plants, and has made such loans since
1955. These loans are made from a $150 million revolving fund, which
now has an obligated balance of approximately $57 million. Ob-
viously, if a municipality can have a gift, rather than a loan, of
Federal funds it will take the former. The declining attractiveness of
Federal loans for the construction of community facilities is reflected
in a form letter sent out this past February by the Housing and Home
Finance Agency to solicit community applications for loans, the body
of which letter is quoted, as follows:
Not too long ago funds were advanced to your community to
finance preliminary plans for construction of the facilities identi-
fied above. Many other public agencies throughout the country
have received similar planning advances. Because of current
economic conditions, it is the Government's desire to activate
through construction as many of these projects as possible. Both
local and national economics will be favorably affected by placing
a substantial number of planned projects under construction.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 341
To provide immediate construction financing for planned facili-
ties, the basic interest rates for public facility loans have been
reduced to 4% percent for general obligation bonds and 4% per-
cent for revenue bonds. Other policies which in the past
restricted public facility loans to water, sewer, and gas projects
have also been changed to provide financing for all typas of public
works, except schools, which the community is interested in
placing under immediate construction.
A copy of an information circular which describes the public
facility loans program and mimeographed information sheets
which outline recent policy changes are enclosed. We bslieve that
you will be interested in reviewing these items. After considering
the need for the planned project, you may desire to submit an
application for a construction loan. If so, we shall ba happy to
provide you with application forms and assist in the preparation
of an application. Further planning would not likely be nseded
to support an application for construction financing.
[p. 21]
Please advise us as early as possible of your interest in con-
structing this facility with a loan through this Agency.
The area redevelopment bill, now in conference committee, would
establish still another overlapping Federal program. It authorizes
$75 million for grants and $100 million for loans for public facilities,
including sewage-treatment plants.
The duplicity of Federal programs, competing with each other,
to give or loan money to municipalities for the construction of public
facilities, has reached absurdity. A community wishing to construct
a sewage treatment plant may successfully emerge from the confusion
of the overlapping and duplicity of these several Federal programs
so as to combine their benefits and avoid using any local or State
funds for the construction of a sewage treatment project.
Alternate plan
We believe that, rather than compounding the increasing decline
in construction of treatment works independent of Federal subsidy
which will result from a mere doubling of the amount of funds author-
ized to be appropriated for Federal grants, as now provided in H.R.
6441, if there is to be any increase in the amount of funds appropriated
for Federal grants it should be directed toward providing an effective
incentive to accelerate needed construction by offering an inducement
to the States to respond to their responsibilities and participate in
the cost of treatment plants.
This can be accomplished, without reducing the level of the present
-------
342 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
construction grant program under existing law, by requiring that
State funds match any sums authorized to be appropriated, by
H.R. 6441, which are in excess of the $50 million annual authorization
provided in existing law. If enlargement of the Federal grant pro-
gram to construct local sewage treatment works is inescapable, then
it is high time that the States face up to their responsibilities and
assist in defraying the costs of such facilities.
It is recognized that most States would have to enact legislation
to provide State matching funds if the municipalities of such States
would have benefit of additional Federal authorizations under this
plan. We feel that a period of 3 years is adequate for the necessary
State legislative action, and that the State matching provisions should
apply to such additional funds appropriated for fiscal year 1965 and
subsequent years.
By requiring that the States match that portion of annual appro-
priations in excess of $50 million, authorizations in H.R. 6441 can be
reduced from $100 million to $75 million per year, while still making
$100 million available annually, by the combination of Federal and
State aid, for the construction of local waste treatment works.
Under this plan, the authorization for annual appropriations of
Federal funds would be increased by 50 percent, rather than the 100-
percent increase now provided by H.R. 6441; the responsibility of the
States to share in the cost of constructing local waste treatment works
would be highlighted, and an incentive would be offered to secure
such State participation; and the sums to be made available to munici-
palities, including State matching funds, would be the same as that
which H.R. 6441 would now provide by Federal grants alone. Fur-
thermore, this new triparty approach to the solution of a pre-
dominantly local and State problem can be initiated and carried out
[p. 22]
without decreasing or slowing up the Federal grant program under
existing law.
Among the reasons for such State participation are these:
(1) State matching of the additional $25 million annual authoriza-
tion for Federal grants would result in doubling the present grant-in-
aid program, by making a total of $100 million of Federal and State
funds available to municipalities annually.
(2) The requirement of State matching of the additional authoriza-
tion for Federal grants would result in a more effective screening of
project applications, since the State would have a financial interest
in such applications. The State, under such a matching arrangement,
would want to confine its grants to projects of outstanding merit, most
urgently needed, and which involve a real water pollution problem.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 343
(3) Cooperation by the States with the Federal Government would
greatly strengthen the water pollution control program.
(4) Local communities would financially benefit by State matching
of the additional authorizations for Federal grants. For example, if
Federal grants for projects are derived in proportional amounts from
the basic $50 million annual authorization, as contained in existing
law, and from the proposed additional $25 million annual authoriza-
tion, the State matching funds would be one-third of the amount of
the Federal grants, and the amount of local funds required for projects
costing $1 million or less would be reduced from 70 percent of the
total project cost, under existing law, to 60 percent of the total cost.
(5) Federal-State matching would give the State a more effective
participation in the water pollution control program. Under such a
program the rights and responsibilities of the States would be recog-
nized, and there would be a more wholesome atmosphere for Federal-
State cooperation.
(6) The enforcement of abatement of pollution is a joint partner-
ship effort of the States and the Federal Government, under existing
law, and the States should likewise share in the cost of providing
treatment works to eliminate the discharge of pollution matters.
To strengthen the existing water pollution control program, as
discussed above, the minority proposes an amendment substantially
as follows:
(1) On page 6, line 4, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof
a comma and the following:
and such subsection (b) is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sentence:
"If the total of all appropriations, made under authority of this
section, for any fiscal year which begins after June 30, 1964,
exceed $50,000,000, no grant shall be made for any project from
that portion of the appropriation in excess of $50,000,000 which
is allocated to any State unless such State shall pay toward the
cost of such project an amount equal to the Federal contribution
made to such project from such amount in excess of $50,000,000."
and
(2) On page 6, line 23, and on page 24, line 1, strike out "$100,-
000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$75,000,000," and on page 7, line 2,
strike out "$1,000,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$750,000,000."
[p. 23]
This proposal would amend H.R. 6441 by reducing the authorization
for annual appropriations for construction grants from $100 million to
$75 million, and the aggregate from $1 billion to $750 million, thus
authorizing the annual appropriation of $25 million more than the
-------
344 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
$50 million authorized by existing law. It would require State match-
ing of that part of any grant made from an allotment from the addi-
tional $25 million authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1965
and subsequent years. Grants made from allotments from the entire
$75 million appropriated for fiscal years prior to 1965, and that part
of any grants made from allotments from the first $50 million appro-
priated for fiscal year 1965 and subsequent years, would not require
any matching by State funds. This modification of H.R. 6441 would
postpone the requirement for State matching for 3 years to allow time
for the State legislatures to provide State funds. Commencing with
fiscal year 1965, if a State should not supply matching funds, the
Federal construction grant program would continue in that State
at the present level; whereas any State supplying the required match-
ing funds will receive a 50-percent increase in Federal funds, which,
when added to the State matching funds, will double the money for
construction of treatment plants.
The minority offered this proposal in committee, along with several
other amendments designed to bring Federal, State, and local partici-
pation in the costs of construction projects into more appropriate and
realistic balance. This proposal and most of the other amendments,
including one to limit the maximum amount of Federal construction
grants to 30 percent of the estimated cost of any project or $400,000,
whichever is smaller, were rejected by the committee in favor of
the increased Federal spending provisions now contained in the bill.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES FOR POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The new enforcement measures are explained in the committee
report, and it is unnecessary to repeat them here, except to point out
their threefold import: First, to extend Federal enforcement jurisdic-
tion to all waters and to any pollution which endangers the health or
welfare of any person; second, to make the order of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, relative to abatement of pollution,
a final order, unless an appeal is taken to the U.S. circuit court of
appeals, in which event the court's review is limited to the record of
the proceedings below, and the findings of the Secretary, if supported
by substantial evidence, are conclusive; and, third, to provide for
enforcement of the Secretary's order by the U.S. district courts, in a
civil action brought by the Attorney General of the United States at
the request of the Secretary, without any requirement, as in existing
law, for the consent or request of an interested State.
Federal enforcement to secure abatement of pollution, under exist-
ing law, is applicable only to pollution of interstate waters which en-
danger the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge originates. Thus, both the waters involved and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 345
the pollution itself must be interstate in character as prerequisites to
Federal enforcement jurisdiction.
H.R. 6441 eliminates both of these requirements for Federal enforce-
ment. The provisions of existing law limiting all Federal jurisdiction
to interstate pollution is removed completely. And by the substitution
[p. 24]
of "navigable" for "interstate" waters, Federal enforcement jurisdic-
tion will no longer be restricted to waters that flow across, or form
a part of, State boundaries. This means that the Federal Govern-
ment, under the provisions of H.R. 6441, may enforce the abatement
of either interstate or intrastate pollution of waters which are, or
can be made, navigable, whether such waters flow across, or form
part of, State boundaries or are confined within the boundaries of a
single State, and irrespective of whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to the pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary thereof. Thus,
jor all practical purposes, the new Federal enforcement provisions
apply to all waters in every State.
This far-reaching extension of Federal jurisdiction takes on real
significance when viewed in light of other changes made in the en-
forcement provisions. Under existing law, the Secretary is author-
ized only to make findings and recommendations relative to pollution
and its abatement, and any enforcible order must be issued by a court
based upon the court's determination of the facts. H.R. 6441 au-
thorizes the Secretary to issue orders which become final unless an
appeal is taken to the U.S. court of appeals within 60 days, and, in
the event of appeal, the court's review is limited to the record of the
proceedings below, and the findings of the Secretary are conclusive, if
supported by substantial evidence when considered on the record as a
whole. H.R. 6441 also removes the requirement in existing law that
the Secretary's request to the Attorney General to bring suit to en-
force abatement of pollution be with the written consent of the State
where the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged
or at the written request of the State where the health or welfare of
persons is endangered by such pollution.
The combined effect of these changes is to vest the Secretary with
authority to issue abatement orders which, in substance, have the
dignity, finality, and enforcibility of court orders, and which may
be enforced by suits brought in the U.S. district courts without the
concurrence or request of any interested State. The application of
such plenary Federal power to abate what is clearly local and intra-
state pollution of waters which are confined to a single State raises a
serious policy question.
-------
346 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
We fully support strong Federal enforcement measures, including
the issuance of final orders by the Secretary and their enforcement
in the courts, where a valid Federal interest exists. In fact, we are
of the opinion that effective enforcement through the combined efforts
of Federal, State, and local authorization is a greater stimulus to the
cleaning up of water than is the Federal grant program for construc-
tion of treatment works. However, we do not believe that sufficient
Federal interest exists to justify the Federal Government to take
over a State's responsibility and to substitute Federal enforcement
for State enforcement where the pollution and its effects are entirely
intrastate and do not affect interstate waters, with its abatement
being within the jurisdiction of a single State.
We feel that local, State, and regional authorities are capable of
doing their own jobs, and that they are better qualified to solve these
local matters than some Federal officials in Washington. The Federal
Government should encourage and promote effective State and local
[p. 25]
enforcement, rather than undermining it by substituting Federal
enforcement in purely intrastate and local situations.
Therefore, we believe that the provisions of existing law which lim-
its application of Federal abatement enforcement measures to "inter-
state" waters should be continued in force. Since the committee
desires to use the term "navigable," we have no objection to making
the enforcement provisions apply to "interstate navigable" waters,
which was also the recommendation contained in proposed legisla-
tion submitted to the Congress by the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, on January 18, 1961. The minority proposes an
amendment substantially as follows:
On page 8, line 8, after "of" insert "interstate".
This proposal would amend H.R. 6441 to make "interstate navi-
gable" waters, rather than "navigable" waters, subject to abatement
of pollution by the Federal enforcement measures contained in section
8 of the bill.
PLAN TO IMPROVE PROGRAM FOR CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF WATER
POLLUTION
To accomplish the purposes of amendments offered by Congress-
man William C. Cramer in committee, but which were not agreed to,
the minority will seek to modify H.R. 6441, as amended, and reported
to the House, to provide for State matching of that portion of the
total of all appropriations for any fiscal year beginning after June 30,
1964, which exceed $50 million, and to limit the Federal enforcement
measures contained in the bill to the abatement of pollution of "inter-
state navigable" waters. The minority will also seek to reduce the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 347
authorization of waste treatment works to $75 million, and the
aggregate to $750 million.
JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS.
GORDON H. SCHERER.
WILLIAM C. CRAMER.
FRED SCHWENGEL.
HOWARD W. ROBISON.
PERKINS BASS.
WALTER L. McVEY.
CARLETON J. KING.
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Jr.
JAMES HARVEY.
[p. 26]
SUPPLEMENTAL MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 6441
Whenever a legislator opposes any of the provisions of a Federal
pollution bill, he is immediately charged by the pressure groups with
being insensible to the health and welfare of millions of Americans.
Of course, this type of pressure tactics is not only applied to pollution
legislation.
As an example, those of us who oppose Federal aid to education are
charged with being insensible to the needs of our children, inconsider-
ate of the welfare of our teachers and the scientific educational needs
of the country. As a result, many harmful, unwise, and costly provi-
sions are engineered into basically needed and worthwhile legislation
by special interest groups and welfare staters.
Let me say at the outset that there is no question but that for years
local communities and industries have wantonly dumped their un-
treated refuse into the streams of this country because it always
appeared that it was the fellow downstream who had to worry and
contend with it. However, when the worm turned and the polluter
became the man downstream, the country generally began to realize
that it had a serious problem of such magnitude that drastic legisla-
tion, both at the State and Federal level, was needed to stop this
pollution.
The Senate in 1956 passed a water pollution control bill which put
teeth into enforcement and control provisions. The power of the
Federal Government was utilized to compel polluters in one State to
desist upon complaint of another State's being harmed. Research
programs by the Federal Government were broadened. The tech-
niques for the treatment of wastes developed by these research pro-
grams were made available to the States, local communities, and in-
dustries. Legislation such as this was vitally needed, and no sensible
person opposed it.
-------
348 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
However, when this bill reached the House, those who believe that
the Federal Government should inject itself into almost every activity
of American life, those who believe that the Federal Treasury is in-
exhaustible, inserted in the House bill a brand-new grant-in-aid pro-
gram direct to local communities. The States were bypassed in this
new Federal pork-barrel handout.
It is usually the bureaucrats and Federal agencies that conceive
these new spending programs. The then President vigorously op-
posed this new grant-in-aid program. However, some of the profes-
sional bureaucrats in HEW secretly wanted it. This is the nature
of a meddlesome bureaucracy.
The proponents of this amendment to the Senate bill argued that
these grants-in-aid to the local communities would stimulate con-
struction, that local communities could not afford these costly sewage
treatment plants—as if the Federal Government could. No State,
no local community, in fact, no nation of the world, was and is as
broke as the United States. Remember, our debt today is $50
[p. 27]
billion more than the combined debt of all the States and all of the
nations of the world.
Those of us who opposed this new and novel aid program direct to
local communities pointed out that the $50 million a year Federal
grant-in-aid money provided in the 1956 House bill was another
"foot in the door" spending program; that, in view of the tremendous
cost of sewage disposal treatment plants, $50 million a year was only
a drop in the bucket. It was pointed out that the city of Cincinnati
which had built its own sewage disposal treatment plants and ar-
ranged to pay for them without Federal help by a tax on the water
bills of users, had spent $62 million; that the $50 million Federal
funds authorized in that bill was a snare and a delusion; that once
the Federal Government injected itself into this program the funds
required from the Federal Treasury would eventually reach astro-
nomical heights.
Last year the Congress increased the amount to $90 million a year
and the President vetoed the bill. The House sustained that veto.
The President said in his veto message that he was vetoing it
because—
water pollution is a uniquely local blight; that primary responsi-
bility for solving the problem lies not with the Federal Govern-
ment but rather must be assumed and exercised as it has been
by State and local government.
Of course, the President was right.
Local and State governments which set their minds to doing this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 349
job have done it and have done it effectively. The eight States in
the Ohio River Valley under a compact created the Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission. Under it the cities, villages, and
towns in that great industrial valley, had been doing a remarkable
job in eliminating pollution without cost to the Federal Government.
The proponents of Federal aid argue that it has been the grant-in-
aid program that has stimulated the spending of money on sewage
treatment plants. Certainly more money has been spent in the last
number of years on sewage disposal facilities, but it has not been
Federal aid money that has caused the increase in expenditures.
Rather it has been the teeth that were put into the law that caused
communities to act. The great bulk of the money spent on sewage
treatment facilities has been spent by communities that have had no
Federal subsidies. In fact, the average Federal subsidy to a local
community has been only about $75,000. The limit under the present
law is $250,000 to any community. Considering the high cost of
sewage treatment plants, only the extremely small communities can
receive in Federal moneys a substantial part of the costs.
The bill before the House, of course, increases the authorization to
$100 million a year and also increases the amount any one community
may receive. Next year I predict that there will again be legislation
offered to further raise the annual authorizations, and that year after
year there will be requests for additional increase in authorizations.
It should be obvious that this is what is going to happen. Instead
of these Federal subsidies stimulating the building of these plants by
local communities, it will delay them because as we increase the maxi-
mum authorization for cities, more and more of them will get in line
with hat in hand for Federal handouts. They will drag their feet,
[p. 28]
knowing that Congress the following year will make more Federal
moneys available so that they can get their share.
The President last year in vetoing an increase in authorizations
supported this position. He said:
By holding forth the promise of a large-scale program of long-
term Federal support, it will tempt municipalities to delay essen-
tial water pollution abatement efforts while they wait for Federal
funds.
The Scripps-Howard newspapers, in commenting on last year's
antipollution bill which was eventually vetoed, effectively stated the
case when they said:
If the Federal Government permitted the States and cities to
mind their own affairs, and if the Federal Government didn't tax
these same States and cities so heavily to pay for Federal "bene-
-------
350 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
fits," then the States and cities could levy their own taxes to pay
for their own benefits, and, under local supervision and respon-
sibility to the local taxpayers, the cities and States could do their
chores a great deal better and a lot cheaper.
The Federal program to build local sewage treatment plants
is just one instance * * *.
Now a bill is ready for action on the House floor, proposing
to spend $100 million a year—running up the cost of this program
$400 million in the next 8 years.
It is free-spending ideas like this which run up taxes * * *.
This new $400 million giveaway should be defeated and if
Congress, despite this year's $13 billion deficit, passes it, it should
be vetoed.
It was vetoed. The veto was sustained by the House. This year,
however, bureaucrats in HEW have had their way. An amendment
to keep the authorizations at the present level of $50 million a year
will no doubt fail. The increased Federal handouts will bs approved
by the Congress. The President will sign the bill and the sky in the
next few years will be the limit.
GORDON H. SCHERER,
Member oj Congress.
[p. 29]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
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 intro-
duced, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to ba omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (PUBLIC LAW 660, 84™
CONGRESS)
AN ACT to provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits result-
ing to the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of
water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to
support and aid technical research relating to the prevention and con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 351
trol of water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in
connection with the prevention and control of water pollution. [To
this end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service shall ad-
minister this Act through the Public Health Service and under the
supervision and direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.] To this end, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare (hereinafter in this Act called the "Secretary") shall administer
this Act.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall bs construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters [ (including boundary waters) ] of such States, including
but not limited to the power, authority, and jurisdiction of such
States to enforce State water pollution control laws and regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 2. The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall, after careful in-
vestigation, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with
State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and
with the municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of
interstate waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary
condition of surface and underground waters. In the d3v?lopment of
such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the im-
provements which are necessary to conserve such watars for public
water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife,
recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legiti-
mate uses. For the pur-
[p. 30]
pose of this section, the [Surgeon General] Secretary is authorized
to make joint investigations with any such agencies of the condition
of any waters in any State or States, and of the discharges of any
sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may adversely affect
such waters.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 3. (a) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall encourage co-
operative activities by the States for the prevention and control of
water pollution; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as
practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control
of water pollution; and encourage compacts bstween States for the
prevention and control of water pollution.
(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
-------
352 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in con-
flict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative
effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of water
pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or other-
wise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agree-
ments and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding
or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has
been approved by the Congress.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 4. (a) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall conduct in the
[Public Health Service] Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other
appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local)
authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institu-
tions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordination
of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies
relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution.
In carrying out the foregoing, the [Surgeon General] Secretary is
authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a):
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the [Public
Health Service] Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and
[p. 31]
subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the
assistance of the most promising research fellowships [: Provided,
That the total sum authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 353
year for fellowships pursuant to this subparagraph shall not
exceed $100,000]; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel of
public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications!.];
and
(b) The [Surgeon General] Secretary may, upon request of any
State water pollution control agency, or interstate agency, conduct
investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific
problem of water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency,
community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recom-
mending a solution of such problem.
(c) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall, in cooperation with
other Federal, State, and local agencies having related responsibilities,
collect and disseminate basic data on chemical, physical, and bio-
logical water quality and other information insofar as such data or
other information relate to water pollution and the prevention and
control thereof.
(d) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field labora-
tory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the south-
eastern area, one in the midwestern area, one in the southwestern
area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for
the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, field demonstra-
tions and studies, and training relating to the prevention and control
of water pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be
located near institutions of higher learning in which graduate training
in such research might be carried out.
(e) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the waters
of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and projected
future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying conditions of
waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water quality needs
of those to be served by such waters, an evaluation of municipal,
industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal practices with
respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solving
water pollution problems (including additional waste treatment
measures) with respect to such waters.
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 5. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year
to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, and
for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
-------
354 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
June 30,1971, $5,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies
to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining
adequate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
[p. 32]
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the [Sur-
geon General] Secretary shall from time to make make allotments to
the several States, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of
(1) the population, (2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and
(3) the financial need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
fiscal year the [Surgeon General] Secretary shall pay to such State
an amount equal to its Federal share (as determined under subsection
(h)) of the cost of carrying out its State plan approved under subsec-
tion (f), including the cost of training personnel for State and local
water pollution control work and including the cost of administering
the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the [Sur-
geon General] Secretary shall from time to time make allotments to
interstate agencies, in accordance with regulations, on such basis as
the [Surgeon General] Secretary finds reasonable and equitable. He
shall from time to time pay to each such agency, from its allotment,
an amount equal to such portion of the cost of carrying out its plan
approved under subsection (f) as may be determined in accordance
with regulations, including the cost of training personnel for water
pollution control work and including the cost of administering the
interstate agency's plan. The regulations relating to the portion of
the cost of carrying out the interstate agency's plan which shall be
borne by the United States shall be designed to place such agencies,
so far as practicable, on a basis similar to that of the States.
(f) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall approve any plan for
the prevention and control of water pollution which is submitted by
the State water pollution control agency or, in the case of an inter-
state agency, by such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the [Surgeon General]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 355
Secretary may from time to time reasonably require to carry
out his functions under this Act;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its
administration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
[and]
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and effi-
cient administration of the plan [.], and
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority oj projects as provided in section 6 (b) (4).
The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall not disapprove any plan
without first giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing
to the State water pollution control agency or interstate agency
which has submitted such plan.
[p. 33]
(g) (1) Whenever the [Surgeon General] Secretary, after reason-
able notice and opportunity for hearing to a State water pollution
control agency or interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with a
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement,
the [Surgeon General] Secretary shall notify such agency that no
further payments will be made to the State or to the interstate agency,
as the case may be, under this section (or in his discretion that further
payments will not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency,
for projects under or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until
he is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until
he is so satisfied, the [Surgeon General] Secretary shall make no
further payments to such State, or to such interstate agency, as the
case may be, under this section (or shall limit payments to projects
under or parts of the plan in which there is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
[Surgeon General's] Secretary's action with respect to it under this
subsection, it may appeal to the United States court of appeals for
the circuit in which such State (or any of the member States, in
the case of an interstate agency) is located. The summons and
notice of appeal may be served at any place in the United States.
The findings of fact by the [Surgeon General] Secretary, unless
-------
356 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be conclusive; but the
court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the [Surgeon
General] Secretary to take further evidence, and the [Surgeon
General] Secretary may thereupon make new or modified findings of
fact and may modify his previous action. Such new or modified
findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the
weight of the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm
the action of the [Surgeon General] Secretary or to set it aside,
in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be subject to
review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari
or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code, section
1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33 Vs per centum, and (B)
the Federal share for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be 66%
per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the [Surgeon
General] Secretary between July 1 and September 30 of each even-
numbered year, on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes
of the States and of the continental United States for the three most
recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be
conclusive for each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning
July 1 next succeeding such promulgation: Provided, That the Fed-
eral shares promulgated by the [Surgeon General] Secretary pursuant
to section 4 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956,
[p. 34]
shall be conclusive for the period beginning July 1, 1956, and ending
June 30, 1959.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita
income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per
centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be
included as part of the "United States." Promulgations made there-
after but before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year
period are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based
on satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 357
year or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for such
two years.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of
Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall, prior to the beginning
of each calendar quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate
the amount to be paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in
the case of subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection
for such period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State
(or the interstate agency) and information furnished by it, and such
other investigation, as the [Surgeon General] Secretary may find
necessary.
(2) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall pay to the State (or to
the interstate agency), from the allotment available therefor, the
amount so estimated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as
the case may be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this
paragraph) by which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be
paid such State (or such interstate agency) for any prior period under
such subsection was greater or less than the amount which should
have been paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period
under such subsection. Such payments shall be made through the
disbursing facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments
as the [Surgeon General] Secretary may determine.
SEC. 6. (a) The [Surgeon General] Secretary is authorized to make
grants to any State, municipality, or intermunicipality or interstate
agency for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent
the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste into any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the follow-
ing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant
to this section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and by
the [Surgeon General] Secretary and unless such project is included
in a comprehensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) [no
grant shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per
centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof as determined by the
Surgeon General or in an amount exceeding $250,000, whichever is
the smaller: Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining
[p.35]
-------
358 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cost;] No grant shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding
whichever of the following is the smaller: (A) $800,000, or (B) the
total of 30 per centum of the first $1,000,000 of the reasonable cost of
the project as determined by the Secretary, plus 15 per centum of the
next $2,000,000 of such cost, plus 10 per centum of the remainder of
such cost: Provided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining
cost: Provided further, That in the case of a project which will serve
more than one municipality (A) the Secretary shall, on such basis
as he determines to be reasonable and equitable, allocate to each
municipality to be served by such project its share of the estimated
reasonable cost of such project, and shall then apply the foregoing
limitations in this clause to each such share as if it were a separate
project to determine the maximum amount of any grant which may
be made under this section with respect to each such share, and the
total of all the amounts so determined or $2,400,000, whichever is
the smaller, shall be the maximum amount of the grant which may be
made under this section on account of such project, and (B) for pur-
poses of the limitation in the last sentence of subsection (d), tfie share
of each municipality so determined shall be regarded as a grant for
the construction of treatment works; (3) no grant shall be made for
any project under this section until the applicant has made provision
satisfactory to the [Surgeon General] Secretary for assuring proper
and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment works after
completion of the construction thereof; [and] (4) no grant shall be
made for any project under this section unless such project is in
conformity with the State water pollution control plan submitted
pursuant to the provisions of section 5 and has been certified by the
State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over other
eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water pollution
control needs; and (5) no grant shall be made for any project under
this section in any State in an amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant
has been made thereunder for each project (A) for which an applica-
tion was filed with the appropriate State water pollution control
agency prior to the date of enactment of this clause and (B) which the
Secretary determines met the requirements of this section and regula-
tions thereunder as in effect prior to such date of enactment.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, con-
sideration shall be given by the [Surgeon General] Secretary to the
public benefits to be derived by the construction and the propriety of
Federal aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of
constructing and maintaining the works to the public interest and to
the public necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions
made or proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 359
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums
appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be
allotted by the [Surgeon General] Secretary from time to time, in
accordance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such
sums in the ratio that the population of each 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. The allotment of a State
under the preceding sentence shall be available, in accordance with
[P. 36]
the provisions of this section, for payments with respect to projects
in such State which have been approved under this section [.], except
that any such allotment which is not obligated within six months fol-
lowing the end of the fiscal year for which it was made because
of a lack of projects which have been approved under subsection
(b) (1) of this section, or certified as entitled to priority under sub-
section (b) (4) of this section, shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on
such basis as he determines to be reasonable and equitable and in
accordance with regulations promulgated by him. Any amount made
available to a State by reallotments under the preceding sentence
shall be in addition to amounts otherwise allotted to such State under
this section, and shall be available for payments with respect to
projects in such State which have been approved under this section
prior to the close of the fiscal year following the year for which the
original allotment was made. For purposes of this section, population
shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial census for
which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of Com-
merce, and per capita income for each State and for the United States
shall be determined on the basis of the average of the per capita
incomes of the States and of the continental United States for the
three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are
available from the Department of Commerce.
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year the sum of [$50,000,000] $100,000,000 for the purpose of making
grants under this section: Provided, That the aggregate of sums so ap-
propriated shall not exceed [$500,000,000] $1,000,000,000. Sums so
appropriated shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
at least 50 per centum of the funds so appropriated for each fiscal year
shall be used for grants for the construction of treatment works
servicing municipalities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand
population or under.
-------
360 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(e) The [Surgeon General] Secretary shall make payments under
this section through the disbursing facilities of the Department of the
Treasury. Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of
construction of the project for which the amount was paid. As used
in this section the term "construction" includes preliminary planning
to determine the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment
works, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic in-
vestigation and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the construc-
tion of treatment works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alter-
ation, remodeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works;
and the inspection and supervision of the construction of treatment
works.
(f) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this sec-
tion shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on the
same type of work on similar construction in the immediate locality,
as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act
of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46
Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C. 276a through 276a-5).
[P. 37]
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 7. (a) (1) [There is hereby established in the Public Health
Service a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the
Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him, who
shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President none
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees.] There is hereby
established in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the Secretary
or his designee, who shall be chairman, and nine members appointed
by the President, none of whom shall be Federal officers or em-
ployees. The appointed members, having due regard for the purposes
of this Act, shall be selected from among representatives of various
State, interstate and local governmental agencies, of public or private
interests contributing to, affected by, or concerned with water pollu-
tion, and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or groups
demonstrating an active interest in the field of water pollution preven-
tion and control, as well as other individuals who are expert in this
field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 361
fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which
his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder
of such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking
office after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, three at the end of two years after such
date, and three at the end of three years after such date, as designated
by the President at the time of appointment, and (in) the term of any
member under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the
date on which his successor's appointment is effective. None of the
members appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his preceding term, but terms
commencing prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding terms" for
purposes of this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the [Surgeon
General] Secretary, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a
rate to be fixed by the Secretary [of Health, Education, and Welfare],
but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and while
away from their homes or regular places of business they may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the [Surgeon General] Secretary on matters of policy relating
to the activities and functions of the [Surgeon General] Secretary
under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the person-
nel of the [Public Health Service] Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
[p. 38]
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF [INTERSTATE]
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 8. (a) The pollution of [interstate] navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons [in a State
other than that in which the discharge originates], shall bs subject
to abatement as [herein] provided in this Act.
-------
362 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of [interstate] navigable waters
shall be encouraged and shall not [, except as otherwise provided by
or pursuant to court order under subsection (g),] be displaced by
Federal enforcement action except as otherwise provided by or pur-
suant to a final order issued in accordance with subsection (e) of this
section or a court order under subsection (g) of this section.
(c) (1) [Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports,
surveys, or studies, has reason to believe that any pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring, or whenever requested by a State
water pollution control agency or the Governor of any State, he shall
give formal notification of any such pollution to the State water
pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to
such pollution originates and shall call promptly a conference of the
State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
of the State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or
contributing to such pollution originates and of the State or States
claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution.] Whenever
requested by the Governor of any State, a State water pollution con-
trol agency, or (with the concurrence of the State water pollution
control agency for the State in which the municipality is situated)
the governing body of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such
request refers to pollution of navigable waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originates, give formal notification thereof to the water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States
where such discharge or discharges originate and shall call promptly
a conference of such agency or agencies and of the State water
pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States, if any, which may be adversely affected by such pollution.
Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, a State water
pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the State water
pollution control agency for the State in which the municipality is
situated) the governing body of any municipality, the Secretary
shall, if such request refers to pollution of navigable waters which is
endangering the health or welfare of persons only in the requesting
State in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing
to such pollution) originates, give formal notification thereof to the
water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the
requesting State where such discharge or discharges originate and
shall promptly call a conference of such agency or agencies and of the
State water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 363
the requesting State. The Secretary shall also call such a conference
whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason
[P- 39]
to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that
in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurring.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
(3) Following this conference, the [Surgeon General] Secretary
shall prepare and forward to all the water pollution control agencies
attending the conference a summary of conference discussions in-
cluding (A) occurrence of pollution of [interstate] navigable waters
subject to abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures
taken toward abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays,
if any, being encountered in abating the pollution.
(d) If the [Surgeon General] Secretary believes, upon the conclu-
sion of the conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward
abatement of such pollution is not being made and that the health or
welfare of any persons [in a State other than that in which the dis-
charge originates] is being endangered, he shall recommend to the
appropriate State water pollution control agency that it take neces-
sary remedial action. The [Surgeon General is to] Secretary shall
allow at least six months from the date he makes such recommenda-
tions for the taking of such recommended action.
(e) [If such] If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such
remedial action is not taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollu-
tion is not taken, the Secretary [of Health, Education, and Welfare]
shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the
places where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to
such pollution originated, before a [board] Hearing Board of five or
more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each State in which any
discharge causing or contributing to such pollution originates and
each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be
given an opportunity to select one member of the [board] Hearing
Board and at least one member shall be a representative of the De-
partment of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the [board]
Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three
weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State water
pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to
attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters.
-------
364 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the [board]
Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to
in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward
abatement thereof is being made. If the [board] Hearing Board
finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abate-
ment is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Secre-
tary [of Health, Education, and Welfare] concerning the measures,
if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abate-
ment of such pollution. Such findings and recommendations shall be
the findings and recommendations of the Secretary except to the ex-
tent, on the basis of the evidence at such hearing, he believes addi-
tional or different findings or recommendations are warranted. The
Secretary shall send [such] his findings and recommendations to the
person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to
such pollu-
fe. 40]
tion, together with [a notice specifying a reasonable time (not
less than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and
shall also send such findings and recommendations and such notice
to the State water pollution control agency, and to the interstate
agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or dis-
charges originate.] an order specifying a reasonable time, but not less
than six months from the date of issuance of such order, to secure
abatement of such pollution in accordance with such findings and
recommendations. Such order shall become final on the sixtieth day
after the date of its issuance unless an appeal is taken as provided
in subsection (b). The Secretary shall also send a copy of such find-
ings and recommendations and such order to the water pollution con-
trol agencies and interstate agencies, if any, attending the hearings
as a party of record.
[(f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
with the written consent of the State water pollution control agency
(or any officer or employee authorized to give such conssnt) of the
State or States where the matter causing or contributing to the pollu-
tion is discharged or at the written request of the State water
pollution control agency (or any officer or employee authorized to
make such request) of any other State or States where the health
or welfare of persons is endangered by such pollution, may request
the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States
to secure abatement of the pollution.
[(g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 365
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court
in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration
to the practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction
to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
public interest and the equities of the case may require.]
(f) An appeal may be taken from any such order of the Secretary
by any person who has been made subject to such order to the United
States court of appeals for the circuit in which any discharge or dis-
charges causing or contributing to the pollution subject to abatement
by such order originates by filing with such court a notice of appeal
within sixty days from the date of issuance of the order. The jurisdic-
tion oj the court shall attach upon the filing of such notice. A copy
of such notice shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court
to the Secretary or any officer designated by him for that purpose
and to any other person who received a copy of the Secretary's order.
The Secretary shall thereupon file in the court the record of the
proceedings before the Hearing Board as provided in section 2112 of
title 28, United States Code, together with his findings of fact and
recommendations. Such findings of the Secretary, if supported by
substantial evidence when considered on the record as a whole, shall
be conclusive, but the court for good cause shown may remand the
case to the Secretary for the taking of additional evidence in such
manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
proper. The Secretary may thereupon make or cause to be made new
or modified findings of fact and recommendations, and he shall file
with the court the record of such further proceedings, the new or
modified findings and recommendations, and his recommendations,
if any, for the setting aside
[p. 41]
or modification of his original order. Such new or modified findings
shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence
when considered on the record as a whole.
(g) Upon the basis of the record of the proceedings filed with it, the
court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order affirming or setting
aside, in whole or in part, the order of the Secretary. The judgment
of the court shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of
the United, States upon certioran or certification as provided in sec-
tion 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code.
(h) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction of any
civil action brought by the Attorney General at the request of the
-------
366 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Secretary to enforce any order issued under this section by the
Secretary, or by a United States court of appeals,
(i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-
section (e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, receive
compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100
per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes or
regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, in-
cluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
[h] (j) As used in this section, the term "person" includes an
individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality,
and political subdivision of [the] a State.
(k) As used in this section, the term "municipality" means a city,
town, borough, county, parish, district, or other public body created
by or pursuant to State law.
COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
SEC. 9. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any build-
ing, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable and
consistent with the interests of the United States and within any
available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Hoalth,
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter is
discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the
pollution of such waters. In his summary of any conference pursuant
to section 8 (c) (3) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references
to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal
property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 8 (e) involving
any pollution alleged to be affected by any such discharges shall also
be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property
involved and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board
conducting such hearing shall also include references to any such dis-
charges which are contributing to the pollution found by such Hearing
Board.
[p. 42]
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 10. (a) The [Surgeon General] Secretary is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions
under this Act. [All regulations of the Surgeon General under this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 367
Act shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer
or employee of the Public Health Service such of his powers and
duties under this Act, except the making of regulations, as he may
deem necessary or expedient.]
(b) The Secretary [of Health, Education, and Welfare], with the
consent of the head of any other agency of the United States, may
utilize such officers and employees of such agency as may be found
necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be neces-
sary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 11. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact
approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more
States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control
of pollution of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in
the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for] the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lake, and other
waters that flow acrossf,] or form a part off, boundaries between
two or more States] State boundaries, including coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes.
[p. 43]
-------
368 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 12. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of
the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or im-
pairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections 13
through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 3. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any pro-
'Vision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 14. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act."
[p. 44]
1.2(g)(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 353, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1961
JUNE 7,1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. KERR, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 120]
The Committee on Public Works to whom was referred the bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a
more effective program of water pollution control, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 369
The amendments are indicated in the bill as reported and are shown
by linetype and italics.
The purpose of S. 120, as amended, is to extend the authorization
for grants to States and interstate agencies to assist them in meeting
the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the
prevention and control of water pollution. The present authoriza-
tion in the amount of $3 million annually will expire during fiscal
year 1961 and the bill would authorize a continuation of this program
for an additional 5 fiscal years and will increase the grants to $5
million annually.
The bill would authorize and increase in construction grants from
$50 million annually to $70 million for fiscal year 1962; $80 million
for fiscal year 1963; $90 million for fiscal year 1964; $100 million for
fiscal year 1965; and $100 million for fiscal year 1966. It would sat a
top limit on individual grants at $500,000 or 30 percent of the project
cost, whichever is the smaller. It would, however, permit several
communities to join together in constructing joint facilities and each
could obtain the maximum allowable grant. Thus, in the case of
three communities a total grant of $1.5 million could be obtained.
The bill does protect communities having filed qualifisd applications
which do not exceed $250,000. It provides for a reallocation of funds
among the States; however, such reallocation is not permitted for a
period of 2 years.
[P.I]
The bill has several provisions not in existing law which are of
great importance. These provisions are: (1) Authority for Federal
agencies to include capacity in reservoirs for water quality control.
This capacity not to be a substitute for adequate treatment of sewage.
A determination would be made of the benefits of such capacity and
an appropriate share of the cost allocated to this purpose. Bene-
ficiaries would be determined and if the benefits are widespread or
national in scope, the costs of such capacity would be nonreimburs-
able. (2) There would be authorized the establishment of research
and demonstration facilities to study and determine practicable means
of treating municipal sewage and other waterborne waste to remove
the maximum amount of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants.
There would be authorized $10 million for the establishment of a
research and demonstration center and $5 million annually would be
authorized for 5 years for the purpose of conducting required studies
and developing new methods of treatment or treatment plant con-
struction. The program would also include the development of proto-
types or models to demonstrate results of research findings. (3) Au-
thorizes the establishment of field laboratories in various parts of the
-------
370 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
country for research and demonstrations in water pollution control.
(4) Requires that such action as may be necessary be taken to insure
payment of wages on treatment construction projects, at not less than
those prevailing on construction in the immediate locality as deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon
Act. (5) Expands Federal pollution abatement authority to all navi-
gable waters including authority to enter into intrastate water pollu-
tion cases upon request of the Governor.
The bill would also make changes in the Water Supply Act of 1958,
which would permit the inclusion of capacity in Corps of Engineers
or Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs for future water supplies on the
basis that final repayment contacts need not be entered into until
such capacity is first used.
GENERAL STATEMENT
Public hearings were held by the committee on May 8 and 9, 1961.
Officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and
representatives of State and local governments, interstate water pol-
lution control agencies, conservation organizations, the public health
and medical profession, and industry testified at these hearings or
presented their views for the record.
The committee has given careful consideration to the bill and all
related comments and recommendations, which were brought to its
attention. As a result of that consideration, S. 120, is being here
reported with amendments, the desirability of which was indicated
as a result of the hearings and material presented to the committee
since introduction of the bill.
It is the view of the committee that the bill provides an orderly
approach to water pollution control and recommends its enactment.
DISCUSSION
Just as the need for water is related to population, so is the pro-
duction of sewage and associated wastes. During the latter part of
1930, it was predicted that our population would reach a plateau of
[P-2]
about 170 million by 1975. Instead, we are experiencing an explo-
sive population growth and in 1957 had already passed the 170 mil-
lion mark, 18 years ahead of schedule. Population projections
suggest that population may reach the 232 to 274 million range by
1980 and about 329 million by the year 2000.
Most of the population increase will be in metropolitan areas. It
is conservatively estimated that the larger metropolitan areas will
contain 70 percent of the total population by 1980 and 80 percent by
year 2000, when 95 percent of the total population are expected to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 371
reside in urban places. The magnitude of the problem of disposing
of municipal sewage will grow in direct proportion to this increase in
urban populations. Municipal sewage includes those wastes from
domestic, commercial, public, and industrial establishments discharg-
ing through municipal sewer systems. Perhaps 80 percent (by num-
ber, rather than by volume or value of products) of the industrial
establishments in the United States are connected to such systems,
and it is estimated that about one-third of the organic wastes treated
by municipalities are industrial in origin.
Very large quantities of water are withdrawn daily from streams
and lakes for cooling purposes by steam-electric powerplants, steel
mills, petroleum refineries and various other industrial plants. After
use, these waters are usually returned to the river or lake and sub-
stantial amounts of heat are thus transferred to the bodies of water.
The introduction of heat in any substantial quantities into such bodies
of water has the effect of introducing additional pollution, because of
the ability of these waters to assimilate oxygen-demanding pollution,
or to support fish life, is thereby reduced.
Heat pollution from both industrial and powerplant sources are
expected to increase at a very substantial rate over the next 40 years.
The 1956 Water Pollution Control Act broadened and strengthened
earlier legislation by providing grants for the construction of munici-
pal waste treatment facilities, grants to improve and strengthen State
and interstate programs, more workable Federal enforcement, more
effective research, and collection of basic data.
During the 5 years preceding passage of the 1956 act, the construc-
tion of municipal waste treatment works averaged only $222 million
annually. For the ensuing 5 years that the grants provisions have
been in effect, contract awards for this construction have averaged
$360 million annually and over 2,600 projects costing $1.2 billion
have been approved. This is a 62-percent increase in construction.
Also, for each Federal grant dollar, there has been an expenditure of
$4.80 in local funds. A 1960 survey by the State water pollution
control agencies shows that the present backlog is still more than
5,000 projects, with an estimated cost of nearly $2 billion. To elimi-
nate this longstanding backlog, and to keep up with the new needs
due to population growth and continuing obsolescence of existing
plants, will require annual average construction levels of $600
million.
The acceleration of the program of sewage plant construction is
certainly one of the most necessary activities in order to clear up
our streams and lakes. However, sewage treatment as it has been
practiced in American communities, consists of treating the sewage
by mechanical and biological means to remove the more objectionable
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
solids and discharging the residual or effluent to a watercourse, such
[p. 3]
as a stream or lake. The treatment methods in use today are es-
sentially those which were developed some 30 to 40 years ago and
have been reasonably adequate for meeting past needs.
Even with the present intensity of water use, it is necessary for
water to be used and reused. The rate of reuse will continue to
increase with growing demands for water. With each reuse, new
foreign substances are added so that even after sewage treatment, the
suitability of the water for further use is progressively impaired.
This means that water must be freed of all undesirable foreign sub-
stances, including viral and bacterial pathogens, new organic mate-
rials resistant to treatment, detergents, nutrients, mineral salts,
radioactive contaminants, and other pollutants. Very little research
money has been put into this field due to the fact that sewage re-
search activities are almost entirely dependent on public support.
By comparison, the biological know-how in industry has been rela-
tively far advanced by the heavy investments industry has allocated
to scientific research.
The highest degree of sewage treatment by present methods is gen-
erally called complete treatment, that is, a high percentage of sus-
pended solids and biochemical oxygen demand (b.o.d.) is removed.
In complete treatment employing the activated sludge process, re-
movals of 85 to 95 percent of the b.o.d. and 85 to 90 percent of the
suspended solids are possible. Generally the percentage of removal
is about 85 percent. It has been mentioned that in 1957, the dis-
charge of treated sewage by a city such as Chicago, which realized
over 85-percent removals, has the same effect as discharging the raw
sewage from over 1 million people.
There is every reason to believe that a vigorous research attack on
waste treatment problems would lead to breakthroughs and new proc-
esses which will make it possible to handle ever-increasing wasteloads,
and even to restore streams to a state approaching their original
natural purity. Present and predicted needs reveal that a basic
research project should be initiated immediately because it would, no
doubt take some time before the results would have a significant im-
pact on municipal sewage treatment facilities.
If all waste or all water deteriorating elements could be removed
by treatment, a region's water supply could be used over and over.
Even though removal or treatment could approach 100 percent, there
would still be an oxygen demand induced by treatment itself, which
under presently known technology, can be offset only by an adequate
flow of water in the stream. Also, water being stored and released at
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 373
the proper time, can do much toward reducing the temperature of
water thus reducing the polluting effect of heat. Water of good
quality could be stored and released and mixed with water of lesser
quality thereby, perhaps making it suitable for various uses.
Extension of Federal enforcement to include navigable waters as
well as interstate waters, would seem to be needed in view of the
limitation imposed in connection with enforcement laws now in effect.
In other words, many coastal waters are now excluded as well as
waters, although they may be navigable, which do not cross or form
parts of State boundaries, In addition, it would be helpful to States in
coping with water pollution problems, if the Federal Government
were permitted, upon request of the Governor, to enter into intrastate
cases because in instances, it may be that States do not have
technicians
[p. 4]
available who can collect and analyze data upon which to proceed in
correcting water pollution problems. The States should, however,
exhaust every resource available to them before asking for Federal
assistance.
The Water Supply Act of 1958, authorizes the Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation to include capacity in reservoirs for
municipal and industrial water supplies, along with capacity for other
purposes. The act provides for the repayment of these costs with
interest. It provides that capacity may be included for present and
anticipated future demands and that not to exceed 30 percent of the
total cost of any project constructed by these agencies, may be allo-
cated to anticipated future demands. The present law has been in-
terpreted, in certain instances, to mean that firm contracts must be
entered into for that portion set aside for future demands, as well as
present demands, however, the original intention was that only
"reasonable assurances" of use and repayment need to be obtained
with respect to the capacity set aside for future demands. There is
a need to amend this particular provision because in many instances,
projects are being planned which, along with flood control, hydro-
power, etc., offer opportunities for the storage of water for future
municipal and industrial demands, but there is no entity with whom
to contract. In many cases, it is probable that if an adequate quantity
of water is available, the natural resources of an area will be devel-
oped whereas, without the availability of such a supply, there would
be no opportunity for such development. It would seem that when
reservoir projects are being planned, the full potentials of the site
should be developed as an "insurance" for the future. It would appear
to be appropriate to include capacity for future demands on the basis
-------
374 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of studies and analysis of future potential uses without requiring a
firm contract.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF BILL
STORAGE FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL
The committee is increasingly concerned about the need for better
utilizing our Nation's waters and particularly with respect to its
impoundment and release for the many beneficial demands which are
present. Therefore, the committee has added language, through the
bill being reported, which would permit the inclusion in reservoirs of
capacity for water which would be used in improving low flow condi-
tions which create loss of fish and aquatic life and which aggravate
the concentration of natural and manmade pollution.
RESEARCH FACILITIES AND FUNDS
The committee does not wish to encourage the widespread use of
our Nation's water for dilution of sewage in lieu of proper treatment
although it is recognized that certain amounts of water will be re-
quired. Accordingly, funds in the amount of $10 million would be
authorized for the establishment of a research center which would
include facilities for developing methods for treatment and handling
of pollutants. It is also expected that actual experimentation in and
the development of new types of treatment plants would bs carried
forward. The committee recommends $5 million annually for 5 years
[p. 5]
to carry forward such a research program and is hopeful that a break-
through can be made in that time, if not earlier.
In addition there would be authorized the installation of field or
area laboratories and headquarters for use in providing technical serv-
ices to water pollution control agencies. These services consist of
evaluating findings with respect to sources of pollution, determining
possible means of isolating natural pollution through field research
and studying and evaluating pollution problems which are peculiar
to various sections of the country.
The bill would authorize extension of the program to fiscal year
1966 and would increase the annual authorizations from $3 to $5
million. The following is a table showing approximate allotments of
program grants, required matching funds, and totals.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
375
TABLE 1.—Water pollution program grants, comparison of tentative Federal allotments, State and local
funds required, and totals
State or interstate agency
Tentative
Federal
allotment
Federal share
(percent) of
program costs
State and
local funds
required for
grant of full
Federal
allotment
Totals
Total $4,500,000
4,578,500 $9,078,500
Alabama 94,300
Alaska 22,800
Arizona 40,500
Arkansas 64,600
California 242,700
Colorado 47 CJQQ
Connecticut 79,800
Delaware 49, loo
District of Columbia 50,900
Florida 106,900
Georgia 104,700
Hawaii 42,100
Idaho 32,200
Illinois 183,100
Indiana 108,300
Iowa 70,800
Kansas 56,900
Kentucky 86,800
Louisiana 87,900
Maine 41,600
Maryland 84,800
Massachusetts 124,600
Michigan 160,000
Minnesota 81,100
Mississippi 80,300
Missouri 94,300
Montana 30,200
Nebraska 44,000
Nevada 23,300
New Hampshire 39 400
New Jersey 133,'soo
New Mexico 35,500
New York 273,100
North Carolina 125,700
North Dakota 32,200
°nio 187,300
Oklahoma 63,900
Oregon 49,500
Pennsylvania 215,100
Rhode Is/and 60,400
South Carolina gl 500
South Dakota 33,'lOO
Tennessee 100,300
Texas 175,800
Utah 35,500
Vermont 32,500
Virginia 95,900
Washington 65,300
West Virginia 61,700
Wisconsin 97,800
Wyoming 24,900
662/3
40.82
54.39
662/3
39.38
51.41
33.64
33V3
331/3
54.41
6467
51.72
58.95
39 17
51.03
5444
53.91
65.05
62.95
59.14
45.97
43.65
4704
54.15
662/3
51.48
5296
5355
37.71
5427
3927
58 30
37.38
66.44
62 88
4549
5909
51.22
48.07
5055
662/3
62.69
65.27
55 73
57.42
5942
58.11
47 54
61 47
51 57
50.43
47,100
33,100
34,000
32,300
373,600
45,300
157,400
98,300
101,800
89,600
57,200
39,300
22,400
284,400
103,900
59,300
48,700
46,600
51,800
28,700
99,600
160,900
180,100
68,700
40,100
88,900
26,900
38,100
38,400
33,200
206,100
25,400
457,500
63,500
19,000
224,500
44,200
47,100
232,400
59,100
40,800
19,700
53,400
139,600
26,400
22,200
69,100
72,000
38,700
91,800
24,400
141,400
55,900
74,500
96,900
616,300
93,200
237,200
147,400
152,700
196,500
161,900
81,400
54,600
467,500
212,200
130,100
105,600
133,400
139,700
70,300
184,400
285,500
340,100
149,800
120,400
183,200
57,100
82,100
61,700
72,600
339,400
60,900
730,600
189,200
51,200
411,800
108,100
96,600
447,500
119,500
122,300
52,800
153,700
315,400
61,900
54,700
165,000
137,300
100,400
189,600
49,300
tp.6]
-------
376
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
TABLE 1.—Water pollution program grants, comparison of tentative Federal allotments. State
and local funds required, and totals—Continued
State or interstate agency
Virgin Islands . .
Total
Bi-State Development Agency
Interstate Commission on the Delaware River
Basin .... ...
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Klamath River Compact Commission
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Corn-
Tentative
Federal
allotment
$98 900
44,900
500,000
30,200
70 200
39,400
114 300
12 400
71,500
162,000
Federal share
(percent) of
program costs
66%
66%
43.46
41 27
50.79
37.41
39.09
39.81
45.92
State and
local funds
required for
grant of full
Federal
allotment
$49 500
22,400
686,900
39,300
100,000
38,100
191,300
19,300
108,100
190,800
Totals
$148,400
67,300
1,186,900
69,500
170,200
77,500
305,600
31,700
179,600
352,800
GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION
Under existing law there is authorized $50 million annually in
Federal grants to communities to assist them in construction of needed
waste treatment facilities. This program has been in operation since
1956 and the results of the program since that time have indicated the
desirability of increasing the program grants; to allow for redistribu-
tion of unused funds; to protect the present qualified applicants; to
permit multimunicipal developments, and to provide that laborers
and mechanics of contractors and subcontractors on projects for
which grants are made shall be paid prevailing wages in the locality.
The bill provides grants in the amount of $70 million for fiscal year
1962; $80 million for fiscal year 1963; 90 million for 1964; $100 million
for fiscal year 1965, and $100 million for fiscal year 1966. The total
allowable for any one project is 30 percent or $500,000, whichever is
the lesser. This would result in the following grants for various sizes
of projects:
Total cost: Project grant
$500,000 ... $150,000
$1 million .... . . 300,000
$l'/3 million ... . 400,000
$12/3 million ... . . ! 500,000
$2 million . . 500,000
1 Limit for 1 project. There would be no limitation as to number of projects which could be
included in multimunicipal arrangements.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 377
It is the purpose of the provision relating to protection of previously
filed applications not exceeding $250,000 to insure utilization of the
increased amounts available for construction grants by those smaller
communities where applications have been filed with the State water
pollution control agency prior to the date of enactment of this legisla-
tion. In order to receive grants, such projects would have to meet
all other requirements of the act, and State laws and regulations,
including agreement by the grantee to pay the remaining cost of the
project.
The purpose of the provision relating to multimunicipal projects
is to make each governmental unit served by the project eligible for
[P. 7]
a construction grant and it is applicable to projects now in operation
serving more than one municipality as well as prospective joint
projects. The committee encourages adjacent communities to band
together for the construction and operation of joint treatment and
disposal works, utilizing such financial arrangements and methods as
authorized by State statute. In addition, the committee encourages
adjacent communities to avail themselves of service capacity available
in presently operating projects serving more than one municipality.
The following tabulation shows the amounts to which each State
would be entitled for the construction of waste treatment facilities:
-------
378
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
TABLE 2 — Grants for construction of waste treatment facilities
State allotments based on —
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
$50,000,000
1,081,325
376,725
627,600
949,775
2,499,925
662,275
657,000
359,125
405,650
1,129,950
1,121,500
510,700
590,025
1,723,300
1,059,125
828,325
743,575
1,003,275
1,000,225
633,900
805,170
1,071,400
1,462,575
915,800
1,100,250
1,015,900
527,675
634,550
367,650
530,800
1,171,500
621,375
2,635,650
1,236,250
638,050
1,710,700
820,325
662,625
1,951,250
531,875
1,006,675
641,875
1,079,700
1,780,000
602,900
557,725
1,034,075
782,500
786,875
966,075
458,075
1,123,850
805,000
$70,000,000
1,513,855
527,415
878,640
1,329,685
3,499,895
927,185
919,800
502,775
567,910
1,581,930
1,570,100
714,980
826,035
2,412,620
1,482,775
1,159,655
1,041,005
1,404,585
1,400,315
887,460
1,127,245
1,499,960
2,047,605
1,282,120
1,540,350
1,422,260
738,745
888,370
514,710
743,120
1,640,100
869,925
3,689,910
1,730,750
893,270
2,394,980
1,148,455
927,675
2,731,750
744,625
1,409,345
898,625
1,511,580
2,492,000
844,060
780,815
1,447,705
1,095,500
1,101,625
1,352,505
641,305
1,573,390
1,127,000
$80,000,000
1,730,120
602,760
1,004,160
1,519,640
3,999,880
1,059,640
1,051,200
574,600
649,040
1,807,920
1,794,400
817,120
944,040
2,757,280
1,694,600
1,325,320
1,189,720
1,605,240
1,600,360
1,014,240
1,288,280
1,714,240
2,340,120
1,465,280
1,760,400
1,625,440
844,280
1,015,280
588,240
849,280
1,874,400
994,200
4,217,040
1,978,000
1,020,880
2,737,120
1,312,520
1,060,200
3,122,000
851,000
1,610,680
1,027,000
1,727,520
2,848,000
964,640
892,360
1,654,520
1,252,000
1,259,000
1,545,720
732,920
1,798,160
1,288,000
$90,000,000
1,946,385
678,105
1,129,680
1,709,595
4,499,865
1,192,095
1,182,600
646,425
730,170
2,033,910
2,018,700
919,260
1,062,045
3,101,940
1,906,425
1,490,985
1,338,435
1,805,895
1,800,405
1,141,020
1,449,315
1,928,520
2,632,635
1,648,440
1,980,450
1,828,620
949,815
1,142,190
661,770
955,440
2,108,700
1,118,475
4,744,170
2,225,250
1,148,490
3,079,260
1,476,585
1,192,725
3,512,250
957,375
1,812,015
1,155,375
1,943,460
3,204,000
1,085,220
1,003,905
1,861,335
1,498,500
1,408,500
1,738,935
824,535
2,022,930
1,449,000
$100,000,000
2,162,650
753,450
1,255,200
1,899,550
4,999,850
1,324,550
1,314,000
718,250
811,300
2,259,900
2,243,000
1,021,400
1,180,050
3,446,600
2,118,250
1,656,650
1,487,150
2,006,550
2,000,450
1,267,800
1,610,350
2,142,800
2,925,150
1,831,600
2,200,500
2,031,800
1,055,350
1,269,100
735,300
1,061,600
2,343,000
1,242,750
5,271,300
2,472,500
1,276,100
3,421,400
1,640,650
1,325,250
3,902,500
1,063,750
2,013,350
1,283,750
2,159,400
3,560,000
1,205,800
1,115,450
2,068,150
1,565,000
1,573,750
1,932,150
916,150
2,247,700
1,610,000
[p. 8]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 379
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS
The present law provides for Federal control of pollution of inter-
state waters and only where pollution is discharged directly into such
waters or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such
waters, which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a State
other than that in which the discharge originates.
The amendment would permit abatement action on navigable
waters by the Federal Government. When pollution of navigable
waters is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State,
other than that in which the discharge or discharges originate, the
Surgeon General, in his own initiative, or at the request of proper
State officials, may initiate abatement action. The amendment will
also permit Federal action, if requested by the Governor of a State,
in cases where pollution is endangering the health or welfare of per-
sons within a particular State.
AMENDMENT TO WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 1958
The present law provides authority for the Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation to include municipal and industrial water
supply capacity in reservoirs under their jurisdiction. The present
law, among other things, provides that not to exceed 30 percent of the
total cost of any project may be allocated to anticipated future
demands where State or local interest give reasonable assurances that
they will contract for the use of storage for anticipated future demands
within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allo-
cated to water supply within the life of the project. The latter provi-
sion in many cases places an undue and undesirable restriction on the
inclusion of capacity for future use, because of the inability of many
communities, and perhaps even States, to assume the contractual
obligations implied. Therefore, in order to permit optimum utilization
of the limited number of good dam and reservoir sites remaining, the
requirement for the communities or States, with respect to contractual
arrangements, should be liberalized. Accordingly, the amendment,
although still requiring reasonable assurances of the use of storage for
future water supply, would permit the Federal agency concerned to
make its own determination of future water supply needs and, on the
basis of such determination, may include capacity without definite
contractual commitments from State or local interests. It is the
intention of the committee that the Federal agency concerned would
make appropriate allocations of reservoir capacity for present de-
mands and determine the progressive increments which should be
placed in the present demand category from the future demand
reserve.
[p. 9]
-------
380 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
[33 U.S.C. 466-466k]
AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes.
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits result-
ing to the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of
water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights
of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and finan-
cial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in
connection with the prevention and control of water pollution. To
this end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service shall
administer this Act through the Public Health Service and under the
supervision and direction of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to
the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 2. (a) The Surgeon General shall, after careful investigation,
and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water
pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the
municipalities and industries involved, prepare or develop compre-
hensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of inter-
state waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary
condition of surface and underground waters. In the development
of such comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the
improvements which are necessary to conserve such waters for public
water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 381
recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legiti-
mate uses. For the purpose of this section, the Surgeon General is
authorized to make joint investigations with any such agencies of
the condition of any waters in any State or States, and of the dis-
charges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance which may
adversely affect such waters.
(b) (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal Agency, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that any
such storage and
[p. 10]
water releases shall not be provided as a substitute for adequate
treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source.
(2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose shall be
determined by these agencies, with the advice of the Surgeon General,
and his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or
presentation to the Congress proposing authorization or construction
of any reservoir including such storage.
(3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in deter-
mining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a part,
and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality control in
a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equitably
in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this
Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the
benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features
shall be nonreimbursable.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperative ac-
tivities by the States for the prevention and control of water pollu-
tion; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable,
uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control of water
pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention
and control of water pollution.
(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in con-
flict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative
effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of water
pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto,
and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they
-------
382 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and com-
pacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory
upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has bsen approved
by the Congress.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public
Health Service and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance
to other appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or
local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and in-
stitutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the co-
ordination of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations,
and studies relating to the causes, control, and prevention of water
pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is
authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
[p. 11]
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Public
Health Service with such stipends and allowances, including
traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary
to procure the assistance of the most promising research fellow-
ships: Provided, That the total sum authorized to be appro-
priated for any fiscal year for fellowships pursuant to this
subparagraph shall not exceed $100,000; [and]
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel
of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications
[.]; and
(6) establish,, equip, and maintain research and field demon-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 383
stration facilities, giving consideration in establishing such facili-
ties to locations which will facilitate cooperation with institutions
of higher education, and for the purposes of this clause (A) the
Surgeon General may acquire land and interests therein, accept
in the name of the United States donations of property, real or
personal, subject to such conditions as he may deem appropriate,
and utilize uncompensated services, (B) the Surgeon General
may contract or make other arrangements for the use of such
facilities as he may determine, and (C) there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $10,000,000.
(b) The Surgeon General may, upon request of any State water
pollution control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investi-
gations and research and make surveys concerning any specific
problem of water pollution confronting any State, interstate agency,
community, municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recom-
mending a solution of such problem.
(c) The Surgeon General shall, in cooperation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and
disseminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water
quality and other information insofar as such data or other informa-
tion relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) (1) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Surgeon
General shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions
(including conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and
experiments as may be necessary):
(A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure
the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants
created by new technological developments; and
[P. 12]
(C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed $25,000,000.
(e) The Surgeon General shall establish, equip, and maintain field
laboratory facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be located in
the northeastern area of the United States., one in the Middle Atlantic
-------
384 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
area, one in the southeastern area, one in the midwestern area, one
in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one in the
State of Alaska, for the conduct of technical investigations, experi-
ments, field demonstrations and studies, and training relating to the
prevention and control of water pollution. Insofar as practicable,
each such facility sTiall be located near institutions of higher learning
in which graduate training in such activities might be carried out.
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 5. (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]
June 30,1966, $5,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies
to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining
adequate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Sur-
geon General shall from time to time make allotments to the several
States, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the popu-
lation, (2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the
financial need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any fiscal
year the Surgeon General shall pay to such State an amount equal to
its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of the cost of
carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f), including
the cost of training personnel for State and local water pollution con-
trol work and including the cost of administering the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Sur-
geon General shall from time to time make allotments to interstate
agencies, in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Surgeon
General finds reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time
pay to each such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such
portion of the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection
(f) as may be determined in accordance with regulations, including
the cost of training personnel for water pollution control work and
including the cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The
regulations relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the
interstate agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States
shall be designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a
basis similar to that of the States.
[p. 13]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 385
(f) The Surgeon General shall approve any plan for the prevention
and control of water pollution which is submitted by the State water
pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency, by
such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Surgeon General
may from time to time reasonably require to carry out his func-
tions under this Act;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its
administration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
and
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan.
The Surgeon General shall not disapprove any plan without first
giving reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State
water pollution control agency or interstate agency which has sub-
mitted such plan.
(g) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, after reasonable notice
and opportunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency
or interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with
a requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to com-
ply substantially with such a requirement,
the Surgeon General shall notify such agency that no further pay-
ments will be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the
case may be, under this section (or in his discretion that further pay-
ments will not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for
projects under or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he
is satisfied that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is
so satisfied, the Surgeon General shall make no further payments to
such State, or to such interstate agency, as the case may ba, under this
section (or shall limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan
in which there is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
-------
386 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Surgeon General's action with respect to it under this subsection, it
may appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in
which such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an
interstate agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may
be served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by
the Surgeon General, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence,
shall be conclusive; but the court for good cause shown, may remand
the case to the Surgeon General to take further evidence, and the
Surgeon General may thereupon make new or modified findings of
[P-14]
fact and may modify his previous action. Such new or modified find-
ings of fact shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the weight
of the evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action
of the Surgeon General or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The
judgment of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided
in title 28, United States Code, section 1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less than percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33% per centum, and (B)
the Federal share for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be 66%
per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Surgeon
General between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered
year, on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the States
and of the continental United States for the three most recent con-
secutive years for which satisfactory data are available from the
Department of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive
for each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next
succeeding such promulgation: Provided, That the Federal shares
promulgated by the Surgeon General pursuant to section 4 of the
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956, shall be conclusive
for the period beginning July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita
income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per
centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be
included as part of the "United States." Promulgations made there-
after but before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 387
period are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based
on satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full
year or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for such
two years.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on
the basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of
Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Surgeon General shall, prior to the beginning of each
calendar quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the
amount to be paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the
case of subsection (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for
such period, such estimate to be based on such records of the State
(or the interstate agency) and information furnished by it, and such
other investigation, as the Surgeon General may find necessary.
(2) The Surgeon General shall pay to the State (or to the inter-
state agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so
estimated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case
may be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph)
by which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such
State (or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such
[p. 15]
subsection was greater or less than the amount which should have
been paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior psriod under
such subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disburs-
ing facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Surgeon General may determine.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 6. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to make grants to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the dis-
charge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste
into any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications
in connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Surgeon General and unless such project is included in a com-
prehensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) except as
otherwise provided in this clause, no grant shall be made for any
-------
388 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated rea-
sonable cost thereof as determined by the Surgeon General or in an
amount exceeding [$250,000] $500,000, whichever is the smaller: Pro-
vided, That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost [;]: Provided
further, That no grant oj more than $250,000 shall be approved for a
project in any State until all previously filed qualified applications
from that State and political subdivisions thereof for grants not ex-
ceeding $250,000 have first been approved: Provided further, That, in
the case of a project which will serve more than one municipality,
the Surgeon General shall, on such basis as he determines to be rea-
sonable and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served by
such project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such project,
and shall then apply the limitations provided in this clause (2) to
each share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made under this section with
respect to each such share, and the total of all the amounts so deter-
mined shall be the maximum amount of the grant which may be
made under this section on account of such project; (3) no grant
shall be made for any project under this section until the applicant
has made provision satisfactory to the Surgeon General for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment
works after completion of the construction thereof; and (4) no grant
shall be made for any project under this section unless such project
is in conformity with the State water pollution control plan submit-
ted pursuant to the provisions of section 5 and has been certified by
the State water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over
other eligible projects on the basis of financial as well as water
pollution control needs.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, con-
sideration shall be given by the Surgeon General to the public bene-
fits to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal
aid in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of con-
structing and maintaining the works to the public interest and to the
[p. 16]
public necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions
made or proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums
appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for any fiscal year shall be
allotted by the Surgeon General from time to time, in accordance
with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in the
ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 389
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. [The allotment of a State under the
preceding sentence shall be available, in accordance with the pro-
visions of this section, for payments with respect to projects in such
State which have been approved under this section.] Sums allotted
to a State under the preceding sentence which are not obligated at
the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which they were
allotted because of lack of projects which have been approved by a
State water pollution control agency under subsection (b) (1) of this
section or certified as entitled to priority under subsection (b) (4) of
this section, shall be reallotted by the Surgeon General, on such basis
as he determines reasonable and equitable and in accordance with
regulations promulgated by him, to States having projects approved
under this section for which grants have not been made because of
lack of funds. Any sum made available to a State by reallottment
under the preceding sentence shall be in addition to any funds other-
wise allotted to such State under this Act. The allotments of a State
under the second and third 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 ap-
proved under this section. For purposes of this section, population
shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial census for
which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of Com-
merce, and per capita income for each State and for the United States
shall be determined on the basis of the average of the per capita in-
comes of the States and of the continental United States for the three
most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are
available from the Department of Commerce.
[(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year the sum of $50,000,000 for the purpose of making grants
under this section: Provided, That the aggregate of sums so appro-
priated shall not exceed $500,000,000. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 per
centum of the funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be
used for grants for the construction of treatment works servicing
municipalities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population
or under.]
(d) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, for the purpose
of making grants under this section, $70,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1962, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1963, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, $100,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, and $100,000,000 for the fiscal
-------
390 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
year year ending June 30, 1966. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended.
(e) The Surgeon General shall make payments under this section
through the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury.
[p. 17]
Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construc-
tion of the project for which the amount was paid. As used in this
section the term "construction" includes preliminary planning to
determine the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment
works, the engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic in-
vestigations and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, procedures, and other action necessary to the con-
struction of treatment works; and the erection, building, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of treatment
works; and the inspection and supervision of the construction of
treatment works.
The Surgeon General shall take such action as may be necessary
to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this
section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing
on the same type of work on similar construction in the immediate
locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with
the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act
(46 Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C., sec. 276a through 276a-5).
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 7. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Public Health
Service a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of the
Surgeon General or a sanitary engineer officer designated by him,
who shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President
none of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed
members, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be
selected from among representatives of various State, interstate and
local governmental agencies, of public or private interests contribut-
ing to, affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other
public and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating
an active interest in the field of water pollution prevention and con-
trol, as well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which
his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 391
of such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking
office after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, three at the end of two years after such date,
and three at the end of three years after such date, as designated by
the President at the time of appointment. None of the members ap-
pointed by the President shall be eligible for reappointment within
one year after the end of his preceding term, but terms commencing
prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1956 shall not be deemed 'preceding terms' for purposes of
this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, but not exceeding
$50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from their homes
or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as auothorized by law (5
[p. 18]
U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Surgeon General on matters of policy relating to the
activities and functions of the Surgeon General under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the
personnel of the Public Health Service.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF [INTERSTATE]
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 8. (a) The pollution of [interstate] navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons [in a State
other than that in which the discharge originates], shall be subject
to abatement as [herein] provided!.] in this Act.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate waters shall be en-
couraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or pursuant
to court order under subsection (g), be displaced by Federal enforce-
ment action.
-------
392 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
[(c) (1) Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of reports,
surveys, or studies, has reason to believe that any pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring, or whenever requested by a State
water pollution control agency or the Governor of any State, he shall
give formal notification of any such pollution to the State water pol-
lution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States where the discharge or discharges causing or contributing to
such pollution originates and shall call promptly a conference of the
State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
of the State or States where the discharge or discharges causing or
contributing to such pollution originates and of the State or States
claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution.]
(c) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, the Surgeon General shall,, if
such request refers to pollution of navigable waters which is en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that
in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such
pollution) originates, give formal notification thereof to the water
pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State
or States where such discharge or discharges originate and shall call
promptly a conference of such agency or agencies and of the State
water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the
State or States, if any, which may be adversely affected by such
pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, the
Surgeon General shall, if such request refers to pollution of navigable
waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only
in the requesting State in which the discharge or discharges (causing
or contributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notification
thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency,
if any, of the requesting State where such discharge or discharges
originate and shall promptly call a conference of such agency or
[P. 19]
agencies and of the State water pollution control and interstate
agency, if any, of the requesting State, unless, in the judgment of the
Surgeon General, the effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses
of the waters is not of such significance to warrant exercise of Fed-
eral jurisdiction under this section. The Surgeon General shall also
call such a conference whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or
studies, he has reason to believe that any pollution referred to in sub-
section (a) and endangering the health or welfare of persons in a
'State other than that in which the discharge or discharges originate
is occurring.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 393
2. The agencies called to attend such conferences may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
(3) Following this conference, the Surgeon General shall prepare
and forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A)
occurrence of pollution of [interstate] navigable waters subject to
abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
(d) If the Surgeon General believes, upon the conclusion of the
conference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
[persons in a State other than that in which the discharge originates]
any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appro-
priate State water pollution control agency that it take necessary
remedial action. The Surgeon General is to allow at least six months
for the taking of such action.
(e) If such remedial action is not taken or action reasonably cal-
culated to secure abatement of such pollution is not taken, the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, be-
fore a board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected
by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the board and at least one member shall be a representative of the
Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the board
shall be persons other than officers or employees of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice
of said hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control
agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid
hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. On the basis of the
evidence presented at such hearing, the board shall make findings
as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring
and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being
made. If the board finds such pollution is occurring and effective
progress toward abatement is not being made it shall make recom-
mendations to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare con-
cerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and
equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall
send such findings and recommendations to the person or persons
discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution,
-------
394 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than
six months) to secure abatement of
[p. 201
such pollution, and shall also send such findings and recommenda-
tions and such notice to the State water pollution control agency, and
to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such
discharge or discharges originate.
(f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, with the written consent of the State water pollution control
agency (or any officer or employee authorized to give such consent)
of the State or States where the matter causing or contributing to the
pollution is discharged or at the written request of the State water
pollution control agency (or any officer or employee authorized to
make such request) of any other State or States where the health or
welfare of persons is endangered by such pollution, may request the
Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to
secure abatement of the pollution.
(g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the
court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consid-
eration to the practicability and to the physical and economic feas-
ibility of securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have
jurisdiction to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such
judgment, as the public interest and the equities of the case may
require.
(h) As used in this section, the term "person" includes an indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, and
political subdivision of the State.
COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
SEC. 9. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any
building, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within any
available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter
is discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the
pollution of such waters.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 395
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 10. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
All regulations of the Surgeon General under this Act shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or employee
of the Public Health Service such of his powers and duties under
this Act, except the making of regulations, as he may deem neces-
sary or expedient.
(b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the
consent of the head of any other agency of the United States, may
utilize such officers and employees of such agency as may be found
necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.
[p. 21]
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be
necessary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 11. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact
approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more
States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control
of pollution of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used
in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part of, boundaries between two
or more States.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
-------
396 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 12. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of
the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or
impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections 13
through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any
treaty of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 13. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances,
and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
[p. 22]
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 14. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act."
WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 1958
[43 U.S.C. 390b]
SEC. 301. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Con-
gress to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local
interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, indus-
trial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should
participate and cooperate with States and local interests in develop-
ing such water supplies in connection with the construction, mainte-
nance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation,
or multiple purpose projects.
(b) In carrying out the policy set forth in this section, it is hereby
provided that storage may be included in any reservoir project sur-
veyed, planned, constructed or'to be planned, surveyed and or con-
structed by the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation
to impound water for present or anticipated future demand or need
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 397
for municipal or industrial water, and the reasonable value thereof
may be taken into account in estimating the economic value of the
entire project: [Provided, That before construction or modification
of any project including water supply provisions is initiated, State
or local interests shall agree to pay for the cost of such provisions on
the basis that all authorized purposes served by the project shall
share equitably in the benefits of multiple purpose construction as
determined by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the
Interior as the case may be: Provided further, That not to exceed 30
per centum of the total estimated cost of any project may be allo-
cated to anticipated future demands where States or local interests
give reasonable assurances that they will contract for the use of
storage for anticipated future demands within a period of time which
will permit paying out the cost allocated to water supply within the
life of the project] Provided, That the cost of any construction or
modification authorized under the provisions of this section shall be
determined on the basis that all authorized purposes served by the
project shall share equitably in the benefits of multiple purpose con-
struction, as determined by the Secretary of the Army or the Secre-
tary of the Interior, as the case may be: Provided further, That
before construction or modification of any project including water
supply provisions for present demand is initiated, State or local inter-
ests shall agree to pay for the cost of such provisions in accordance
with the provisions of this section: And provided further, That not to
exceed 30 per centum of the total estimated cost of any project may
be allocated to anticipated future demands where State or local inter-
ests give reasonable assurances, and there is evidence, that such
demands for the use of such storage will be madz within a period of
time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply
within the life of the project: And provided further, That the entire
amount of the construction costs, including interest during construc-
tion, allocated to water supply shall be repaid within the life of the
project but in no event to exceed fifty years after the project is first
used for the storage of water for water supply purposes, except that
(1) no payment
[p. 23]
need be made with respect to storage for future water supply
until such supply is first used, and (2) no interest shall be charged
on such cost until such supply is first used, but in no case shall
the interest-free period exceed ten years. The interest rate used
for purposes of computing interest during construction and interest
on the unpaid balance shall be determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury, as of the beginning of the fiscal year in which con-
-------
398 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
struction 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. The provisions of this subsection
insofar as they relate to the Bureau of Reclamation and the Secretary
of the Interior shall be alternative to and not a substitute for the
provisions of the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 1187)
relating to the same subject.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to modify
the provisions of section 1 and section 8 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (58 Stat. 887), as amended and extended, or the provisions of
section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 390).
(d) Modifications of a reservoir project heretofore authorized, sur-
veyed, planned, or constructed to include storage as provided in sub-
section (b), which would seriously affect the purposes for which the
project was authorized, surveyed, planned, or constructed, or which
would involve major structural or operational changes shall be made
only upon the approval of Congress as now provided by law.
[p. 24]
1.2g(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.B. REP. No. 675, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1961
JUIY 6, 1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BLATNIK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 6441]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6441) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for a more
effective program of water pollution control, 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 399
the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amend-
ment insert the following:
That (a) the last sentence of section 1 (a) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466(a)) is amended to read as follows:
"To this end, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (here-
inafter in this Act called the 'Secretary') shall administer this Act."
(b) Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8(c) (3), and the first sentence of
section 10 (a), of such Act are each amended by striking out "Sur-
geon General" and "Surgeon General's" wherever they appear
therein and inserting in lieu thereof "Secretary" and "Secretary's,"
respectively.
(c) Sections 4 (a) and 7 (c) of such Act are each amended by
striking out "Public Health Service" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Department of Health, Education, and Welfare."
(d) Sections 7 (a) (2) (B) and 10 (b) of such Act are each amended
by striking out "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and
inserting in lieu thereof "Secretary."
(e) Section 10 (a) of such Act is amended by striking out the
second and third sentences thereof.
[p.l]
SEC. 2. Section 2 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by inserting " (a)" after "Ssc. 2." and by inserting at the
end of such section the following:
" (b) (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that any
such storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute
for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the
source.
" (2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose shall
be determined by these agencies, with the advice of the Secretary,
and his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or
presentation to the Congress proposing authorization or construction
of any reservoir including such storage.
" (3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in deter-
mining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a part,
and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality control
in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equita-
bly in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
" (4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
-------
400 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this
Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the
benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such fea-
tures shall be nonreimbursable."
SEC. 3. (a) The proviso in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of
section 4 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to
read as follows: "Provided, That the Secretary shall report annually
to the appropriate committees of Congress on his operations under
this paragraph;".
(b) Section 4 of such Act is further amended by inserting at the
end thereof the following new subsections:
" (d) (1) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secre-
tary shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (includ-
ing conducting such, basic and applied research, studies, and
experiments as may be necessary):
" (A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and
other waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible
amounts of physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order
to restore and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's
water at a quality suitable for repeated reuse;
" (B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and meas-
ure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pol-
lutants created by new technological developments; and
" (C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
" (2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed $25,000,000.
" (e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field lab-
oratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the mid-
loestern area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific North-
west, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research,
investigations, experiments, field
[p. 2]
demonstrations and studies, and training relating to the prevention
and control of water pollution. Insofar as practicable, each such
facility shall be located near institutions of higher learning in which
graduate training in such research might be carried out.
" (f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 401
merit work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the
waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and
projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying
conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the
water quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an evalua-
tion of municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal
practices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means
of solving water pollution problems (including additional waste
treatment measures) with respect to such waters."
SEC. 4. (a) Subsection (a) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act is amended by inserting immediately following
"June 30, 1961, $3,000,000" the following: ", and for each succeeding
fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968,
$5,000,000."
(b) Subsection (f) of section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph
(4) thereof, by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (5)
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "; and," and by
adding after such paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
" (6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section 6 (b) (4)."
(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall
take effect July 1, 1961.
(d) The amendment made by subsection (b) of this section shall
take effect July 1, 1962.
SEC. 5. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b) of section 6 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as follows: " (2)
ecrcept as otherwise provided in this clause, no grant shall be made for
any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated
reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary, or in an
amount exceeding $800,000, whichever is the smaller: Provided, That
the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Provided further, That,
in the case of a project which will serve more than one municipality
(A) the Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines to be reason-
able and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be served by such
project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of such project, and
shall then apply the limitations provided in this clause (2) to each
such share as if it were a separate project to determine the maximum
amount of any grant which could be made under this section with
respect to each such share, and the total of all the amounts so deter-
mined or $2,400,000, whichever is the smaller, shall be the maximum
amount of the grant which may be made under this section on
account of such project, and (B) for the purpose of the limitation in
the last sentence of subsection (d), the share of each municipality so
-------
402 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
determined shall be regarded as a grant for the construction of
treatment works;".
(b) Subsection (b) of such- section 6 is further amended by strik-
ing out "and" at the end of clause (3) and by inserting before the
period at the end of clause (4): "; and (5) no grant shall be made
under this section for any project in any State in an amount exceed-
ing $250,000 until a grant has been made thereunder for each project
in such State (A) for which an application was fled with the appro-
priate State water pollution control
[p. 3]
agency prior to one year after the date of enactment of this clause
and (B) which the Secretary determines met the requirements of
this section and regulations thereunder as in effect prior to the date
of enactment of this clause."
(c) The third sentence of subsection (c) of such section 6 is
amended to read as follows: "Sums allotted to a State under the
preceding sentence which are not obligated within six months fol-
lowing the end of the fiscal year for which they were allotted because
of a lack of projects which have been approved by the State water
pollution control agency under subsection (b) (1) of this section
and certified as entitled to priority under subsection (b) (4) of this
section, shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on such basis as he
determines to be reasonable and equitable and in accordance with
regulations promulgated by him, to States having projects approved
under this section for which grants have not been made because of
lack of funds: Provided, 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 construction activity, he may, prior to such
reallocation, make an additional grant with respect to such project
which will in his judgment reflect an equitable contribution for the
need caused by such Federal institution or activity. Any sum made
available to a State by reallotment under the preceding sentence
shall be in addition to any funds otherwise allotted to such State
under this Act. The allotments of a State under the second and
third sentences of this subsection shall be available, in accordance
with the provisions of this section, for payments with respect to
projects in such State which have been approved under this section."
(d) Subsection (d) of such section 6 is amended to read as
follows:
" (d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 403
the sum oj $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making
grants under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated, 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,
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $100,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 per
centum of the funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be used
for grants for the construction of treatment works servicing munici-
palities of 125,000 population or under."
(e) Section 6 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
(f) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this
section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for
the same type of work on similar construction in the immediate
locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance
with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon
Act (46 Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5)."
SEC. 6. (a) The first sentence of subsection (a) (1) of section 7 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read as
follows: "There is hereby established in the Department of Health,
Education, and
[p. 4]
Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of
the Secretary or his designee, who shall be chairman, and nine mem-
bers appointed by the President, none of whom shall be Federal
Officers or employees."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (a) (2) (A) of such section 7
is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof: ", and
(in) the term of any member under the preceding provisions shall be
extended until the date on which his successor's appointment is
effective."
(c) Members of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
(established pursuant to section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as in effect prior to enactment of this Act) serving im-
mediately before the date of enactment of this Act shall be members
of the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, established by the
amendment made by subsection (a) of this section, until the expira-
tion of the terms of office for which they were appointed.
-------
404 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SEC. 7. (a) Subsection (a) of section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended to read as follows:
"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
"SEC. 8 (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such, waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be sub-
ject to abatement as provided in this Act."
(b) Subsection (b) of such, section 8 is amended by striking out
"interstate waters" and inserting in lieu thereof "interstate or naviga-
ble waters."
(c) Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of such, section 8 is amended
to read as follows:
" (c) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of
the Governor and of the State water pollution control agency for the
State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of
any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollu-
tion of waters is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a
State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing or
contributing to such pollution) originates, gives formal notification
thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency,
if any,, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate and shall call promptly a conference of such agency or
agencies and of the State water pollution control agency and inter-
state agency, if any, of the State or States, if any, which may be
adversely affected by such pollution. Whenever requested by the
Governor of any State, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to
pollution of interstate or navigable waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the requesting State in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originate, give formal notification thereof to the water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of such State and shall
promptly call a conference of such agency or agencies, unless, in the
judgment of the Secretary, the effect of such pollution on the
legitimate uses of the waters is not of sufficient significance to warrant
exercise of Federal jurisdiction under this
[p.5]
section. The Secretary sJiall also call such a conference whenever,
on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 405
that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the
discharge or discharges originate is occurring."
(d) Paragraph (3) (A) of subsection (c) of such section 8 is
amended by striking out "interstate" and inserting in lieu thereof
"interstate or navigable,"
(e) Subsections (d), (e), and (f) of such section 8 are amended
to read as follows:
" (d) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the con-
ference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the ap-
propriate State water pollution control agency that it take necessary
remedial action. The Secretary shall allow at least six months from
the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of such
recommended action.
(e) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pollu-
tion has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to
be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before
a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected
by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representa-
tive of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of
the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least
three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State
water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or
polluters. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing,
the Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution
referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective
progress toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing
Board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward
abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations
to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be
reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution.
The Secretary shall send such findings and recommendations to the
person or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to
such pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time
-------
406 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(not Zess than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution,
and shall also send such findings and recommendations and such
notice to the State water pollution control agency and to the inter-
state agency, if any, of the State or States where such discharge or
discharges originate.
" (/) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
"(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to
such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General to
bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement
of pollution, and
[p. 6]
" (2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor
of such State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution."
(f) Subsection (h) of such section 8 is amended to read as follows:
" (h) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-
section (e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but
not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away
from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au-
thorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
" (i) As used in this section the term—
" (1) 'person' includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
"(2) 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to
State law."
SEC. 8. Section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentences:
"In his summary of any conference pursuant to section 8(c) (3) of
this Act, the Secretary shall include references to any discharges
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 407
allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal property.
Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 8 (e) involving any pollu-
tion alleged to be effected by any such discharges shall also be
given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property
involved and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board
conducting such hearing and shall also include references to any such
discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such
Hearing Board."
SEC. 9. Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by striking out subsections (d) and (e) and inserting in
lieu thereof the following:
"(d) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
" (e) The term 'interstate waters' means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters."
SEC. 10. Section 301 (b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
319), is amended by striking out all beginning with "Provided," in
the first proviso to the colon at the end of the second proviso and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Provided, That the cost of
any construction or modification authorized under the provisions of
this section shall be determined on the basis that all authorized
purposes served by the project shall share equitably in the benefits
of multiple purpose construction, as determined by the Secretary of
the Army or the Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be:
Provided further, That before construction or modification of any
project including water supply provisions for present demand is
initiated, State or local interests shall agree to pay for the cost of
such provisions in accordance with the provisions of this section:
And provided further, That not to exceed 30 per centum of the total
estimated
[p. 7]
cost of any project may be allocated to anticipated future demands
where State or local interests give reasonable assurances, and there
is reasonable evidence, that such demands for the use of such storage
will be made within a period of lime which will permit paying out the
costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project."
SEC. 11. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1961."
And the Senate agree to the same.
-------
408 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate to the title of the bill and agree to the same.
GEORGE H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
FRANK SMITH,
ROBERT JONES,
JOHN F. BALDWIN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
DENNIS CHAVEZ,
ROBERT KERR,
PAT MCNAMARA,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
FRANCES CASE,
HUGH SCOTT,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 8]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 6441) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide for a more effective program of water pollu-
tion control, submit the following statement in explanation of the
effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended
in the accompanying conference report.
The Senate amendment strikes out all of the House bill after the
enacting clause and inserts 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 major differences between the House bill and the sub-
stitute agreed to in conference are noted in the following statement.
First section
The House bill amended subsection (b) of the first section of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to strike out the specific refer-
ence to boundary waters of States and added a clause stating that
nothing in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act should be con-
strued as impairing or affecting the power authority and jurisdiction
of the States to enforce State water pollution control laws and
regulations.
The conference substitute does not make these amendments to
existing law.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 409
Section 2
The Senate amendment amended section 2 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to add a new subsection (b) which would
grant authority to Federal agencies to include capacity in reservoirs
for water quality control. This capacity is not to be a substitute
for adequate treatment of sewage. A determination would bs made
of the benefits of such capacity and an appropriate share of the cost
allocated to this purpose. Beneficiaries would be determined and if
the benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such
capacity would be nonreimbursable.
The House bill did not contain such a provision.
The conference substitute adopts the amendment of the Senate.
Section 3 (a)
The House bill amended section 4 (a) (4) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to remove the limitation that not more than
$100,000 could be used to establish and maintain research fellowships.
The Senate amendment did not remove this limitation.
The conference substitute would remove this dollar limitation but
would require an annual report by the Secretary to the appropriate
committees of Congress on his operations under that provision of law.
[p. 9]
Section 3 (b)
The Senate amendment added a new subsection (d) to section 4 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This new subsection would
require the development and demonstration by the Secretary of
(1) practicable means of treating sewage and other wastes to remove
the maximum amounts of pollutants in order to maintain the Nation's
water at a quality suitable for repeated reuse, (2) improved methods
of identifying and measuring pollutants, and (3) methods for
evaluating the effects of augmented streamflows to control pollution
not otherwise susceptible to abatement. An authorization for these
purposes of not to exceed $5 million per fiscal year with a total
limitation of $25 million is also provided by the amendment.
The House bill contained no such provision.
The conference substitute is identical to the Senate amendment.
Section 4
The House bill increased grants to States and interstate water
pollution control agencies for the operation of their programs begin-
ning with the fiscal year 1962 from $3 million to $5 million and
extended the authorization through June 30, 1971. It also amended
the law to require that State plans must contain the criteria used
by the State in determining the priority of projects.
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill with respect
-------
410 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to increasing the authorization from $3 million to $5 million except
that the authorization is extended only through June 30, 1966. The
Senate amendment did not require the State plan to contain the
criteria used in determining priority.
The conference substitute is the sme as the House bill except that
the increased authorization to $5 million is extended only through
June 30, 1968, and the States are given until July 1, 1962, to conform
with the requirement that their plans set forth the criteria used in
determining priority of projects.
Section 5
The House bill amended subsection (b) of section 6 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide that no construction grant
shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding whichever of
the following is smaller (1) $800,000, or (2) the total of 30 percent of
the first $1 million of the reasonable cost of the project as determined
by the Secretary, plus 15 percent of the next $2 million of such cost,
plus 10 percent of the remainder of such cost.
The Senate bill amended the same provision of law as the House
bill to provide that no grant shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 30 percent of the estimated reasonable cost thereof,
or in an amount exceeding $500,000, whichever is smaller.
The conference substitute is the same as the Senate amendment
with exception that the amount of $500,000 is increased to $600,000.
Section 5 (b)
The House bill amended subsection (b) of section 6 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide no grant should be made
for any project under that section in an amount exceeding $250,000
until a grant had been made for each project (1) for which an ap-
plication was filed with the appropriate State water pollution control
agency prior to the date of enactment of amendment and (2) which
[p. 10]
meets the requirements of the section and regulations thereunder as
in effect prior to such date of enactment.
The conference substitute is the same as the House bill with the
exception that the priority given by this amendment has been ex-
tended to all those smaller projects for which applications are filed
before 1 year after the date of enactment of this amendment.
Section 5(c)
The House bill amends subsection (c) of section 6 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide that if an allotment to a
State is not obligated within 6 months after the end of the fiscal year
for which it was made because of a lack of approved projects then the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 411
Secretary can reallocate those unobligated amounts on a reasonable
and equitable basis. These reallocated amounts are to be available
for projects approved for grants before the end of the fiscal year fol-
lowing the fiscal year for which the original allotment was made.
The Senate amendment provides for the reallocation of sums
allotted to a State not obligated at the end of the fiscal year following
the fiscal year for which they were allotted because of a lack of
approved projects. The reallocation shall be to those States having
approved projects for which grants have not been made because of a
lack of funds, with the exception that whenever the Surgeon General
finds that the need for a project in a community in the State is due in
part to a Federal institution or Federal construction activity, he may,
before making any reallotment, make an additional allocation to the
project which will reflect an equitable contribution for the need
caused by the Federal institution or activity.
The conference substitute is essentially the same as the Senate
amendment with the exception that the States are given 18 months
to obligate their allotment as provided in the House bill, rather than
24 months as provided in the Senate amendment. In addition, the
conference substitute makes it clear that an additional grant may be
made to a project in a State by the Secretary because of a Federal
institution or activity in that State only from funds allotted to that
State which are subject to reallotment because of a lack of approved
projects in that State.
Section 5 (d)
The House bill amended subsection (d) of section 6 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to increase the amount authorized for
grants under that section from $50 to $100 million per fiscal year.
The aggregate authorization of such sums is also increased from 500
million to 1 billion.
The Senate amendment amended the subsection to provide an
authorization of $70 million for the fiscal year 1962, $80 million for
the fiscal year 1963, $90 million for the fiscal year 1964, $100 million
for the fiscal year 1965, and $100 million for the fiscal year 1966. In
addition the Senate amendment repealed the restriction in existing
law that at least 50 percent of funds appropriated must be granted
for treatment works servicing municipalities of 125,000 population
or less.
The conference substitute provides authorization of $80 million for
the fiscal year 1962, $90 million for the fiscal year 1963, and $100
million for each of the fiscal years 1964 through and including 1967.
In addition the conference substitute retains the restriction requiring
[P. 11]
the use of at least half of the funds appropriated for projects in cities
-------
412 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of 125,000 population or less which was repealed by the Senate
amendment.
Section 6 (c)
The House bill amends section 7 (a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to establish in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board composed of the
Secretary or his designee, as Chairman, and nine members appointed
by the President, none of whom shall be Federal officers or employees.
The conference substitute is the same as the House bill except that
it is made clear that the members of the existing Advisory Board
shall be members of the newly created Board until the expiration of
the terms of office to which they were appointed.
Section 7 (a), (b), and (d)
The House bill provided that pollution of navigable waters would
be subject to abatement under the act.
The Senate amendment provided that interstate or navigable
waters shall be subject to abatement under the act.
The conference substitute is the same as the Senate amendment.
Section 7 (c)
The House bill provides that a conference initiating Federal en-
forcement procedures, must be called on the request of (1) the
Governor, (2) the State water pollution control agency, or (3) with
the concurrence of the State water pollution control agency, the
governing body of any municipality, whenever the pollution en-
dangers the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge originates (hereafter referred to as "interstate
pollution"). The Secretary on his own initiative may call such a
conference when he has reason to believe that such interstate pollu-
tion is occurring. Such a conference must be called whenever re-
quested by the Governor, the State water pollution control agency,
or, with the concurrence of such agency, the governing body of any
municipality when pollution is endangering the health or welfare of
persons only in the State requesting the conference (hereafter
referred to as "intrastate pollution"), unless the Secretary determines
that the effect of the pollution is not significant enough to warrant
the exercise of Federal jurisdiction.
The Senate amendment differs from the House bill in that a con-
ference could be called because of interstate pollution on request of
the Governor of the State or the State water pollution control agency
and could be called because of intrastate pollution only upon the
request of the Governor of a State.
The conference substitute provides that a conference could be
called in the case of interstate pollution upon the request of the
Governor, the State water pollution control agency, or, with the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 413
currence of both the Governor and the State agency, the governing
body of any municipality. The Secretary may call such a conference
on his own initiative in the case of interstate pollution. The con-
ference substitute provides in the case of intrastate pollution that a
conference may be called only when requested by the Governor of the
State where the pollution is occurring. In cases involving intrastate
pollution the Secretary may refuse to exercise Federal jurisdiction if
[P. 12]
in his judgment the pollution is not of sufficient significance to
warrant so doing.
Section 7 (e)
The House bill amends subsection (e) of section 8 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide that the board which under
present law conducts the public hearing to make findings whether
pollution is occurring and whether effective progress toward abate-
ment is being made shall be formally known as a hearing board. The
House bill further amends section 8 (e) of existing law to provide
that findings and recommendations of the hearing board shall be
those of the Secretary except to the extent the Secretary believes
other findings or recommendations are warranted. The House bill
also authorizes the Secretary to make an order requiring the abate-
ment of pollution, which order shall become final 60 days after its
issuance unless an appeal is taken.
The Senate amendment made no changes in the existing law.
The only change in existing law which the conference substitute
would make would be to formally designate the board holding the
public hearing as a hearing board.
Section 7 (e)
The House bill amends subsection (f) of section 8 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide a detailed method for appeal-
ing an order of the Secretary issued under subsection (e) of section 8
as. proposed to be amended by the House bill.
The Senate amendment made no change in existing law.
The conference substitute provides that if pollution is not abated
within the time specified in the notice following the public hearing
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may request the
Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States to
secure abatement in the case of interstate pollution; however, in the
case of intrastate pollution he may request the institution of such a
suit in the name of the United States only with the written consent
of the Governor of the State.
Section 7 (e)
The House bill amends subsections (g) and (h) of section 8 of the
-------
414 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the jurisdiction
of the court with respect to orders issued by the Secretary under
subsection (e) of such section 8 as proposed to be amended by the
House bill.
The Senate amendment made no changes in the existing law.
The conference substitute makes no changes in the existing law in
this respect since the conference substitute does not provide authority
for the Secretary to issue orders as was the case in the House bill.
Section 10
The Senate amendment amends the Water Supply Act of 1958.
The House bill contained no such amendment. The present Water
Supply Act of 1958 provides authority for the Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation to include municipal and industrial
water supply capacity in reservoirs under their jurisdiction. The
present law provides that not to exceed 30 percent of the total cost
of any project may be allocated to anticipated future demands if
[p. 13]
State or local interests give reasonable assurances that they will
contract for the use of storage for anticipated future demands within
a period of time which will permit paying out the cost allocated to
water supply within the life of the project. The Senate amendment
will permit the Federal agency concerned to make its own determina-
tion of future water supply needs and, on the basis of such determina-
tion, to include capacity in a project without definite contractual
commitments from State or local interests.
The conference substitute adopts the provisions of the Senate
amendment.
Title
The Senate amended the title of the bill to more nearly reflect the
amendments made by the Senate.
The conference substitute adopts the title of the bill proposed by
the Senate.
GEORGE H. FALLON,
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
FRANK SMITH,
ROBERT JONES,
JOHN F. BALDWIN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 14]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
415
1.2g(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 107 (1961)
1.2g(4)(a) May 3, Debated in House, pp. 7140-7162, 7165-7172
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1961
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up the resolution (H. Res. 274) provid-
ing for the consideration of H.R. 6441, a
bill to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act to provide for a more
effective program of water pollution
control, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (HR.
6441) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide for a more effective
program of water pollution control. After
general debate, which shall be confined to the
bill, and shall continue not to exceed two
hours, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Public Works, the
bill shall be read for amendment under
the five-minute rule. At the conclusion
of the consideration of the bill for amend-
ment, the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted, and the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final pas-
sage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. AVERY] and now yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274
provides for the consideration of H.R.
6441, a bill to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide for a
more effective program of water pollu-
tion control. The resolution provides
for a straight open rule with 2 hours of
general debate.
The purpose of H.R. 6441 is to ex-
tend and strengthen the Federal water
pollution control program and to assist
the States and local communities in
providing for more effective programs
of water pollution control at all levels
of government.
The bill as reported by the Commit-
tee on Public Works would vest in the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare full responsibility for the con-
duct of the Federal water pollution con-
trol program authorized by the act.
Water has become the No. 1 resource
problem confronting the United States
today.
The water problem is directly related
to our country's rapid population and
economic growth. This growth is creat-
ing a major impact on water resources
from a rapidly growing demand for
water to produce the things we need to
eat; wear, and use, and for an ample
supply of clean, safe water for drinking
and for recreation.
By 1980 our population is expected to
reach the 232-274 million range. Prob-
ably the most significant population
growth trend is that toward urbanized
living. Also, by that time more than
90 percent of our people will live in cities
and towns, half of these in cities over
50,000 population or their suburbs.
In addition to population growth and
concentration, the phenomenal growth
of industry will also continue. Produc-
tion of goods increased sevenfold from
1900 to 1950 and is expected to double
the 1950 figures by 1975.
The result of population and eco-
nomic-industrial growth will be a tre-
mendous increase in fresh water use.
By 1980, our estimated fresh water needs
will nearly double present water use.
The Committee on Public Works con-
ducted hearings for 4 days on the leg-
islation, at which time testimony was
presented from witnesses representing
municipal and county government as-
sociations; State health, engineering,
and pollution control administrators;
conservation and civic groups; industry
and labor representatives; and the Sec-
-------
416
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 274.
Mr. AVERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Kansas is recognized.
Mr. AVERY. Mr. Speaker, this, of
course, is not a new proposition to come
before the House. It has been before the
House in some form or other for every
session of Congress since I have been a
Member.
I would like to point out, however, that
in the committee there has been no ac-
count taken of this extra $50 million in
the bill by the supplementary budget
that has been sent to the Congress by
President Kennedy. Stated in another
way, it means that if this bill passes with
the additional $50 million a year, as
recommended by the committee, it will
mean that the budget for 1962 will be
imbalanced by $50 million more than was
estimated when the Kennedy supple-
ment came to the Congress a few weeks
ago. I am advised that it was not in-
cluded, and I think justifiably so, in that
budget because the additional $50 million
[p. 7140]
a year was not authorized and, therefore,
it would not have been proper to include
it in a budget estimate.
The administration has a rather nebu-
lous position on this legislation, as I
would construe it. The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare sup-
ported the main objectives of the bill,
but he did not make a clear-cut state-
ment, as I read his letter of transmittal,
in favor of it.
I think it is important to point out at
this time the minority position. The
minority has taken the position that
there is some justification for a Federal
incentive payment, for the abatement of
pollution in our streams. The minority,
however, has taken the position that this
subsidy should be reduced or confined to
an incentive, not converted into another
Federal financial obligation that goes on,
and on, and on, and gets larger and
larger each year. That has been the
position of the minority.
President Eisenhower vetoed a bill
similar to this 1 year ago. The minor-
ity views are set forth in the report. The
minority views this year are consistent
with the position taken by the previous
administration.
There are a few principal differences.
One, of course, is the increase in cost
per annum, which is doubled. There is
no use to discuss it further, because it
will be well covered, I am sure, when we
get into general debate.
Then there is the matter of jurisdic-
tion. This, I think, is very important.
The jurisdiction of the Federal Govern-
ment is extended to virtually every
stream or waterway in the United States,
and that is a rather far reaching depar-
ture, should I say, from the original bill
passed in 1956. Despite the fact that
the question of jurisdiction has been
pretty well spelled out in the bill, I would
like to ask a question about the effect of
the jurisdictional extensions to the Fed-
eral Government in the bill.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. AVERY] is recognized.
Mr. AVERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself 4 additional minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just before the point of
no quorum was made I had announced,
as I analyzed the bill, three important
differences, and I was about to state the
Republican position that might be of-
fered in the way of amendments after
general debate has been completed.
One of the principal differences in
this bill over present law, of course, is
the extension of Federal jurisdiction to
all navigable streams; and the language
is so broad that almost any stream or
body of water within the continental
United States might be included. Since
we are extending the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government so far as pollution
of water resources is concerned, I think
it should be made abundantly clear that
we are not in any way interfering with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
417
or abrogating any existing States rights
in the way of regulation or control over
uses of water within the States. I have,
therefore, prepared a question, a copy of
which I have already given to the chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Public
Works who is in charge of this bill, and
also to the ranking minority member.
I think the record should be clear at this
point at to what the intent of the com-
mittee as jurisdiction of the Federal
Government was extended, so to speak,
in respect to the control of water. The
question is this: By extending the control
of the Federal Government to abate pol-
lution to all navigable streams, has the
committee made the record abundantly
clear that they have not intended in any
way to abrogate or interfere with any
other existing State rights, authority, or
control over water flowing through its
domain or along its border?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion is very pertinent in asking if the
committee had made the record abun-
dantly clear that they have not intended
in any way to abrogate or interfere with
any other existing State rights, author-
ity, or control over water flowing through
its domain or along its borders.
The answer is, very definitely and most
emphatically, Yes, the committee has
made it clear. And I cite for the RECORD
the language of the bill under considera-
tion, H.R. 6441, page 1, line 10:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
impairing or in any manner affecting any
right or jurisdiction of the States with re-
spect to the waters of such States, including,
but not limited to, the power, authority, and
jurisdiction of such States to enforce State
water-pollution control laws and regulations
Again, on page 8, line 17, the bill
states:
State action * * " shall be encouraged
and shall not be displaced by Federal en-
forcement action except as otherwise pro-
vided by or pursuant to a final order or a
court order.
Finally, the committee report states,
page 5:
The committee has exercised extreme care
to assure that the language of the bill will
allow continued comprehensive action by the
States in the field of water-pollution con-
trol. There certainly can be no assumption
that the Federal interest in the field of
water-pollution abatement authorized by
this bill is so dominant as to preclude State
action. The proposition is well established
that the protection of the health and wel-
fare of the citizens of a State is a proper
subject for the exercise of the State police
power. The bill provides specifically for co-
operation with the States and its aim is to
encourage and assist States and local com-
munities in their efforts to control water
pollution, not to usurp or preempt their
rights, powers, or responsibilities in this field.
Mr. AVERY. I thank the gentleman
for his response. Would the response
made, as I was able to understand it, in
respect to the abatement of pollution
apply similarly with regard to any other
existing State right over waters within
the domain of the State?
Mr. BLATNIK. No, it would not af-
fect, impair, or detract any existing
rights whatsoever.
Mr. AVERY. I thank the gentleman
for his comment.
I would like to ask the ranking mi-
nority member of the Committee on
Public Works, the gentleman from Flor-
ida, if he concurs in that response.
Mr. CRAMER. I agree with the gen-
tleman from Minnesota with regard to
abrogating rights of States in other fields.
It does not do that. It deals solely with
the subject of water pollution control.
In the field of water pollution control it
obviously abrogates existing States rights
under existing water pollution control
laws. In these respects—this is to some
extent where the minority differs with
the majority—under present law today
the Federal Government has no jurisdic-
tion in the field of water pollution con-
trol; under Public Law 660, it has no
jurisdiction over intrastate water, waters
flowing in and arising within a State and
not crossing State boundaries. In that
sense, in that this bill does include intra-
state water, it provides Federal jurisdic-
tion over all navigable water and the
State's responsibilities and the State's
right in that respect are substantially
abrogated.
The second basic area in which States
-------
418
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
rights in the field are being abrogated,
again where the minority differs with the
majority, the States do not have a right
to join in any court action to enforce
orders relating to either interstate or
intrastate, or both interstate and intra-
state waters under the now elastic con-
trols. The partnership program in
existence under Public Law 660 is largely
abrogated under the new bill.
Mr. AVERY. I thank the gentleman.
This rule should be adopted, and I also
urge the adoption of amendments later
to be offered by the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE].
Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, the Commit-
tee on Public Works has reported that
"Water has become the No. 1 resource
problem confronting the United States
today." Even now, along heavily popu-
lated river banks, the available water has
to be used over and over again. Five and
six time reuse of water in our major
river basins is a certain propsect.
The discharge of raw sewage into these
rivers makes pollution control an abso-
lute necessity to protect and conserve
[p. 7141]
the water quality for each downstream
community, industry, farm, and recre-
ation area. Obviously, this requires the
complete cooperation of all concerned,
through the construction of waste treat-
ment works at various points along the
course of each river.
We must purify and reuse available
water, because the growth of population
and industry will create a demand that
will exceed the developed dependable
fresh water supply by 85 billion gallons
daily, within 19 years. Research into
methods of desalting sea water at a low
cost, in order to serve the needs of our
population and economic growth points
to the urgency of our present water
problem.
The fragmentation of the news has
hidden from the American people the
seriousness of this national problem, and
the extent to which various communities
are trying to clean up the polluted
streams for the supply of usable water
that is essential to life and progress.
Over the past 4 years, contract awards
for sewage treatment plant construction
have averaged almost $360 million an-
nually—an increase of 62 percent over
the 5-year average before Federal as-
sistance became available.
As of March 31, 1961, a total of 2,671
grant offers have been made aggregat-
ing $219.3 million. These in turn sup-
ported construction of projects having
eligible costs totaling $1.27 billion.
Every Federal dollar expended has been
matched by over $4.80 in local funds.
Federal financial assistance has been
of substantial help in the progress made
so far, but the backlog of need is greater.
According to the Public Health Service,
4,136 new plants are required for 23 mil-
lion people in communities now dis-
charging raw untreated sewage, and
communities where existing treatment
works are obsolete and require replace-
ment. Another 991 communities need
major additions and enlargements of ex-
isting inadequate plants to provide sat-
isfactory treatment for 19 million per-
sons.
In addition to many other rivers, the
greater part of the Hudson River is
excluded under the present law from
Federal enforcement jurisdiction as are
important reaches of the Tennessee,
Columbia, Colorado, and Merrimack
Rivers.
The bill before us will extend to them
the authority for Federal abatement en-
forcement action to the pollution of
waters which endanger the health and
welfare of any persons.
The older industrial States of the
Northeast have shown initiative in facing
up to this problem. Since the enactment
of Public Law 660, five States in the Na-
tion have originated financial assistance
programs predicated on the Federal pro-
gram, and three of these are in New
England: Maine, Vermont, and New
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
419
Hampshire. They are to be commended
for their foresight and willingness to
participate in a true Federal-State-local
partnership. It is hoped that other
States will follow their example, and
their sense of public responsibility.
The seriousness of the Nation's water
pollution problem makes it imperative
for the Federal Government to assist
local communities in the construction of
waste treatment plants, even in those
States that do not provide similar finan-
cial assistance. However, I believe that
the grant formula should be changed to
provide a larger percentage of Federal
aid to those communities where their
State governments have assumed a share
of the financial responsibility.
Summing up, the additional grants
provided by H.R. 6441, will help to solve
the water supply problems of the Nation
that are approaching the critical stage.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts, our distinguished majority
leader [Mr. McCoRMACK].
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the
committee has done a very excellent job
in the consideration of this bill. The
bill reported out is one that is for the
best interests of our country, and I hope
that the bill as reported will be adopted
without any amendments.
The committee has given excellent
consideration to the bill and all aspects
thereof. The bill now before us repre-
sents not only necessary legislation but
legislation that brings about progress in
the interest of our country and our
people.
One of the most important problems
confronting us, not only the people of
America but people everywhere, is the
matter of water pollution, the control
of our polluted streams, the cleansing of
them. In connection with that, an im-
portant matter confronting our people
is clean, clear water for their use. This
is particularly so in view of the increased
population that is taking place, and it
constitutes a great challenge to our
country and to our people.
Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation is
not one that originated in one particular
political party of the Congress. As far
back as 1948 Senator Taft and the then
Senator Barkley were leaders in not only
introducing legislation but in fighting
for the passage of water pollution legis-
lation. As a matter of fact, the pro-
gram in 1948 that they submitted as I
remember, in the other body called for
an $880 million authorization. As I also
remember, it was for a 10-year period.
The program before us now calls for a
$100 million authorization each year for
a period of 10 years, so that the program
before us now constitutes in its entirety
$1 million. Already, under the law upon
the statute books, more than 2,600 local-
ities have received $220 million of Fed-
eral funds and the total construction
cost of those projects is $1.27 billion. In
other words, for every dollar appropri-
ated by the Federal Government in con-
nection with this program the local
communities, either State or local sub-
divisions, have contributed close to 5
additional dollars.
This legislation has the support of the
American Municipal Association, the
Conference of Mayors, and every major
conservation organization. The legisla-
tion, as I have said, is bipartisan in
nature, initially brought about by two
great men who made their contributions
toward the original legislation, the late
Vice President Alben Barkley, when he
was a Member of the U.S. Senate, and
the late Senator Taft. We are now con-
tinuing the legislation. This bill pro-
poses a continuation of this program for
an additional 10 years. As a matter of
fact, if I had my way, $100 million a year
would not be sufficient. In any event,
that $100 million a year means a total
expenditure of about $500 million a year,
with the local participation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a step in the right
direction, and I urge not only the adop-
tion of the rule but the passage of the
bill as reported by the committee.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, having
no further requests for time, I move the
-------
420
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 6441) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for a more effective program of
water pollution control.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 6441, with
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as 1 may require.
Mr. Chairman, water has become the
No. 1 resource problem confronting the
United States today.
The water problem is directly related
to our country's rapid population and
economic growth. This growth is cre-
ating a major impact on water resources
from a rapidly growing demand for
water to produce the things we need to
eat, wear, and use, and for an ample
supply of clean, safe water for drinking
and for recreation.
By 1980 our population is expected to
reach the 232 to 274 million range. Prob-
ably the most significant population
growth trend is that toward urbanized
living. By 1980 more than 90 percent
of our people will live in cities and
towns, half of these in cities over 500,000
population or their suburbs.
In addition to population growth and
concentration, the phenomenal growth
of industry will also continue. Produc-
tion of goods increased sevenfold from
1900 to 1950 and is expected to double
the 1950 figures by 1975.
The result of population and eco-
nomic-industrial growth will be a tre-
mendous increase in fresh water use.
By 1930, our estimated fresh water needs
will total 600 billion gallons a day—
nearly double present water use.
In the past, we met rising demands
for water largely through construction of
storage facilities to increase the amount
of water available for use. Now, how-
ever, the limit of the amount of depend-
able water supply is in sight. The maxi-
mum dependable fresh water supply we
can ever hope to develop by engineering
works is estimated to be 600 to 650 billion
gallons a day by the year 2000. This is
our fixed water supply—foreseeably all
[p. 7142]
the Nation will ever have to support con-
tinued population and economic growth.
By 1980 the developed dependable
fresh water supply is expected to total
about 515 billion gallons a day. There-
fore, by 1980 demand will exceed supply
by 85 billion gallons. It is obvious that
the Nation's water needs from now on
must be met by using the same water
over and over. Thus, the highest prior-
ity in water resources developments must
be given to the all-important need of
providing for the cleanliness of the lim-
ited water supply so that it can be used
and reused in meeting the Nation's in-
creasing requirements for water for all
purposes.
Water reuse on a large scale is already
a necessity. Some of the water in every
stream is used one or more times with
much greater reuse of streams in devel-
oped areas. During low flows it is esti-
mated that the flow of the Ohio River
is used 3.7 times. Five- and six-time
reuse of water in our major river basins
is a certain prospect.
Water must be of suitable quality to
be reusable, however. Used water is
invariably polluted water and pollution
degrades its physical, chemical, bio-
logical, and esthetic qualities. Multiple
water reuse, therefore, will require
highly effective pollution control to pro-
tect and conserve water quality if
streams are to serve each downstream
community, industry, farm, and recrea-
tion area.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
421
We have entered the era in water re-
source conservation and development in
the United States where water quality
management must have the highest
priority in supplying present and future
water supply needs. An important seg-
ment of water quality management has
been and will be accomplished by pro-
viding storage of good quality waters for
water supply purposes and for dilution of
downstream pollution. For the Nation
as a whole, however, water quality
management can best be effected by the
prevention and control of pollution.
More "new" water can be provided to
meet needs by controlling pollution than
by any other means. Pollution control
has the advantage of permitting the use
of an already available distribution
system, th i waterways of the country,
to deliver water of satisfactory quality to
the points where it is needed.
H.R. 6441 will establish the more effec-
tive Federal water pollution control pro-
gram needed to assist the States and
local communities in obtaining the high-
ly effective pollution control necessary
to protect and conserve the water quality
of the Nation's waterways.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM
The Committee on Public Works has
watched carefully the progress and de-
velopment of the national water pollu-
tion control program and particularly
the supporting role of the Federal Gov-
ernment. The committee has always be-
lieved that the objectives of the program
should be given high priority in an ap-
propriate administrative framework in
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
Existing law provides that the pollu-
tion control program be administered by
the Surgeon General through the Public
Health Service under the supervision of
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. The administrative status of
the program has not changed since 1948
when it was originally established de-
spite a great increase in program activi-
ties, responsibilities, personnel, and ap-
propriations. During public hearings
the committee heard testimony favoring
the establishment of a Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration in the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. The President has urged the
establishment of a special unit in the
Public Health Service to administer both
air and water pollution control pro-
grams.
The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, recognizing the need to
upgrade pollution control activities in
his Department, asked the committee for
"time to take a complete fresh look at
the situation and the various proposals
for dealing with it."
In order to give the Secretary com-
plete flexibility in effectuating his de-
cision relating to the proper adminis-
trative status of this program the bill
transfers responsibility for the admin-
istration of the Federal water pollution
control program from the Surgeon Gen-
eral to the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
This action is in conformity with rec-
ommendation No. 14 of the first report
of the Hoover Commission on Organiza-
tion of the Executive Branch of the
Government (H. Doc. 55, 81st Cong.)
which states:
Under the President, the heads of de-
partments must hold full responsibility for
the conduct of their departments There
must be a clear line of authority reaching
down through every step of the organiza-
tion and no subordinate should have au-
thority independent from that of his su-
perior.
I am sure that in reaching any de-
cision on this matter the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare takes
into consideration the fact that the
water pollution control program estab-
lished in 1958 and strengthened by this
bill goes far beyond the usual public
health legislation in that it assigns to
his Department the responsibility for
controlling water pollution to conserve
water for all uses—propagation of fish
and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational
-------
422
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
purposes, industrial and agricultural—
including irrigation—supplies, and other
legitimate purposes, as well as public
water supplies and protection of the
public health.
Nothing in this bill is intended to im-
pair or in any manner affect any right
or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters of the States, including but
not limited to the power, authority, and
jurisdiction of the States to enforce
State water pollution control laws and
regulations.
The committee has exercised extreme
care to assure that the language of the
bill will allow continued comprehensive
action by the States in the field of water
pollution control. There certainly can
be no assumption that the Federal in-
terest in the field of water pollution
abatement authorized by this bill is so
dominant as to preclude State action.
The proposition is well established that
the protection of the health and welfare
of the citizens of a State is a proper
subject for the exercise of the State po-
lice power. The bill provides specifically
for cooperation with the States and its
aim is to encourage and assist States
and local communities in their efforts to
control water pollution, not to usurp or
preempt their rights, powers, or respon-
sibilities in this field.
Every time during the past several
years when this vital legislation is dis-
cussed on the floor of the House, some
Members express concern because the
entire matter is not left to the States
and local communities for disposition.
However, the inescapable fact is that the
record shows that effective enforcement
measures against pollution of this Na-
tion's waters have been accomplished
quicker, more effectively, and with bet-
ter cooperation on the part of State and
interstate agencies when guidance and
assistance are rendered by the Federal
Government.
The problem is simply this: The mat-
ter of water pollution control is so vital
and so nationwide in its importance that
it can best be coped with by the joint
efforts of the States and Federal Gov-
ernment. I do not believe that anyone
will seriously contend that the participa-
tion of the Federal Government is not
desirable in this effort to prevent pollu-
tion of our waterways. Essentially, un-
der the provisions of the bill, the role
of the Federal Government is that of a
stimulator, a supplier of spark, to keep
the vital pollution abatement program
moving. Federal enforcement measures
against pollution of navigable waters are
undertaken independently only when
State or interstate action to abate pollu-
tion of navigable streams are shown to
be inadequate. It is clearly provided in
section 8(c) of the bill that it is the in-
tent of Congress that State and inter-
state actions are shown to be ineffectual.
ble waters shall be encouraged and shall
not be displaced by Federal enforcement
action except when such State or inter-
state actions are shown to be ineffectual.
This is the clear intent of the act. How-
ever, effective water pollution control
and enforcement measures against pol-
lution require a joint effort by all gov-
ernments concerned, including Federal,
interstate agencies, State and municipal.
In view of the broad spectrum of the
problem, I do not believe that it will be
seriously contested that, for the program
to be successful, it must be guided by a
paramount authority, which authority
can only be, by the very nature of the
problem, the Federal Government.
This bill contains no subtle plot to en-
croach on State preserves. The decla-
ration of policy, not only in the section
of the bill pertaining to enforcement
measures, but also in the first section
of the bill provides that it is the intent
of the bill to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the States in preventing and
controlling water pollution. It is fur-
ther stated in section l(b) that nothing
in the act shall be construed as impair-
ing or in any manner affecting any
[p. 7143]
right or jurisdiction of the States with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
423
respect to waters of such States includ-
ing but not limited to the power, author-
ity, and jurisdiction of the States with
respect to waters of such States to en-
force water pollution control laws and
regulations.
How now—I ask—can it be conceiv-
able that there is any implication in the
act to infringe on any right or jurisdic-
tion of any State with respect to en-
forcement measures against pollution of
waters in that State? If this bill is en-
acted, and I am confident it will be, the
declaration of policy spelled out in sec-
tion 1 clearly shows that nothing in
it—that is, nothing in the act shall be
construed as impairing or in any man-
ner restricting the right or jurisdic-
tion of a State in regard to enforcement
measures against pollution of waters in
that State. In the face of such unequiv-
ocal language, I must say that it seems
to me that any objection to this bill on
the ground that it in any way restricts
the State's powers to enforce measures
against pollution of waters within that
State appears specious.
RESEARCH AND STUDIES
Research has always been recognized
as a basic Federal water pollution con-
trol responsibility. The need for a much
greater Federal research effort was con-
sistently recognized during the hearings
on the bill.
At least six permanent regional water
pollution control laboratories, fully
equipped and staffed with skilled labora-
tory and field project personnel, are
badly needed to support expanding pro-
grams in comprehensive program devel-
opment, special field study projects on
specific problems, basic data, and en-
forcement; also much needed increases
in technical assistance to State and local
agencies and in connection with projects
and other Federal water resources agen-
cies. At present the Public Health Serv-
ice must establish temporary facilities,
make such use of the Sanitary Engineer-
ing Center in Cincinnati as distance
permits, rely on the facilities of others, or
contract for needed laboratory services.
The bill authorizes the establishment
of regional water pollution control lab-
oratories in various sections of the
country.
The bill also authorizes a continuing
study of the quality of the waters of the
Great Lakes. The Great Lakes consti-
tute the largest single source of fresh
water in this hemisphere. They must
be protected from pollution caused by
population and industrial growth and in-
creased shipping.
STATE AND INTERSTATE PROGRAM GRANTS
A significant provision in existing law
is that providing for matching grants to
State and interstate agencies to assist
them in meeting the costs of establish-
ing and maintaining adequate water pol-
lution control programs.
The bill increases the appropriation
authority for program grants to State
and interstate agencies from $3 million
to $5 million annually and extends the
authorization to June 30, 1971.
GRANTS FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
CONSTRUCTION
Under existing laws there is author-
ized $50 million annually in Federal
grants to communities to assist them in
the construction of needed waste treat-
ment facilities. This program has been
in operation since 1956. Over the past
5 years contract awards for sewage treat-
ment plant construction have averaged
almost $360 million annually—an in-
crease of 62 percent over the 5-year
average before Federal financial assist-
ance became available.
Every Federal dollar expended has
been matched by over $4.80 in local
funds.
Despite the great progress made as a
result of Federal financial assistance,
much more remains to be done. Con-
struction since 1957 has been largely off-
set by new needs and the number of
needed projects remains at 5,100 sew-
age treatment plants.
In addition to the backlog of treat-
-------
424
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment plant needs, population growth will
continue to create new needs. If mu-
nicipalities are to catch up by 1970, they
will have to spend an average of $600
million a year to eliminate the backlog,
provide for new population, and to re-
place the plants that will become
obsolete.
In order to stimulate construction up
to $600 million a year, the bill authorizes
an increase in Federal financial assist-
ance from the present $50 million an-
nually to $100 million annually and an
increase in the total grant authorization
from $500 million to $1 billion.
MAXIMUM GRANTS
The need for construction of treat-
ment plants by municipalities exceeding
50,000 population amounts to about 30
percent of total needs, yet these cities
have received less than 15 percent of
the Federal grant funds under existing
legislation. Further stimulation of proj-
ects in these areas is desirable. To pro-
vide Federal financial assistance to
achieve more effectively the required
stimulus of necessary construction with-
in this group of communities, the bill
would limit the Federal grant to 30 per-
cent of the first $1 million of the esti-
mated reasonable cost of a project, plus
15 percent of the next $2 million, plus
10 percent of the remainder of such cost,
but subject to an $800,000 ceiling; how-
ever, no grant of more than $250,000
shall be approved for a project in any
State until all applications filed prior
to the effective date of enactment of this
bill have first been approved.
JOINT PROJECTS
In order to encourage the construction
of projects serving more than one mu-
nicipality, the bill would apply this ceil-
ing to each municipality's share of the
cost of the project. The grant for joint
projects would be the total amount each
participating municipality would have
been awarded had it constructed a sep-
arate facility with a ceiling of $2.4 mil-
lion for such projects.
REALLOCATION
The bill would also provide for reallo-
cation of construction grant funds of a
State that are not obligated for the con-
struction of approved projects within 18
months after allocation.
DAVIS-BACON
The bill also requires that with respect
to work performed on sewage-treatment
projects, the taking of such action as
may be necessary to insure payment of
wages at rates not less than those pre-
vailing on similar construction in the
immediate locality as determined by the
Secretary of Labor in accordance with
the Davis-Bacon Act. These provisions
now apply to all direct Federal construc-
tion, as well as to contracts for school,
hospital, housing and airport projects
constructed with Federal-aid funds.
ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION EXTENDED TO
NAVIGABLE WATERS
Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, Federal enforcement au-
thority applies to pollution of any inter-
state waters, which the act defines to
include "all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across, or form a part
of, boundaries between two or more
States." Under this definition almost all
coastal waters are excluded; so are
waters which, though they may be navi-
gable, do not cross or form part of State
boundaries.
In addition, Federal enforcement au-
thority covers only pollution of interstate
waters, defined as above, which "endan-
gers the health or welfare of persons in
a State other than that in which the dis-
charge originates." Thus only pollution
having an interstate effect is subject to
abatement under the existing law.
The bill amends existing law by ex-
tending the authority for Federal abate-
ment enforcement action to the pollution
of any navigable waters—including
coastal waters—which endanger the
health and welfare of any persons.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The bill makes a number of changes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
425
in existing law relating to procedures in
initiating and carrying out Federal en-
forcement actions. First, in addition to
requests from a State water pollution
control agency or the Governor of any
State to initiate action, as provided in
existing law, the Federal Government
would be required to enter a case if a
municipality, with the concurrence of
the State, requests such action.
It is particularly heartening and en-
couraging to note that at long last the
municipality is being brought into the
cooperative Federal-State partnership
in enforcing abatement of water pollu-
tion.
Municipal water supply ranks high on
the list of beneficial uses of water. The
Water Supply Act of 1958 gave Federal
acknowledgment to the importance of
providing for present and potential
municipal water supply needs in the
planning and construction of Federal
water resources projects. Our burgeon-
ing population growth, most notable in
our urban areas, and the shortages of
water already being commonly experi-
enced in various sections of the Nation
make imperative the protection and
maintenance of the quality of our
available water supplies.
[p. 7144]
The major impact of pollution is felt
most immediately by the municipality
faced with the problems of having its
municipal water supplies degraded.
Where such supplies are made unusable
by the injurious effects of pollution, the
municipality is put to unusual expense
in adopting more costly water purifica-
tion methods in order to provide its
citizens with this basic essential. Out-
of-basin diversions, some of them tra-
versing great distances, are already the
only manner in which the water sup-
ply needs of some municipalities may
be met.
All of these factors amply justify
bringing the municipality into the en-
forcement partnership. Under the bill's
provisions, a municipality adversely af-
fected by pollution and unable to secure
relief under its State's laws is presented
with the opportunity of being instru-
mental in bringing Federal enforcement
authority into force. This is a truly
progressive measure for strengthening
the effectiveness of total enforcement
authorities by combining Federal, State,
and local efforts to abate pollution.
Second, the bill makes Federal en-
forcement procedures available not only
in cases where the pollution discharge
crosses State lines, but also whenever
there is pollution affecting legitimate
uses of the water of any navigable
stream whether or not there is inter-
state pollution. Federal jurisdiction in
intrastate pollution situations, however,
would be exercised only upon request
from the State or from a municipality
with the concurrence of the State. No
direct Federal action can be initiated in
such a case without such a request be-
ing made by the affected State.
Third, the bill clarifies and strengthens
the role of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare in the enforce-
ment process by providing that the find-
ings and recommendations of the hear-
ing boards shall be the Secretary's
findings and recommendations, except to
the extent modified by him and au-
thorizing him to issue an order—instead
of a notice—based on his findings and
recommendations for abatement of any
pollution found to exist. To afford
adequate protection for the parties in
interest, provision is made in the bill
for an appeal from the Secretary's or-
der to be taken within 60 days to the
U.S. court of appeals. If such appeal is
not taken the order shall be final.
Fourth, if action reasonably calcu-
lated to carry out the Secretary's order
is not taken, he could request the At-
torney General to bring a civil action
in the U.S. district court to enforce any
order issued by him or, after appeal, by
a U.S. court of appeals.
This bill should be passed, as the pres-
ent limited enforcement jurisdiction does
not permit sufficient latitude to accom-
plish fully the interests and purposes
-------
426
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the act, that is the conservation of
water resources for the use and benefit
of the Nation. Many important seg-
ments of some of the Nation's waters are
outside the present Federal abatement
enforcement jurisdiction. For example,
the Missouri River from the Kansas
State line to just above St. Louis is
untouchable. The greater part of the
Hudson River is also excluded, as are
important sections of the Tennessee, Co-
lumbia, Colorado, and Merrimack Rivers.
Present law also excludes from the
Federal abatement jurisdiction the
greater part of the Great Lakes and
their tributaries, the coastal waters and
coastal streams of the Nation, important
international boundary streams such as
the St. Lawrence, Niagara, Lower Colo-
rado, and Rio Grande. The same situa-
tion pertains in regard to international
streams flowing across our northern and
southern borders. For example the Red
River of the North in Minnesota, Lake
Champlain in New York, Souris River
and Riviere des Lacs in North Dakota,
and the Flathead and Kootenai Rivers
in Montana.
The degree of exclusion under the
present act is indicated by the fact that
there are 1,080 municipalities each dis-
charging wastes equal to a population
of 4,000 or more into 845 navigable in-
trastate water bodies. And also that of
the estimated 26,000 water bodies in the
country, only about 4,000 are interstate
within the meaning of the present act.
An extension of Federal authority to
abate pollution in navigable intrastate
streams is consistent with scope of the
authority of the Corps of Engineers to
protect and improve navigation for the
promotion of interstate commerce. In
fact it would complement that authority.
Extension of pollution abatement en-
forcement jurisdiction would have other
beneficial effects. It would serve to ac-
celerate and facilitate our goal of clean
water to promote the general welfare
of the Nation; reduce the incidence of
disease and the spread of disease; im-
prove health and increase the abundance
of fish and wildlife including shellfish in
coastal areas; and bolster the economy
by providing industrial sites where un-
suitable water now precludes them.
The proposals of the bill would be
beneficial in balancing equities between
big and little cities; neutralizing State
authority against recalcitrant polluters.
The extension of authority would also
accelerate abatement processes by per-
mitting cities to request Federal abate-
ment action, with, of course, the consent
of the State, when State agencies might
have to delay such action for reasons of
budget and personnel limitations and
the like.
Unless this extension of jurisdiction
is given now, I feel future generations
of America will be justified in consider-
ing us derelict in our duty.
Some ask whether the States can
handle the matter alone.
In 1948 the Congress passed the first
water pollution control bill. It expressly
stated a policy of support of State action.
In 1958 the law was made permanent
and expressed the same policy—support
the States. The Federal Government
has paid out millions of dollars in Fed-
eral money for construction of sewage
treatment facilities, for technical assist-
ance to the States, for research in water
problems, and for other administrative
cost of the acts. But have the States
been able to do a job with all this help?
The facts show they have not scratched
the surface. As of 1960 according to the
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers
this country still needs 4,136 new plants
to serve 22,997,547 persons and this does
not include extensions and replacements.
That number totals 991 and would serve
19,243,178 people. The conference also
estimates it will cost $2,014,435,400 to
clean up the backlog of municipal waste
treatment needs.
Now let us take a look at State effort
to enforce their laws. The Public Works
Committee conducted a survey of the
States the purpose of which was to assess
tangibly the utilization of enforcement
action by the States. The study cover-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
427
ing replies from 42 States showed that
of the 37 States having authority to issue
administrative orders 8 have never done
so, only 12 have issued more than 50
each.
The record for court actions is not
much better. Seventeen of the 42 States
have never instituted court action and
only 3 States have instituted more than
15 cases.
It is interesting to note that those
States whose laws are less than 10 years
old have been proportionately more ac-
tive in enforcement than those whose
acts have been on the books more than
10 years. In fact 5 of the States which
have had laws in effect for more than 20
years have averaged 27 orders and 4
court cases since the law was passed
while those whose laws have been in
effect less than 10 years averaged 34
orders and 11 court cases each.
This is not an impressive record nor
in view of the backlog figures can it be
said that there is no need for enforce-
ment in the States. The only reason-
able conclusion which can be drawn is
that active, effective, and extensive Fed-
eral enforcement is needed to achieve the
objectives of the act.
DISCHARGES FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
The bill amends existing law to pro-
vide that summaries of conferences
prepared as a result of an enforcement
action shall include references to dis-
charges from Federal installations and
that notices of hearings pursuant to the
enforcement section shall be sent to Fed-
eral agencies having jurisdiction over
any Federal property involved and that
findings and recommendations of the
hearing board shall also include refer-
ences to discharges from Federal prop-
erty which are contributing to pollution
found by the hearing boards.
That concludes my discussion of the
major provisions of the bill, Mr. Chair-
man.
In conclusion I would like to add that
although it has long been axiomatic in
American politics that the promises so
encouragingly held out in party plat-
forms are promptly and speedily forgot-
ten, we would not have expected so com-
plete a disregard of their announced
party stand on the part of our minority
friends.
The 1980 Republican Party platform
in the section auspiciously devoted to
human needs, includes this pledge in the
subsection on health:
[p. 7145]
Strengthened Federal enforcement powers
in combatting pollution and additional re-
sources for research and demonstration proj-
ects.
Fully as pertinent was the statement
on natural resources enunciated by their
standard bearer in October of last year.
In its comment on the Federal role in
pollution abatement, this statement is
unequivocal. Allow me to quote:
It is clear now, however, that amendments
to the existing Water Pollution Control Act
should be sought so that its provisions can
be extended to apply to all navigable waters
The minority portion of the commit-
tee's report has its own answer to this
worthy and noble sentiment. It states:
Therefore, we believe that the provisions
of existing law which limits application of
Federal abatement enforcement measures to
interstate waters should be continued in
force.
This view is no less difficult to under-
stand when the draft legislation pro-
posed by the previous administration as
recently as January 18 of this year is
taken into account. In his communica-
tion accompanying the submission of
the draft legislation, the then Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare made
it pointedly clear that Federal enforce-
ment authority to abate pollution was
being requested for application to sig-
nificant intrastate as well as interstate
pollution situations. His recommenda-
tions were made in accord with and in
fulfillment of the President's directive
contained in his 1961 budget message.
We must unhappily conclude, there-
fore, that the minority members of the
committee are engaged in throwing into
the discard all of the well-intentioned
-------
428
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and meaningful provisions for strength-
ening Federal enforcement which have
been put forth by the more enlightened
among them. Once more, as so often be-
fore, they offer us too little, too late.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say in behalf
of the minority, we had very pleasant
sessions in discussing this bill. We had
the cooperation of the majority, and I
think the minority party contributed
considerably to the discussion. I am
very proud to state that in the consid-
eration of this bill, the minority party
on the committee had 100 percent at-
tendance at those meetings. This shows
their interest and it shows their sense
of their responsibility in relation to this
very important subject—and it is a very
important subject. We think we have
a good bill, but it can be made better.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, may i
say of our very dear friend and deeply
respected colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey, that the gentleman is being
quite modest as far as his own personal
contribution and his support of this pro-
gram is concerned. I, as chairman of
the subcommittee, would like to state
that the original bill in 1956 very likely
would not have come out at that time
had it not been for the understanding
of the problem and the cooperation and
assistance of the leader of the majority
on our committee, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. AUCHINCLOSS]..
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. My colleague's
kind statement has sort of taken the
thoughts out of my mind.
But, Mr. Chairman, we feel we can
make this bill even a better bill. I urge
and beg every Member of the House to
read the minority report, which we
worked on with a great deal of care. I
hope you will read it because I know you
will get some benefit from it. And I
will read a few sentences from it in the
first paragraph. It reads as follows:
We feel that this bill does not give proper
recognition to the responsibilities of the
States to participate, along with the Fed-
eral Government and municipalities, in the
costs of construction of necessary sewage and
waste treatment works; that it imposes un-
warranted obligation upon the Federal Gov-
ernment to finance the construction of fa-
cilities which are the primary responsibility
of State and local governments; and that the
responsibilities and interests of the States
are abrogated beyond reason or necessity by
the new Federal enforcement measures to
secure abatement of pollution.
Mr. Chairman, on our side of the aisle,
the gentleman from Florida, has made a
great study of this question of stream
pollution. I am going to yield to him
such time as he may require. I want to
express the views of many of us on the
committee, on both sides of the aisle, our
appreciation to him for his study and
his interest in this very important
matter. We may not agree with his con-
clusions, but still he commands our re-
spect; and I am pleased to yield such
time as he wishes to consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, in
keeping with the attitude of sweetness
and light prevailing, I will cut my re-
marks short.
Mr. Chairman, I have some deep-
seated feelings with regard to this legis-
lation. I will attempt to express them
as briefly and pointedy as possible. I,
too, want to say that the committee did
take a considerable amount of time in
the consideration of this legislation.
Amendments were offered to try to im-
prove the legislation.
It is our position that we would like
to clear up this water pollution control
bill, to make a good bill out of it, to
make an effective bill out of it. The
purpose of the minority, Mr. Chairman,
is not to make a limited partnership out
of what is presently a full partnership
program between the States and the
Federal Government. In my opinion,
that is precisely what the majority-
recommended bill to the committee does.
It would make a very limited partner-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
429
ship, if a partnership at all, out of what
is presently an effective full partnership
between the States and the Federal Gov-
ernment. Lst me make certain that my
position is clear concerning the matter.
We recognize that there are serious wa-
ter pollution control problems like there
are serious other problems throughout
the Nation, but the fundamental question
remains: What is the proper Federal
function in this field? And the converse
of it is: What is the proper State func-
tion in this field?
I happen to be one who believes in
the fundamental principle that there are
certain State responsibilities that are
coordinate with States rights; that there
is such a thing as a vertical separation
of powers as conceived under our Con-
stitution; that there are certain reserve
powers of the States; that there are
proper Federal, State, and local govern-
ment functions as conceived by the
Constitution. I agree that the States
should exercise their reserve rights
fully, but at the same time must have
their rights protected.
So, fundamentally, the issue is: What
is the proper State function? What is
the proper Federal function? And how
can this bill be amended in order to
observe this basic concept of Federal-
State partnership?
To get to the crux of the matter, let
me explain briefly what the present
law does, Public Law 660, in this field of
State-Federal relationship and what the
new proposal does. It is our position
that the new proposal practically di-
vests the States of their intrastate pollu-
tion enforcement authority and weakens
their interstate abatement say-so as
compared to the present Public Law 660,
and this is precisely what I mean.
Under existing law, Public Law 660,
full enforcement measures for the abate-
ment of pollution apply only to the pol-
lution of interstate waters, waters flow-
ing between States, and solely with
respect to pollution which endangers the
health and welfare of persons in any
State other than that in which the dis-
charge originates. That is the present
law. Thus, under existing law, Federal
abatement proceedings apply only to
interstate waters. The minority has no
argument with the- proposal as recom-
mended by the previous administration
of broadening the enforcement of the
Federal Government relating jurisdic-
tionally only to interstate streams to
include a noninterstate pollution itself,
but limiting it to interstate streams as
a jurisdictional matter, because of the
difficulty in proving that pollution
crosses State lines.
When such pollution is believed to
exist the Surgeon General may on the
basis of reports, surveys, or studies, ini-
tiate the Federal administrative abate-
ment proceedings by calling a confer-
ence of affected State water pollution
control agencies or such proceedings
may be commenced by the Surgeon
General when requested by a State
water pollution control agency or the
Governor of any State.
This, of course, is in an interstate
situation.
The end product of these administra-
tive procedures consists of findings and
recommendations of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare relative
to the existence of such pollution and
action to be taken for its abatement.
If action is not taken to secure abate-
ment of the pollution, the Secretary may
request the Attorney General to bring
a suit on behalf of the United States
to secure such abatement, but only with
the written consent of the State water
pollution control agency or any officer or
employee authorized to make such re-
quest of the State or States within which
the pollution is discharged or at the
written request of the State water pol-
[p. 7146]
lution control agency or any officer or
employee authorized to make such re-
quest of any other State where the
health or welfare of persons is endan-
gered by such pollution.
So in order to initiate a proceeding
-------
430
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under the present law, which applies
only to interstate water, the States may
concur in the initiation and must concur
in the request for court order setting
forth what the action shall be to abate
the pollution.
What does the new bill do? I think a
brief discussion of it will indicate why
the minority is concerned, in that the
authority of the Federal Government is
greatly broadened to the exclusion of the
States in the water area; therefore, that
is why particularly under those circum-
stances we feel jurisdiction should be
limited to interstate waters, in addition
to the basic question that intrastate wa-
ter jurisdiction rightfully belongs to the
States in the first place and should be
retained by them. If it is not retained
by the States, if intrastate jurisdiction is
not retained over some of these streams,
the State water pollution control agency
program is going to dry up and wither,
and then you will not have a Federal-
State program.
Every committee that has studied the
problem, including the Kerr committee,
and I have the report before me of the
other body, also the recommendations of
the recent national conference on water
pollution, the President's recommenda-
tion to the Congress last session; all of
these, as set out in the minority views,
have all stressed the basic concept of the
necessity of keeping the States in the
program and of beefing up the State
program. Even the present bill has a
provision for additional funds to help
States establish administrative proce-
dures and agencies to beef up their own
water pollution control agencies on a
State level.
On the other hand, we are saying, "All
right, we want the States to go ahead
with their program, but we are going to
limit the jurisdiction; as a matter of fact,
we are are going to take away jurisdic-
tion; the Federal Government is going to
have jurisdiction over all waters." You
can hardly conceive of a stream of water
that is not going to be taken over by the
Federal Government as far as water
pollution control is concerned under the
legislation proposed.
Let me indicate how that comes about
by a discussion of the proposed bill.
Under the bill the Federal enforce-
ment measures for abatement of pollu-
tion apply to all navigable waters, and
if you will look at the bill, H.R. 6441, on
page 8, dealing with enforcement meas-
ures, section 8(a), reads, the pollution of
"navigable waters." That is the termi-
nology that sets forth the basic jurisdic-
tion for control under the new bill.
How about the present law? Section
8 (a) of the present law provides "pollu-
tion of interstate waters."
So, the proposal is to change the jur-
isdiction from "interstate" to "naviga-
ble" waters. The previous administra-
tion under President Eisenhower recom-
mended that the interstate concept be
maintained; that the intrastate jurisdic-
tion should be retained by the States
and was very explicit in spelling that out
in those recommendations. But, he did
recommend, and we agree, that if the
pollution itself is not of an interstate
nature, but if it occurs on an interstate
stream, then the Federal Government
should have jurisdiction. But, as to
what the basic jurisdiction test should
be, that it must be an interstate stream,
should be maintained. That is the posi-
tion of the minority, and that is the
amendment that will be offered by me at
the proper time to offer an amendment,
to add the word "interstate" in order to
retain State jurisdiction and provide the
Federal Government with its proper jur-
isdiction without injecting itself into
proper State functions.
Under the new bill Federal enforce-
ment measures apply to all navigable
waters, whether interstate or intrastate,
and with respect to any pollution,
whether the pollution is intrastate or
interstate in character.
Federal administrative enforcement
procedures: Now, let me explain these
procedures. They have been substan-
tially tightened. I personally favor
tightening these procedures in some
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
431
respects. I do not favor using an intra-
state test for jurisdiction on one hand
and tightening the procedures and thus
eliminating the States from having a
part in those procedures on the court
order level which they presently have,
doing both things—eliminating State
jurisdiction on intrastate waters and
eliminating State rights and responsi-
bilities in concurring in the request for
a court order, which is the present law.
I object to that approach.
As it relates to interstate waters, the
minority is agreeable that the procedure
should be tightened up when relating
to interstate waters, in order for the
Federal Government to do its job in this
field in interstate waters where it prop-
erly has its jurisdiction.
Now, let us discuss how these adminis-
trative procedures are changed. I have
discussed the administrative procedures
under present law requiring State con-
currence. Under the old procedure the
Secretary or the Surgeon General could
not issue an order that was enforceable.
He only issues and recommends concur-
rence of the State, and then the court is
asked to issue a court order setting forth
what shall be done to abate the pollu-
tion. Now the procedure is that the Sec-
retary shall issue an order as the result
of, first, a conference being called;
second, a public hearing being called;
third, an order being issued by the Sec-
retary which is enforceable by the court,
enforceable without concurrence of the
State in requesting such enforcement.
The State is not consulted on the order
itself as is the case under present law.
The State is not consulted on going into
court to enforce that order, which is the
present law. And, this applies not only
to interstate streams but to State streams
as well, that is, intrastate streams. The
States do not have any say so.
As to whether the stream is within
their own State boundaries, whether the
Federal Government shall enforce the
Secretary's order by going into court,
these are the changes being made:
In instances where pollution of navi-
gable waters is endangering the health
or welfare of persons in a State other
than that in which the discharge origi-
nates, whenever requested by the Gov-
ernor, the State water pollution control
agency, or the governing body of a mu-
nicipality, the Secretary may commence
such proceedings or he may initiate
such proceedings without any request
from a State on the basis of reports, sur-
veys, or studies. So, in an interstate
case, the Federal Government can initi-
ate the program without request of the
States, and can ask for a court order
without request of the States. In the
case of intrastate pollution, of course, the
States are consulted on the initatmg pro-
cedure. They have a right to a member-
ship on the hearing board, but beyond
that they having nothing to say about
what the order shall be that the Secre-
tary issues or whether that order shall
be enforced through court action.
There is where there is a difference of
opinion between the minority and the
majority. We do not believe, under
those circumstances, of such stringent
and broadened enforcement provisions,
that the Federal Government should
have jurisdiction over intrastate waters;
particularly under those circumstances.
Basically we do not believe they should
have such jurisdiction in the first
instance.
Mr. Chairman, there are numerous
other aspects, but there is generally seri-
ous concern, even among some of the
State pollution control agencies with
regard to the Federal Government taking
over what is presently State jurisdic-
tion; because the obvious result is going
to be that their jurisdiction will be
shrunken and the Federal jurisdiction
expanded. How we are going to bring
the States into this program, working
with them to abate pollution, which we
all want to do, by increasing Federal
jurisdiction into even intrastate waters,
asking for a court order without State
approval, is beyond me. I do not think
that is the approach. I think as related
to interstate, yes—intrastate, no.
-------
432
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. Chairman, briefly with regard to
financing, in the last session of the Con-
gress the President vetoed a similar
matching-fund bill, providing for an
additional $40 million annually. The
House sustained the veto. The House at
that time passed a bill similar to this,
providing $100 million in Federal grants-
in-aid money, which actually is a com-
munity facility program. The Senate
passed a bill for a lesser amount, $80
million. A compromise was reached at
$90 million. That bill was passed by the
House and Senate but the President
vetoed it and the House sustained chat
veto.
The amendment to be offered by the
minority with regard to that, so far as
I am concerned, will be one to reduce
the amount from $50 million increase to
$25 million increase and to require State
matching as of 1985, giving the States
adequate opportunity to enact legisla-
tion to provide for State matching funds.
Again if this is to be a partnership
program, if the States are to be brought
[p. 7147]
into it, even the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare said in testimony
that he would like to see more States in
the program; the question is, how do you
encourage them to come in? He had no
answer to that. He, himself, wanted
them to come into such a program. The
question is, how do you encourage them,
how do you offer an incentive? I think
the logical way to do it is to provide for
a requirement of State matching for
moneys in excess of the present program,
effective in 1965, giving them ample
opportunity to act, so that we can have
a true partnership program on the State-
Federal level. Those are the amend-
ments which will be offered by the
minority at the proper time.
Mr. Chairman, I promised to yield to
the gentlemen from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] and I yield to him at this time.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, as the
answer to the question of the gentleman
from Kansas [Mr. AVERY], a member of
the Committee on Rules, made it abun-
dantly clear, we do not enter into the
matter of States rights. We extend the
potential Federal enforcement into in-
trastate waters, waters within a State,
only when that is initiated by the State
itself, which is shown by the specific
language on page 8 of the bill, line 24,
which reads as follows:
Whenever requested by the Governor of
any State, a State water pollution control
agency, or (with the concurrence of the State
water pollution control agency for the State
in which the municipality is situated).
Then the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare can come in with
proceedings, the conference, the hear-
ings, and the final order. This will
strengthen the States.
Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman
then explain the meaning of the lan-
guage on page 10, lines 8 to 13, which
very clearly states that in an interstate
situation where the public health and
welfare is involved the Secretary him-
self without request by the States can
bring such an action?
Mr. BLATNIK. This has been dis-
cussed all through the hearings. The
gentleman has been talking about the
Federal Government's injecting its en-
forcement powers in connection with
intrastate waters. Now the gentleman
comes around and dodges on the other
side of the question. Read the lan-
guage. It refers to interstate situations.
I will discuss either one. Let the gentle-
man pick it out, but stick to the one
he picks out.
Mr. CRAMER. There is no difference
in opinion. As I stated at the outset,
State concurrence is required in con-
nection with interstate waters but is not
required in connection with intrastate
waters. Is that correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. It never was.
Mr. CRAMER. The point is that you
are going to extend it to intrastate
waters. Does the gentleman say the
Federal Government has jurisdiction
over intrastate waters under the present
law?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
433
Mr. BLATNIK. None. The Federal
Government can come in only when the
Governor of the State or the health
agency feel they need to be bolstered in
their attempts to enforce pollution
abatement. They themselves must ini-
tiate it by asking the Federal Govern-
ment.
Mr. CRAMER. We have no disagree-
ment on that.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman did
not make it clear.
Mr. CRAMER. That is the procedure
required, but I ask the gentleman if it
is not true that the States do now have
a right to participate in making the
order or having the order enforced,
which is the present law.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Of course there
is a different order provided for in the
new bill than the order that is provided
for in the law.
Mr. CRAMER. That is precisely what
I asked in my question. As to the Sec-
retary's order, which he now has author-
ity to issue, as it relates to intrastate
streams the States are not consulted on
that order, nor are they consulted or
required to request court enforcement
of that order, which is the case today
even on interstate streams. Is that not
correct, under present law?
Mr. BLATNIK. No. We would like
to proceed and clarify this immediate
question of jurisdiction
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman agrees
that on an intrastate stream the Secre-
tary has the right to issue an order, the
States are not parties to the draftsman-
ship of that order, and that order can be
enforced in court even on intrastate
streams without the State's making the
request. Is not that correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. The State initiates the
whole operation.
Mr. CRAMER. The answer of the
gentleman is "Yes."
Mr. EDMONDSON. The answer is not
"Yes."
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Mis-
sissippi [Mr. SMITH] , who is chairman of
the Watershed Committee and one of
those who had a most intimate and direct
role in the drafting of this legislation
and conducting the hearings and writing
the final report.
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr. Chair-
man, I am very proud of the fact that
this bill today, the Blatnik antipollution
bill, is the first major bill to come from
our committee in the present Congress.
It is Jso one of the major items of leg-
islation that is part of the program of the
present administration to help provide
a better utilization of our national re-
sources in the United States. The chair-
man of our subcommittee has made very
clear the urgency involved in getting
this program fully underway. The mat-
ter of money, of course, is of great con-
cern to all of us. We wish it could be
done at less cost, but we know also that
if the minimum which is proposed in this
bill is not utilized now, it will cost far
more in just a few years.
ENFORCEMENT
We have had a lot of smoke thrown up
in the air about this bill in regard to the
enforcement procedure, which is really
the heart of the matter in regard
to these antipollution programs. The
whole purpose of this bill so far as the
enforcement section is concerned is to
give the States a strong arm and a
stronger weapon in enforcement. Every
type of enforcement involved here is
concurrent enforcement. It had to origi-
nate with the States. If the States did
not start it, it would never be underway.
It gives the States a weapon to use in
carrying forward this enforcement that
they might not be able to have through
their own machinery.
We had a lot of talk earlier about the
difference between the present law and
the change with reference to navigable
waters. But, obviously, that means very
little. Actually, this talk about the
-------
434
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
States rights here is nothing more than
a smokescreen to cover the efforts of
those who would not like to get this
thing passed. The best demonstration of
that is the fact that every bit of oppo-
sition against this is being activated and
pushed by the paper companies, the big-
gest offenders involved in this problem.
I hope Members of the House will not
be so lax in their duty as to actually fall
for this type of propaganda that is being
presented by the people who are the
worst offenders in this country, and that
they will not be misled by some noble
words about the type of enforcement.
This effort to prevent a strong enforce-
ment provision from being put in this
bill is being pushed by the people who
do not want pollution to stop. If you
want to join with them in preventing an
antipollution program and letting pollu-
tion continue, then go ahead and vots
against the enforcement procedure.
STATES RIGHTS
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. I yield to
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman
from Mississippi is well known for his
leadership and statesmanship in the
matter of protecting the rights of the
States in Federal programs. Is it not
accurate to say that not only do the
States participate with requests for the
initiation of action in any type of an
intrastate antipollution program, but
that the States also participate in the
naming of participants in the hearing
boards which make the recommenda-
tions to the Secretary?
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. The States
participate in this all the way down
to the final orders involved, and the
additional power here is only to enable
the States to have the additional weapon
to enforce the orders involved. Actu-
ally, this provision to give the States
the strong arm of the Federal Gov-
ernment in regard to enforcement is
put in the bill only at the request of
the State agencies involved. They are
the ones who came to us and asked us
to put this in. We are giving them a
weapon which they can use in meeting
their responsibilities just as we are giv-
ing them in the grants to municipalities
for the sewage plant programs the in-
centive and assistance so that they can
carry out their local responsibilities in
that regard. In this enforcement pro-
[p.7148]
cedure, we are giving them the same
weapon that they use today with refer-
ence to some of our Federal laws such
as the Dyer Act and the Mann Act and
the Antikidnapping Act. All this does
is to help the States meet their proper
responsibilities.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. SCHERER].
Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, when-
ever a legislator opposes any of the pro-
visions of a Federal pollution bill, he
is immediately charged by the pressure
groups with being insensible to the
health and welfare of millions of Ameri-
cans. Of course, this type of pressure
tactics is not only applied to pollution
legislation.
As an example, those of us who oppose
Federal aid to education are charged
with being insensible to the needs of our
children, inconsiderate of the welfare of
our teachers, and the scientific educa-
tion needs of the country. As a result,
many harmful, unwise, and costly pro-
visions are engineered into basically
needed and worthwhile legislation by
special interest groups and welfare-
staters.
Let me say at the outset that there
is no question but that for years local
communities and industries have wan-
tonly dumped their untreated refuse into
the streams of this country because it
always appeared that it was the fellow
downstream who had to worry and con-
tend with it. However, when the worm
turned and the polluter became the
man downstream, the country generally
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
435
began to realize that it had a serious
problem of such magnitude that drastic
legislation, both at the State and Federal
level, was needed to stop this pollution.
The Senate in 1956 passed a water pol-
lution control bill which put teeth into
enforcement and control provisions. The
power of the Federal Government was
utilized to compel polluters in one State
to desist upon complaint of another
State's being harmed. Research pro-
grams by the Federal Government were
broadened. The techniques for the
treatment of wastes developed by these
research programs were made available
to the States, local communities, and
industries. Legislation such as this was
vitally needed, and no sensible person
opposed it.
However, when this bill reached the
House, those who believe that the Fed-
eral Government should inject itself into
almost every activity of American life,
those who believe that the Federal
Treasury is inexhaustible, inserted in
the House bill a brand new grant-in-aid
program direct to local communities.
The States were bypassed in this new
Federal pork-barrel handout.
It is usually the bureaucrats and Fed-
eral agencies that conceive these new
spending programs. The then President
vigorously opposed this new grant-in-
aid program. However, some of the pro-
fessional bureaucrats in HEW secretly
wanted it. This is the nature of a med-
dlesome bureaucracy.
The proponents of this amendment to
the Senate bill argued that these grants-
in-aid to the local communities would
stimulate construction, that local com-
munities could not afford these costly
sewage treatment plants—as if the Fed-
eral Government could. No State, no
local community, in fact, no nation of
the world, was and is as broke as the
United States. Remember, our debt
today is $50 billion more than the com-
bined debt of all of the States and all
of the nations of the world.
Those of us who oppose this new and
novel aid program direct to local com-
munities pointed out that the $50 mil-
lion a year Federal grant-in-aid money
provided in the 1956 House bill was
another "foot in the door" spending pro-
gram; that, in view of the tremendous
cost of sewage disposal treatment plants,
$50 million a year was only a drop in
the bucket. It was pointed out that the
city of Cincinnati which had built its
own sewage disposal treatment plants
and arranged to pay for them without
Federal help by a tax on the water bills
of users, had spent $62 million; that the
$50 million Federal funds authorized in
that bill was a snare and a delusion;
that once the Federal Government
injected itself into this program the
funds required from the Federal Treas-
ury would eventually reach astronomi-
cal heights.
Last year the Congress increased the
amount to $90 million a year and the
President vetoed the bill. The House
sustained that veto. The President said
in his veto message that he was vetoing
it because—
water pollution is a uniquely local blight;
that primary responsibility for solving the
problem lies not with the Federal Govern-
ment but rather must be assumed and exer-
cised as it has been by State and local gov-
ernment.
Of course, the President was right.
Local and State governments which
set their minds to doing this job have
done it and have done it effectively. The
eight States in the Ohio River Valley
under a compact created the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
Under it the cities, villages, and towns
in that great industrial valley had been
doing a remarkable job in eliminating
pollution without cost to the Federal
Government.
The proponents of Federal aid argue
that it has been the grant-in-aid pro-
gram that stimulated the spending of
money on sewage treatment plants. Cer-
tainly more money has been spent in
the last number of years on sewage dis-
posal facilities, but it has not been Fed-
eral aid money that has caused the in-
-------
436
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
crease in expenditures. Rather it has
been the teeth that were put into the law
that caused communities to act. The
great bulk of the money spent on sewage
treatment facilities has been spent by
communities that have had no Federal
subsidies. In fact, the average Federal
subsidy to a local community has been
only about $75,000. The limit under the
present law is $250,000 to any commu-
nity. Considering the high cost of sew-
age treatment plants, only the extremely
small communities can receive in Fed-
eral moneys a substantial part of the
costs.
The bill before the House, of course,
increases the authorization to $100 mil-
lion a year and also increases the amount
any one community may receive. Next
year I predict that there will again be
legislation offered to further raise the
annual authorizations, and that year
after year there will be requests for
additional increases in authorizations.
It should be obvious that this is what
is going to happen. Instead of these
Federal subsidies stimulating the build-
ing of these plants by local communities,
it will delay them because as we increase
the maximum authorization for cities,
more and more of them will get in line
with hat in hand for Federal handouts.
They will drag their feet, knowing that
Congress the following year will make
more Federal moneys available so that
they can get their share.
The President last year in vetoing an
increase in authorizations supported this
position. He said:
By holding forth the promise of a large-
scale program of long-term Federal support
it will tempt municipalities to delay essen-
tial water pollution abatement efforts while
they wait for Federal funds.
The Scripps-Howard newspapers in
commenting on last year's antipollution
bill which was eventually vetoed, effec-
tively stated the case when they said:
If the Federal Government permitted the
States and cities to mind their own affairs,
and if the Federal Government didn't tax
these same States and cities so heavily to
pay for Federal "benefits," then the States
and cities could levy their own taxes to pay
for their own benefits, and, under local
supervision and responsibility to the local
taxpayers, the cities and States could do
their chores a great deal better and a lot
cheaper.
The Federal program to build local sewage
treatment plants is just one instance.
Now a bill is ready for action on the House
floor, proposing to spend $100 million a
year—running up the cost of this program
$400 million in the next 8 years.
It is free-spending ideas like this which
run up taxes.
This new $400 million giveaway should be
defeated and if Congress, despite this year's
$13 billion deficit, passes it, it should be
vetoed.
It was vetoed. The veto was sustained
by the House. This year, however, bu-
reaucrats in HEW have had their way.
An amendment to keep the authoriza-
tions at the present level of $50 million
a year will no doubt fail. The increased
Federal handout will be approved by the
Congress. The President will sign the
bill and the sky in the next few years
will be the limit.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHERER. I yield.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Would the
gentleman from Ohio be so kind as to
tell us how the States become the
recipients of these grants?
Mr. SCHERER. Under this bill?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Under any
bill, the method by which the States
become the recipients of these grants;
in other words, what legislative author-
ity the States have at the present time
to participate in receiving grants.
Mr. SCHERER. The States have no
authority to receive any grants because
as I have said, we bypassed the States
[p. 7149]
for the first time and gave aid directly
to the cities.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. What occa-
sioned that so-called bypassing?
Mr. SCHERER. I do not understand
the question.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. What occa-
sioned the fact we bypassed the States?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
437
Mr. SCHERER. The gentleman can
answer that question on his own time.
I am saying that I am opposed to
grarits-in-aid to States, because we
started, as I said, a new grant-in-aid
program at that time direct to cities.
It was a foot-in-the-door program. We
provided $50 million and, as the major-
ity leader in his discussion on the rule
a few minutes ago pointed out, that is
only a drop in the bucket. This amount
of money is going to increase from year
to year. When you consider that in
one city the cost of its disposal plant
is $62 million, you can readily see that
a $50 million Federal funds for the entire
United States is going to do practically
nothing toward furnishing adequate
funds to the communities for the build-
ing of sewage disposal plants. What you
are going to have is first a $50 million
a year grant-in-aid program, then a
$100 million, then the next year a $200
million request, will be made, and so on
—up and up. Last year, as the gentle-
man from Florida pointed out, when the
House and Senate attempted to increase
this amount from $50 million a year
to $100 million a year, a compromise
was reached and a figure of $90 million
appeared in the conference report. That
bill was vetoed, and the President said
in his veto message:
Because "water pollution is uniquely a
local blight, primary responsibility for solv-
ing the problem lies not with the Federal
Government but, rather, must be assumed
and exercised, as it has been, by the States
and by local governments.
Here is the question the House must
decide: Whether this year we are going
to expand these grant-in-aid provisions
or we are going to cut them off now.
This is a program that should be han-
dled as it has been by local communities
that are now compelled to do so because
of the strong enforcement provisions put
into force by the 1956 act.
There are many new enforcement pro-
visions in this bill that are good and
should be enacted into law to enable the
States and Federal Government to move
in against those industries and against
those municipalities that will not treat
their own waste.
So when the bill is being read Under
the 5-minute rule I shall offer an amend-
ment to strike out the provision which
would increase the amount for Federal
grants-in-aid from $50 million to $100
million a year and from $500 million to
$1 billion over a 10-year period.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON].
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the
gentlewoman from Oregon.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, water, in more than a symbolic
way, is the lifeblood of civilization. If
we turn to the pages of history, and
examine the decline of empires, we find
many causes. But no loss more surely,
more irrevocably dooms a great civiliza-
tion than the loss of its water supply.
All the great cultures have arisen where
water is plentiful and pure. And when
that abundance, or that purity, has been
damaged, desolation has followed, as
surely as the night the day. Today, for
the first time m our history, this Nation
faces a future in which the foreseeable
water supply may be less than the
demand. We must, as the committee re-
port on this bill so clearly points out,
prepare ourselves for the careful use and
re-use of our water supply.
Earlier this year, I was proud to be
among those Members of this House who
joined with the able gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] in introducing
bills similar to his H.R. 4036. Today,
I am delighted to be able to cast my vote
for H.R. 6441, the bill produced by the
Public Works Committee, under Mr.
BLATNIK'S leadership.
I have read the committee hearings.
They tell a compelling story. I have
read the report of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and I
am deeply proud that this administra-
tion has seen fit to greet this legislation
-------
438
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
with constructive suggestions, rather
than with the stone wall of opposition
which has cost us irreplaceable time in
the last few years.
Never has the Nation's need been
greater for expanded research in water
pollution. And never have our guide-
lines been clearer for the establishment
of the field laboratory and research
facilities as proposed in H.R. 6441.
President Kennedy, in his natural re-
sources message, stated:
I proposed an intensive and broadened re-
search effort to determine the specific sources
of water pollution and their adverse effects
upon all water uses; the effects upon the
health of people exposed to water pollution;
and more effective means of preventing, con-
trolling or removing the contaminants—in-
cluding radioactive matter—that now pollute
our rivers and streams so that the water may
be safely used.
A Senate select committee, under the
able chairmanship of Senator KERR, of
Oklahoma, has just completed the most
comprehensive study ever undertaken on
national water resources. The commit-
tee has told us:
The only way to forestall disaster tomorrow
is to begin today on the prolonged procedures
of research, planning, and constructing. * ' '
We must greatly expand our scientific re-
search programs to develop ways to make
better use of available water.
Last December there occurred the first
National Conference on Water Pollu-
tion—called at the direction of the Pres-
ident. Of the conference's 30 major
recommendations, no less than a half
dozen stressed research. No. 24 said:
The flow of research findings on the water
environment must be increased and intensi-
fied in depth as well as breadth.
Another urged that the Public Health
Service assume leadership in establish-
ing safe allowable concentrations of toxic
contaminants in water for human
consumption.
For the past 45 years no fundamen-
tally new sewage treatment processes
have been developed. The Public Health
Service has just begun limited research
seeking more effective means of treating
municipal wastes. Countless new chem-
icals are finding their way into our Na-
tion's waterways as a result of the great
technological advance since World War
II. They defy treatment by presently
known processes, and they are progres-
sively building up in our surface waters.
Radioactive wastes pose still additional
threats.
The President's Water Pollution Con-
trol Advisory Board has repeatedly
called attention to the need for greater
research. The Board held one of its
meetings a year ago at the Robert A.
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center in
Cincinnati. The members went there
specifically to study the work and intelli-
gently recommend needed expansion in
water pollution research. In its report
to the Surgeon General, the Board
pointed out that "the Center with its
present space and staff is highly inade-
quate to cope with new problems of the
chemical and virus age" and that "the
present staff and budget is about one-
third of the actual present need in the
national water research program. These
were actual quotes from scientists in
charge at the center who are dealing—
day by day—with the Nation's water
pollution research problems.
Many of the States are not financially
able to set up and maintain their own
water pollution research laboratories.
They must depend upon Federal facili-
ties. Most requests for such services at
Cincinnati now come from States within
less than a 500-mile radius.
The regional laboratories proposed in
H.R. 6441 would bridge a dangerous gap
—growing constantly wider—in needed
resources to safeguard the Nation's water
supplies. Support for water pollution
research has always been disproportion-
ately low with respect to its need and
importance. Last year it totaled less
than $5 million for Federal, State, indus-
try, and university programs. This is
sufficient barely to "touch base" with
the many serious water pollution prob-
lems that need solution.
Strengthened pollution control pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
439
grams, including research, are of par-
ticular importance to the Pacific North-
west In addition to its needs for clean
water for municipalities, industry and
agriculture, this region has special rea-
sons for requiring maintenance of water
of the highest quality. The scenic re-
sources of the Pacific Northwest are out-
standing. The region serves as a rec-
reation-vacation area for people from
all over the United States. The Pacific
Northwest, together with Alaska, con-
tains what is left of the Nation's impor-
tant salmon resource — a resource, I
would remind you, which has long since
disappeared from the Atlantic coast due
to pollution.
Within the past several years there has
been strengthened planning for water
resource development in the Columbia
[p. 7150]
River Basin. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers developed its major water
plan in 1958 providing for flood control,
power, navigation and related water
uses. The treaty with Canada, which
the Congress now has under considera-
tion, provides for vast additional river
basin development. During the past
year the Public Health Service's Colum-
bia River Basin office, located in Port-
land, has been preparing for the devel-
opment of a strong water pollution
control plan for the Columbia Basin and
adjacent northwest coastal areas. This
plan is being developed in cooperation
with the States of the area and would
provide a broad framework guiding the
future pollution control activities within
the Northwest. There is dire need for
adequate research facilities to comple-
ment this comprehensive development.
Pollution problems in the Columbia
River Basin differ from those in other
areas. There is need for research deal-
ing specifically with pollution problems
of the Pacific Northwest. The impor-
tant anadromous fisheries, the pulp and
paper industry, special climatic and hy-
drologic conditions, and many other
facets, all combine to create conditions
requiring specific research—conducted
within the region itself.
There is strong support from many
sources in the Pacific Northwest for this
legislation. The Pacific Northwest Pol-
lution Control Council, for example,
made this statement last year to the
Senate Select Committee on National
Water Resources:
There are increasing signs that unless
major technical breakthroughs are achieved
during the next hall dozen years, an in-
creased portion of our water resources will
become unfit for use even with the full ap-
plication of present-day knowledge for feasi-
bly treating sewage and industrial wastes.
Although such signs are more commonplace
in many areas of the East and Midwest, sim-
ilar situations are beginning to arise in the
Willamette River in Oregon, in the Yakima
River in Washington, and in other places in
the Pacific Northwest Answers to this
problem need to be obtained now if we are
to prevent the wasting of our waters in the
future. The speed and accuracy with which
we solve these problems depends solely on
the accumulation of new knowledge. This
knowledge must come from research.
The immediate need is for the provision
of funds to expand the research program.
In addition, the proper place to seek many
of the answers to the problems of the Pacific
Northwest would be through the establish-
ment of a Pacific Northwest regional lab-
oratory of the Public Health Service in or-
der to give more intensive study to the
problems of this region.
Less than a month ago the Oregon
State Legislature sent to President Ken-
nedy, to the Senate, and to the House
of Representatives, its enrolled Senate
Joint Memorial No. 9, urging passage of
legislation to establish a Pacific North-
west Pollution Control Laboratory by
the U.S. Public Health Service-
dedicated to advancing the frontiers of
knowledge by conducting research for the
treatment of water, waste waters * * * and
the control of pollution for the protection
of the health and well-being of the people
of the Pacific Northwest and, at the same
time, making possible the safe and orderly
development of industries on which the eco-
nomic advancement of the region depends
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we can
no longer afford an inadequate program
01 research dealing with so vital a re-
source as water. More than 182 million
-------
440
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
U.S. citizens now are using 325 billion
gallons of water daily. While the na-
tional population increased 19 percent
in the past decade, water use gained
64 percent. We are entering a critical
water supply situation—seriously com-
plicated by pollution—which must have
immediate attention. We of this 87th
Congress have a serious obligation to
provide the needed intelligence to deal
with it through adequate research fa-
cilities.
There is broad public support for this
bill. Public health officials have testi-
fied in its favor. I ask that there be
printed at this point in my remarks the
excellent letter sent to me by Dr.
Richard Wilcox, Health Office of the
State of Oregon.
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Portland, March 13,1961
Hon. EDITH S GREEN,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MBS. GEEEN: Reference is made to
H R. 4036 and related bills which are now
being heard before the Subcommittee on
Rivers and Harbors, House Public Works
Committee.
We have reviewed the bill carefully and
strongly support all of its provisions except
the amendment to section 2 which trans-
fers the responsibility for water pollution
control from the Public Health Service to a
separate water pollution control adminis-
tration.
The public health implications of water
pollution control have become increasingly
more important during the past several years,
particularly in view of increased populations
and industrial production with their attend-
ant demands for more water of higher
quality.
The control of water-borne virus diseases,
as well as the probable necessity for more
careful control over the disposal of some
of the complex chemical wastes which may
affect human health, can best be handled
by those skilled in public health procedures
I also believe that the Public Health Service
has the competency and the technical staff
necessary to carry on such a program in a
manner which will gain the acceptance of
both the Congress and the people, provided
sufficient support in the way of adequate ap-
propriations are made for water pollution
control activities.
The Federal grants which have been avail-
able to Oregon under the present Federal
Water Pollution Control Act have been most
helpful in accelerating the construction of
public sewerage works needed to abate pol-
lution. They have also been of assistance
to smaller communities faced with difficult
financing problems.
While a great deal of progress has been
made in Oregon, sewer systems and new or
improved sewerage treatment works are
needed by many communities if we are to
gain any headway in the control effort. It
is appropriate, therefore, that grants for con-
struction of treatment works be increased
so that cities and other political subdivisions
m his State can meet both their current and
future needs for waste treatment facilities.
Your attention is particularly directed to
section 3 of the proposed legislation which
authorizes the establishment of regional
field laboratory and research facilities. The
need for greatly expanded research in the
field of water supply and water pollution
control cannot be too strongly emphasized.
The highly complex and diversified demands
for water resources in the United States
present a need that is a research problem in
water quality control that cannot be satis-
fied by a centrally located laboratory which
already has heavy demands placed on its
staff and is a half a continent from many
other problems on which study should be
undertaken.
We urge you to strongly support the estab-
lishment of enactment of legislation which
would establish the regional laboratory since
there is an urgent need for such a facility
in the Pacific Northwest.
With regard to the enforcement provisions
of the proposed legislation, it appears that
substantial safeguards have been included
which would permit a State like ours that
has an active and progressive water pollu-
tion control program to carry on its activi-
ties without Federal intervention. It is
hoped that you will make certain that these
safeguards are included in any act which
is finally adopted.
It is requested that you take such meas-
ures as you may consider appropriate to in-
sure the enactment of this legislation with
the exceptions which have been outlined in
this letter, and to assure that appropria-
tions are made to the full extent authorized
by law so that the excellent work which has
already been done can be continued.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD H. WILCOX, M.D.
State Health Officer.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Chambers of
commerce and labor unions find common
ground in this legislation. As evidence
of this, I ask that there be printed at
this point in my remarks, letters from
Mr. Todd Forrest of the Oregon State
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
441
Jaycees, and from Mr. William Wester-
holm, executive secretary of the Colum-
bia River Fishermen's Protective Union:
SALEM JUNIOR CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE JAYCEES,
Salem, Oreg
Hon. EDITH GREEN,
House of Representatives,
House Office Building,
Washington, D C.
DEAR MRS. GREEN: The waterways of the
United States should rightfully be declared
our greatest resource Not only is clean
water essential to life and industry, but
recreational activities associated with water
have become the greatest "participation
sport" ever known to the world, in spite of
pollution. Very few of us could quell tfic
urge to exercise that was generated within
"Us at the lakes and rivers and beaches when
we were younger, now it is not at all dif-
ficult to restrict our exercise to rock throw-
ing, walking, and bathing suit ogling
The restraint has not been imposed by
age alone, either. Negligence, greed, igno-
rance, laziness, selfishness, commercialism,
and that universal curse of mankind, non-
application of the Golden Rule, have all
contributed to the present unattractive ap-
pearance of our Nation's waterways.
What a waste of resource Beauty, recre-
ation, exercise, industry, and economy lost
because of pollution.
Our Nation, cleaned by a htterbug broom,
compressed by a girdle of highways, has lost
many, and is losing the rest, of the beauty
spots that the first two improvements have
made even more necessary
Oregon is especially hampered by pollu-
tion's waste With our magnificent rivers
and lakes, public beaches, and manmade
waterways we should be the Nation's favor-
ite outdoor lecreational area As we are, if
one cares to drive far enough But imagine
the selling point to industry if Oregon could
invite industries' highly educated, specially
trained and, consequently, more selective em-
ployees to swim or boat or fish an easy 5
minutes from their homes
[p. 7151]
But as matters now stand neither they
nor anyone else can enjoy clean water with-
out a 50-mile drive (We complain about a
50-mile drive, other States would consider
that convenient )
Cities and industries have been proven
to be the worst offenders, but private
citizens are not blameless' indeed, the fault
lies with each private citizen for not in-
sisting that their waterways' cleanliness be
maintained. Waterway pollution, to the
private citizen, seems related to Mark
Twain's weather. "Everyone talks about it,
but no one does anything about it "
H.R 4042 is an excellent beginning to do
"something about it."
It is unfortunate that it has become
necessary for the Federal Government LO
initiate the means of reform contained in
H R 4042, but apparently the States can-
not conceive of benefits accruing from clean
waters within State boundaries. It therefore
becomes mandatory for the Federal Govern-
ment to make information concerning pollu-
tion available to the States.
Field laboratories in the various sections
of the Nation, if they work with local in-
dustries, municipalities and individuals, and
if they utilize local graduate students,
sanitation engineers, and production man-
agers to piove to the various regions that the
laboratories are concerned with a given
area's particular problem, can be of inesti-
mable value to State and local sanitation
authorities But if one or two laboratories
are meant to serve the Nation, removed
States will not be too concerned about
achievements. The Federal laboratory in
Ohio has undoubtedly been of value to
sanitation experts, but Oregomans cannot
be convinced that it has solved the sulphur
disposal problem connected with paper
manufacture
But if a Federal laboratory located in
Salem, Portland, or St Helens were to
initiate studies of economically feasible sul-
phur disposal methods the entire populace
would be available for advice, criticism, com-
plaints and acknowledgments. Be available1?
They would demand to be heard
So it would go throughout the Nation.
Small, unorganized groups in every walk of
life are in complete accord with the Public
Works Committee's problem, as is every
citizen, if the citizen were only aware of it.
(How could anyone be unalterably opposed
to waterway cleanliness'3) But without
initial impetus, as is provided by H R 4042.
the situation will gradually worsen until cor-
rection will cost many times the money and
manpower expenditure proposed in the bill.
The Oregon Legislature on Tuesday, March
14 defeated a bill designed to assist the sani-
tation authority in enforcing their recom-
mendations, on the grounds that the bill
would give the sanitation board too much
authority. Can such an appointed board have
too much authority? Can their findings,
limited though the board is by money and
manpower shortages, be forever questioned
and refuted without any corrective measures
being adopted9 The answer should be "No."
Speaking now of the Willamette Valley
only, what can be done? The paper plants
and canneries using the Willamette for a
sewer know they are polluting the river,
but the wages they pour into our economy
help offset inconveniences caused by their
-------
442
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
effluence. But they are willing to cooperate.
In fact most, if not all, spend large sums
of money each year in private investigations
of waste disposal. How much more eco-
nomical it would be if these sums of money
and energy and findings were going into a
locally situated Federal laboratory for eval-
uation.
Cities on the Willamette have also been
made aware of their sanitation shortcom-
ings. The largest has been hampered by
the public's unwillingness to vote necessary
funds; smaller communities have banded
together to insist that until the large city
provides proper corrective measures the
smaller communities will remain uncor-
rected. A suggestive body, such as a field
laboratory, annually equipped with local
facts and figures, could greatly assist in
eliminating these petty bickerings and make
the people upstream aware of their obliga-
tions to people who live downstream.
Thank you for the opportunity of making
this incomplete statement. If it has been,
or can be, of assistance I shall be happy.
Use it as you deem necessary and please let
me know if I or the organization I rep-
resent can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
TODD FORREST,
Chairman, Oregon State Jaycee Wa-
terway Cleanup Campaign.
COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERMAN'S
PROTECTIVE UNION,
Astoria, Oreg., March 13, 1961.
STATEMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER FISHER-
MAN'S PROTECTIVE UNION IN SUPPORT OF
H.R. 4036 AND H.R. 4042
I am William Westerholm, executive sec-
retary of the Columbia River Fisherman's
Protective Union, whose address is 322 10th
Street, Astoria, Oreg. Our organization is
made up of commercial fishermen producers
who operate in Columbia River between
Oregon and Washington. Our objectives are
stated on our letterhead, "Maximum Harvest
Consistent With Sustained Yield."
We supply salmon to those who like to
have fish available for use and are unable to
catch them personally—especially the aged,
the ill, and the infirm, and to return an in-
come for many families and businesses and
employees.
Our organization has worked since the
early 1930's on the problems of cleaning up
our rivers. We have had excellent coopera-
tion with sportsmen's organizations in let-
ting the public know of the real need for
having clean, unpolluted public water avail-
able for all uses.
The problem is larger than any one organ-
ization or industry can handle and we be-
lieve that the U.S Government is the only
agency that can coordinate the efforts of all
to solve the problem. We are definitely in
favcr of section 3 of the resolution, which
would provide funds for a field laboratory
in the Northwest The research can be done
more efficiently in the Northwestern States
than elsewhere as costs are lower than else-
where and skilled staffs in the State univer-
sities and State agencies and industry are
willing to cooperate in the research.
Much of the problem is due to the indus-
trial wastes put into our rivers. Accom-
panying this statement are five photographs
and exhibits showing samples of industrial
pollution to wit:
Exhibit A: Clean gill net.
Exhibit Bp. Same net, showing slime pol-
lution after a drift in the Columbia River.
Exhibit C: Same net showing slime pollu-
tion from industrial wastes.
Exhibit D: Type of Salmon we are trying
to save.
Exhibit E: Economics of fisheries.
Research will solve these and similar pol-
lution problems and show the way to make
useful byproducts from wastes.
The increasing use of insecticides in agri-
culture which get into our streams is creat-
ing a new problem and contributes to the
killing of fish and acquatic life, and if un-
controlled will adversely affect public health.
The cities and individuals are placing in-
creasing amounts of human wastes into our
waters. With the ever increasing popularity
of water skiing and water sports, there is a
real hazard in exposing our people to loath-
some diseases and epidemics transmitted and
carried by human and industrial wastes in
public waters.
We feel that scientific research is the only
way to solve the problems and our Gov-
ernment is the only agency that can coordi-
nate efforts to clean up our waters We ask
that adequate funds should be appropriated
at once to establish a field laboratory in the
Columbia River area at once to solve the
problems of water pollution The results of
such studies will be available to other areas.
We sincerely thank this committee for
their real interest and their efforts to solve
these problems at once.
Sincerely yours,
COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERMEN'S
PROTECTIVE UNION,
By WILLIAM WESTERHOLM,
Executive Secretary.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. The bill, Mr.
Chairman, has even, according to the
hearings, earned the support of the
DAR—or at least its Maryland State
chapter. I submit that with this truly
universal support, the bill should pass
without difficulty.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
443
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
as a member of the Committee on Public
Works which has considered this water
pollution legislation over the years, I am
extremely happy and pleased to see H.R.
6441 being considered by the House
today.
I am certain that all of you are well
aware of the fundamental problem that
new faces us as regards our Nation's
water supply. The water table remains
constant but our population is exploding
at a tremendous rate. Thus day by day
the amount of users of water increases
steadily, while the available water sup-
ply continues to remain at a fixed figure.
From this, it is obvious that there is
every need to conserve and have avail-
able as much pure, fresh water as pos-
sible. For this reason, the need to clean
up our Nation's streams, rivers, and lakes
has become a must. H.R. 6441 is a
gigantic step in this direction and I
strongly urge its approval.
In connection with my own home
State of Illinois and city of Chicago, I
am particularly pleased with the fact
that this bill authorized a continuing
study of the quality of the waters of the
Great Lakes. The Great Lakes consti-
tute the largest single source of fresh
water in this hemisphere. They must
be protected from pollution caused by
population and industrial growth and in-
creased shipping.
Particularly in connection with the
Great Lakes, I am pleased that this
would allow for a full and proper study
of the pollution problem concerning my
own city of Chicago. For many years I
have joined with my colleagues from the
metropolitan area of Chicago in urging
legislation that would provide for a
proper study of the sanitary problems in
the city of Chicago and with waters of
the Great Lakes immediately adjacent
thereto. It is my understanding that
under this legislation the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare will
carry out such a study and make the
necessary recommendations that will in
the long run provide the final solution to
Chicago's sanitary problems.
[p. 7152]
Chicago being the progressive city that
it is will take full advantage of these
studies and the recommendations that
they bring forth and thus this legislation,
among other things, will, I hope, bring
about a full and final solution of our local
pressing sanitary problem in Chicago.
H.R. 6441 is needed legislation. Its
passage is a must for the full develop-
ment of the economic development of our
country and I hope today the House will
put its stamp of approval on this legisla-
tion and that it will pass in a resounding
fashion.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
want to take this opportunity to con-
gratulate the chairman of the sub-
committee and the members of the
subcommittee for bringing out a most
important piece of legislation which is
so badly needed by this country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 6441 and desire to once again con-
gratulate our distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from Minnesota, JOHN
BLATNIK, for his outstanding leadership
in our common fight to protect our Na-
tion's greatest single resource—water.
I am privileged again in this Congress
to cosponsor the bill before the House
today. Although I am heartily in sup-
port of all provisions of H.R. 6441,1 would
particularly like to emphasize the pro-
vision of the bill which makes discharges
from Federal installations subject to ad-
ministrative findings by the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
This section of the bill will mean a great
deal to those States such as Maryland,
that have a large concentration of Fed-
eral activities. I believe that the en-
forcement procedures in the bill will
-------
444
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
bring to this program vigor and vitality
that will inspire all of our political sub-
divisions to join the Federal Government
in this all-out war against filth.
I am particularly proud that the State
of Maryland is one of the five States
that has created a companion State-
grant program whereby any municipal
corporation in Maryland that is eligible
for a Federal grant is automatically en-
titled to an additional State grant.
Gov. J. Millard Tawes in a recent let-
ter to me has stated:
It is, I think, no exaggeration to say that
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1956 has put Maryland in a position where
it can now see a solution to its pollution
problems. The Federal grant program plus
the State-grant program makes it possible
for our small cities and towns to undertake
the heretofore financially prohibitive con-
struction of needed sewage treatment facili-
ties.
The passage of H.R. 6441 will give us
a national pollution control program that
will serve notice on one and all that we
intend to mount a continuing war
against the ever-increasing filth of our
Nation's streams.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
extend my remarks at this point in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, today we have the oppor-
tunity to assure our present and future
citizens of an adequate supply of clear,
clean, and drinkable water. Water
means life to all living things, and that
includes the human race. With water,
we live. Without it, we die. There-
fore, it is proper that we consider water
to be our oldest friend as well as our
most valuable servant. We have no
right to contaminate it, and, as a society,
we must prevent others from doing so.
Unfortunately, America's lakes,
streams and rivers are being used as a
vast floating garbage can. More wastes
have been poured into them in the last
half century than have been removed.
The first noticeable effects of such pollu-
tion are odors and unsightliness, fol-
lowed by a dropoff in the numbers of
swimmers, boaters, and picknickers.
Less noticeable, but very much present,
is the rise in the incidence of communi-
cable waterborne disease.
Clean water is a challenge to the Na-
tion. Unless brought to a halt, the con-
tinuing pollution of a large part of our
indispensable present and future water
supply will create increasingly serious
problems for every citizen. These prob-
lems involve our public health, our eco-
nomic growth, and our general enjoy-
ment of life.
Mr. Chairman, America has already
begun to feel the pinch of a water short-
age. In 1957, a U.S. Geological Survey
study revealed that a thousand commu-
nities in 47 States were suffering from
restricted water use. This affected 15
out of every 100 of our citizens. In
order to maintain today's ratio of water
use to water availability, we must in-
crease our supply of available water by
one-third by 1975.
In other words, we are fast approach-
ing the point where we will not have a
drop of water to waste. I strongly feel
that such a critical situation calls for
a broad and comprehensive water pollu-
tion control program such as the one
outlined in Congressman JOHN BLAT-
NIK'S bill, which I was glad to join him
in sponsoring in the House. This meas-
ure will double the existing Federal
grant program under which local com-
munities can receive funds to aid in
the construction of waste treatment fa-
cilities. It also substantially strength-
ens Federal enforcement authority to
abate the pollution of navigable waters,
making possible for the first time uni-
form pollution control regulations
throughout the country. Last but not
least, the bill authorizes expanded re-
search into the problem of water
pollution.
Seventeen municipalities in my home
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
445
district can testify to the effectiveness o:
this Federal grants-in-aid program, for
it has enabled them to build or modern-
ize their sewage treatment plants. They
are the towns of Abbotsford, Baldwin,
Blair, Durand, Eau Claire, Fairchild,
Granton, Greenwood, Hudson, Inde-
pendence, Menomonie, Merrillan, Osseo,
Prescott, Strum, Whitehall, and Withee
Mr. Speaker, if you were to talk to any
of the officials and residents of those
towns, I know they would have nothing
but high praise for the program which
has enabled them to clean up their water
supply. By stepping up this aid to local
communities, we will be helping many
more municipalities to provide safe, pure
water for their citizens.
I also want to comment briefly on the
provision dealing with the all-important
matter of research in the field of water
pollution control. I feel that it is vital
to the success of the entire water pollu-
tion control program to conduct re-
search on the varying pollution problems
of the different areas of this vast country
of ours. For this reason, the bill provides
for the establishment of field labora-
tories and research facilities in various
sections of the United States in order to
give special attention to the specific
problems of each region.
Coming in for an intensive study will
be the Great Lakes pollution problems,
which has been intensified by the in-
creased use of the lakes since the open-
ing of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Since
I hail from Wisconsin, I am thoroughly
familiar with this growing problem that
faces the people who live along the Great
Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I •would like to point
out in closing that President Kennedy's
Natural Resources Advisory Committee,
of which I am a member, has urged the
adoption of legislation to establish a na-
tional water pollution control policy that
will protect and enhance the capacity
of water resources to serve the widest
possible range of human needs. Con-
gressman BLATNIK'S bill was drafted to
carry out the recommendations of the |
Advisory Committee. I might add that
President Kennedy urged the adoption
of legislation along the lines of this
measure in his special message on nat-
ural resources, which was sent to Con-
gress on February 23.
As Representatives of the citizens of
the United States, we are charged with
the tremendous responsibility of putting
into effect a water pollution control pro-
gram which will not only aid this genera-
tion but succeeding generations as well.
Despite the great progress that has been
made as a result of our present Federal
water pollution control law, much more
remains to be done in order to assure a
safe and adequate water supply today
and in the years to come. Therefore, I
hope that the water pollution control
bill now before the House will be speed-
ily enacted into law.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re-
marks at this point in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to support H.R. 6441 which would extend
and strengthen the Federal water pollu-
tion control program and assist the
States and local communities in provid-
ing more effective programs of water
pollution control.
[p. 7153]
Mr. Chairman, there is no resource
problem confronting us today which is
more important than developing new
supplies of water and protecting those
supplies which we already possess.
President Kennedy succinctly stated
the problem in his message to Congress
on February 23 when he said:
Our Nation has been blessed with a boun-
iful supply of water, but it is not a blessing
we can regard with complacency.
At the present time, we in the United
States are using over 300 billion gallons
water daily. By 1980 our daily de-
mand is expected to exceed 600 billion
-------
446
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
gallons, or twice our present require-
ments.
Until now we have been able to meet
our ever increasing needs by construct-
ing water storage facilities. By 1980,
however, it is estimated that our de-
mand for water will exceed our supply
by 85 billion gallons per day.
Efforts to find an effective and econom-
ical means of converting salt water
into fresh, usable water are of unques-
tioned importance. As Justice Fugate,
representing the American Municipal
Association, pointed out to the Commit-
tee on Public Works, though, the most
effective assistance we can give ourselves
in the immediate water crisis is to clean
up the water we have. As increasing
demands are placed against our limited
supplies, more usable water can be pro-
vided by the prevention and control of
pollution than by any other means.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6441 is crucial to
our Nation's interests and welfare and
I urge that it be passed today.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
was very pleased a few minutes ago to
hear the gracious tribute by the chair-
man of the subcommittee to the ranking
minority member of our committee, our
beloved colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. AUCHINCLOSS] . I think
the sentiment expressed is shared by all
of us on the majority side of the com-
mittee. And, just as emphatically I
would like to state what I believe is the
view of the committee also, that the en-
tire Nation owes a great debt of gratitude
to the gentleman from Minnesota, our
able and distinguished colleague, JOHN
BLATNIK, for his leadership in this field.
There are all over this country today
millions of Americans who are drinking
cleaner and purer water because of the
fight which JOHN BLATNIK has led for
legislation of this kind in the Congress
of the United States. And, I doubt very
seriously, when all of us end our terms
and our careers in the House of Repre-
sentatives if we will have done any single
thing that contributes more to the de-
velopment of our country, to the provi-
sion of a better and a finer life for our
children and their children than the
parts which we have played, however
small it may have been, in advancing
legislation to clean up our rivers and
streams and the waters which the people
of America drink.
It seems to me that most of the preoc-
cupation and most of the concern on the
minority side that has been expressed
on the floor deals with the fact that we
are proposing to extend jurisdiction
under this bill; that we are proposing to
take in more waters in this land of ours
that are not today covered. There has
been no complaint at all that I have
heard that there has been any arbitrary
use of this power in the waters that are
already under the bill; there has been no
complaint that anyone has been mis-
treated or that in any way the Federal
Government has been abusive of its
powers and responsibilities. But there
is a strong argument that we should
not extend the Government's respon-
sibility in any form or in any fashion by
this bill. The chairman has told you
that today we are able to take care of
only about 4,000 bodies of water in the
United States under this legislation; that
22,000 bodies of water remain outside
coverage. Our good friend from Florida
would like to keep those bodies of water
outside the coverage in this legislation.
I have been unable to discover any rea-
son why. He has not indicated any rea-
son to us that represents anything wrong
with the program. He has not criticized
the mechanics; he has not criticized the
exercise of discretion which thus far has
been present in the program. He simply
says, "Let us not expand it and let us
not deal in any more water." My
friends, if this is a good program for
4,000 bodies of water in the United
States, why not be fair to those people
who live on the other streams and the
other rivers? Why not give to those
people in other communities which do
not have the protection of this law all
the power and authority that has thus
far been exercised discreetly? Why
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
447
should we deprive any group in this land
of ours who today are the victims of pol-
luted water the benefits of this program
and the opportunity to correct that
pollution?
I do not think the gentleman from
Mississippi intended a few minutes ago
to imply that our friend from Florida was
a friend of the polluter, but I will say to
you that if I were polluting the streams
of America today with a big factory or
with some other type of operation, I
could not handpick a better position to
defend against any Government action
to stop that pollution than the position
which has been taken by the gentleman
from Florida. Let us extend this pro-
gram to all the people. Let us make it
possible to clean up all our streams and
all our waters.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. CLEM MILLER].
Mr. CLEM MILLER. Mr. Chairman,
I take this time to ask a question of the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK].
I want to identify myself in support of
this legislation. To northern California,
this legislation, Public Law 660, has
meant the difference between pure and
polluted streams. It has done more for
northern California, for the wildlife and
the economic prosperity of the area, than
almost any other piece of legislation.
Conservation groups such as the Cali-
fornia Wildlife Federation regard it as
the most important Federal legislation
in many years. It is a tribute to the
efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. BLATNIK].
Mr. Chairman, this is what I want to
ask the gentleman from Minnesota. We
have a very serious problem in southern
Oregon and northern California in
Klamath Lake and River Basin. Due to
certain conditions algae infests the ?rea,
Klamath Lake, Copco Lake, and the
river. The dying algae gives off a poison
fatal to fish and thus affects the econ-
omy of the area which is dependent on
it. I should like to ask: Will this bill
permit research to cure this problem?
Would it be within its purview?
Mr. BLATNIK In my opinion, it cer-
tainly would include study of such a
problem. The reason we are recom-
mending regional research laboratories
is because of the great difference in the
character of pollution in different areas.
In the gentleman's area there is the
problem of algae, with which I am fa-
miliar, and which is a very important,
difficult, and up to this time, unmanage-
able problem. We have problems in the
Northeast, in the Great Lakes, on the
east coast, where we have high concen-
trations of industrial activities, where
chemicals are used, and so forth. There
are these variations. In the gentleman's
case the problem of algae definitely
would be included.
Mr. CLEM MILLER. I thank the gen-
tleman very much. I am sure the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. JOHNSON],
in whose district Copco Lake is located,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr.
ULLMAN], where Klamath Lake is lo-
cated, will join me in appreciation of the
answer the gentleman has made on this
subject. It is of such tremendous im-
portance economically to the welfare of
the people of our area.
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re-
marks at this point in the RECORD and
to revise and extend my remarks, and
include extraneous matter.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. CLEM MILLER] for bringing this
important problem to the attention of
the House. In our concern regarding
the msny and serious water pollution
problems of urban areas we sometimes
tend to forget that the rural areas of our
Nation also have water pollution prob-
lems. Noxious algae have become a real
pollution problem in my area of the
West. A specific example is the problem
-------
448
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of noxious algal bloom on Upper Kla-
math Lake in Klamath County, Oreg.
It is a serious one which should be given
thorough study by the research facilities
which enactment of this bill will provide.
As documentation on the nature and
extent of this situation I want to include
as a part of my remarks a report by
Kenneth McLeod, Jr., research consul-
tant at Southern Oregon College in Ash-
land, Oreg., entitled "A Proposed Study
for the Control of Noxious Algal Bloom."
The measure under consideration calls
for establishment of research facilities
in various parts of the Nation, including
one in the Pacific Northwest. Such a
laboratory could continue the type of
[p. 7154]
work which Mr. McLeod has outlined as
a part of its task of conducting investiga-
tions and field studies. The point, Mr.
Chairman, is that our rural areas as
well as our urban areas have a vital
interest in the passage of this important
measure and the implementation of the
needed research to build on this type of
work in developing a solution to the
problem of algae pollution along with
other water pollution problems.
As a cosponsor of legislation to expand
the water pollution control program I
am in full support of the bill which the
Public Works Committee has reported.
I oppose the weakening amendments
offered and urge my colleagues to pass
the measure recommended by this able
committee. We need this research pro-
gram along with the other provisions of
this excellent legislation so that the
serious situation on Klamath Lake can
be studied and corrected. We need this
bill to go forward in meeting our crucial
water pollution problems across the
Nation.
A PROPOSED STUDY FOP THE CONTROL OF
Noxious ALGAL BLOOM
(By Kenneth MeLeod, Jr )
SUMMARY
To determine the ecological factors respon-
sible for the observable Daphnia-algae cycle
which now controls algal bloom at several
sewage lagoons in northern California and
southern Oregon, and to see if it is possible
to extend this apparent biological control
to the natural waters of the Klamath Basin
noted for their noxious bloom Among
questions to be answered are:
1 In the observable process is Daphnia
the prime predator or an essential secondary
element of a much more complex food chain
in which the prime predator may be bac-
terial?
2 If Daphnia are primary predators, then
what species or strains are most effective?
3. Has the presence of detergents in the
oxidation pond played any part in the estab-
lishment of the observable cycle, i e., as a
factor of natural selection developing special
strains of Daphnia essential to the cycle? In
fact, what influence do detergents have on
the zooplankton population?
4. To study the order of succession in the
phytoplankton population created by the
gradual enrichment of the waters by nitro-
gen and phosphorus; as well as factors of
sunlight, temperature and drought.
RESEARCH PLAN
The specific aim of this proposed study is
to determine the environmental factors that
stimulate a tremendous multiplication of
the Daphnia population in certain sewage
lagoons of northern California and southern
Oregon with the resultant observable con-
trol of algal bloom in these oxidation ponds.
And, to see if it may be possible to induce
similar Daphnia population explosions in
natural waters of ponds and lakes noted for
their production of noxious blooms.
If such a program is possible we would
possess a biological tool to control noxious
bloom by natural means rather than resort
to the use of industrial poisons, such as
treating with Shell "Aquilin," as in that
company's present proposed program to rid
the waters of Upper Klamath Lake of noxious
bloom, a program that has received strong
local support even though it is opposed by
wildlife interests.
The natural algae-Daphnia cycle control-
ling algal bloom in our local oxidation ponds
appears to be a unique development in that
the Daphnia produce tremendous rhythmic
population explosions, which, apparently by
mere mass of number, consume the algae of
the oxidation pond much as a plague of
locusts sweeps bare the vegetation of an Af-
rican landscape. This rhythm of population
growth may occur in intervals as short as
8 days in the oxidation pond, however, cli-
matic factors do influence the development
speed of the cycle. This cycle of algae-
Daphnia growth is somewhat faster than
that recorded by Slobekin, 1954, which em-
phasizes the fact that we are dealing with
different ecological conditions
In our oxidation ponds there appear to be
no natural agent present to hold the Daph-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
449
nia growth under control other than the
available algal food supply, thus the rhythm
of first the growth of algae, followed by the
swarming Daphnia which consumes it and
die, then the algae again increases—thus the
cycle is established
At the South Suburban sewage lagoons of
Klamath Falls the algae-Daphnia cycle is
well established in control of algal bloom,
yet a quarter of a mile away is the water of
the Klamath River loaded down with algae
At this point the question becomes obvious,
why does the process function in the lagoon
but not in the adjacent natural water11
Basically there is not much difference be-
tween the nutrient solution of the oxidation
pond and the extra rich natural water of
the Klamath Basin which is noted for its
production of noxious bloom, nevertheless
the Daphnia population of the natural watei
apparently has not been noted for popula-
tion explosions as in the case of the oxida-
tion pond.
This poses for us two lines of investiga-
tion. First, the problem of succession in ihe
phytoplankton population The natural
waters of the Klamath Basin, though rich in
nutrients, are not as rich as the oxidation
pond and while the natural waters support a
tremendous growth of blue-green algae the
higher ratios of nitrogen and phosphorous
in the oxidation pond present problems
largely concerned with green algae species
This problem of succession due to enrichment
offers us the field of study to determine
if it is the nutrient ratio that controls the
algal-Daphma cycle. The second problem
imposed is the speculation regarding the
presence of detergents in the oxidation pond
which makes that solution essentially differ-
ent from the natural water This raises the
question has the presence of detergents in
the oxidation pond served as an agent that
has assisted in some fashion the establish-
ment of this cycle, by either placing pres-
sures upon the processes of natural selection
and developing a special strain of swarming
Daphnia, or, assisting in some other fash-
ion'J As a consequence of this question this
program would aim to study the influence of
detergent concentrations upon the native
zooplankton population.
While we have the unusual continuous
predation by Daphnia on the algae of the
oxidation ponds this has not been true of
the natural waters Studies of pollution
and algae made on the Klamath River and
Upper Klamath Lake in a continuous series
from July 1952 to July 1959 found no evi-
dence of any kind of biological control of
the noxious bloom. This also has been our
experience in a more general association
with the problems of the use of natural
Klamath River water for steam production
during the past 30 years. It therefore
was most startling for us to observe natural
biological control over the algal bloom on
Upper Klamath Lake to take place in 1959
and again in 1960.
Our interest in the potential possibility
of establishing biological control over the
noxious bloom in the Klamath Basin waters
was directed to the algae-Daphnia cycle by
Mr Wendell H. Candland, regional engineer
for the North Coast Regional Water Pol-
lution Control Board of California, in June
of 1959, and we established a station on
Upper Klamath Lake, in an area of good
growth of the blue-green Aphanizomenon
with the intention of introducing Daphnia
in the swarming state from the local oxida-
tion pond On July 1, the density of Aphani-
zomenon was about 10 million per liter; on
the 14th of July we were startled to note
that there was not a single visible trace of
strands of Aphanizomenon; lurthermore,
there was no further return of the blue-
green algae for the remaining part of 1959
This phenomenon was not merely confined
to the observing station but equally influ-
enced thousands of acres of the best grow-
ing Aphanizomenon waters While we did
not observe a Daphnia explosion in popu-
lation our observation of the oxidation pond
would lead us to believe that Daphnia would
be the most likely agent to produce this ef-
fect, though we cannot discount the possi-
bility of other factors The example, how-
ever, clearly demonstrated that biological
control was possible In 1960 the process
repeated itself just as in 1959.
There appears to be some degree of con-
troversy inherent in these observations
based largely on the question of whether
or not the Aphanizomenon was actually
consumed by Daphnia Authorities such as
Lefevre, 1950, and Edmondson, 1957, have
developed the thesis that it is impossible
for Daphnia to consume this algae How-
ever, Watanabe, Ito, and Sasa, 1955, were
faced with destruction of their blue-green
algal cultures by Daphnia The Japanese
experience appears to be a direct parallel to
what we observe taking place in our oxida-
tion ponds To settle this controversy it has
been suggested that we study the gut con-
tent of the Daphnia and correlate the vari-
ous aspects in the gut to their abundance
in the pond; however, we are more concerned
with what happens, the result of the ab-
normal population surge of Daphnia popu-
lation The Japanese do state that they do
not believe the Eaphnia normally graze upon
the blue-green algae when population num-
bers are low, it is only when the popula-
tion explosion occurs do they loose their
culture; they believe that the green algae in
their culture gives the Daphnia the oppor-
tunity for this spring into the explosive
stage where their numbers become so great
-------
450
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the waters they occupy resemble a
heavy concentration of orange juice in color.
We realize that there are times it is diffi-
cult to believe our eyes; in fact, we may not
be faced with a simple relationship of
Daphnia directly consuming the blue-green
algae as the primary predator our eyes would
lead us to believe. The cycle might be
much more complex in a food-chain rela-
tionship and it might be that bacteria ac-
tually is the prime predator. This then be-
comes another point for study which must
be answered if we are to gain the complete
story of ecological relationships.
If 7 years of close study by competent
scientific personnel and 30 years of general
observation did not note any change in the
algal problem on Upper Klamath Lake, then
why should a change take place in 1959?
Perhaps it might be the result of the intro-
duction of an active swarming group of
Daphnia from the Santa Rosa, Calif., oxida-
tion pond which was made into Upper Kla-
math Lake early in 1958. We have no means
of knowing, as this was merely a "trial 10
see what would happen" without any ade-
quate scientific control to check the end
result.
If the planting of a new species or strain
of Daphnia did result in the effective de-
struction of the noxious bloom, it appears
then, to have paid off in some remarkable
results in 1960 in improved recreational wa-
ter and of fishing success. The angler re-
ports of 1960 begin to read like reports
near the turn of the century, when, by all
historical accounts, Klamath Lake -was not
burdened by severe noxious bloom This
observation raises the question as to the toxic
[p. 7155]
influences of the blue-green algae on the
production of aquatic life which may be out-
side the scope of this proposed study
Nevertheless this question becomes an im-
portant consideration in relation to the
Daphnia problem since the antibiotics given
off when the Aphanizomenon have reached
a high level might reach such a concentra-
tion as to achieve severe autoinhibition, as
pointed out by Lefevre, Jakob and Nisbet in
1952, and Ryther in 1954. This antibiotic
factor could possibly have played an impor-
tant role in suppressing the native Daphnia
yet not inhibiting a cultured strain or
species of Daphnia that has been developed
in the sewage lagoon under the detergent
influence if detergents had a part in natural
selection of a resistant strain. This factor
calls for some study in the ecologic problem
METHODS OF PROCEDURE
1. The south-suburban sewage lagoons of
Klamath Falls will serve as the basic cul-
tural unit for the study of the mechanics
of Daphnia population growth; here, the
Daphnia swarm at regular intervals through-
out the year. By systematic sampling,
algae-Daphnia populations will be checked,
a running analysis on the nutrient solution
will be kept with interest centering on pH,
oxygen phosphorous, nitrogen, and deter-
gent concentration; climatic factors of sun-
light and temperature will be metered.
The study will seek to correlate these known
factors with the algae-Daphnia cycle. Be-
cause of the short cycle involved in the
study of the oxidation pond, samples will be
checked each 24 hours. In most cases the
Clarke-Bumpus plankton sampler will be
utilized.
A great deal of interest has been expressed
concerning the enrichment of the Klamath
Basin natural waters by nitrogen and phos-
phorous. Work by Phinney, 1955-59, upon
this subject was not conclusive, possibly be-
cause of the difficulty in correlating the
level of dissolved N and P with algal pop-
ulations; however, we hope that the meas-
urement of total P (including that contained
in the algae) correlated with measurements
of dissolved P will yield more conclusive data.
By necessity we are involved in two par-
allel studies, dealing with the chemical and
biological cycles of the oxidation pond and
their counterpart in the adjacent natural
waters; one can hardly logically proceed
without the other because of the climatic
factor which at any one collecting period is
essentially the same for both.
Taxonomic studies dealing with species of
zooplankton and phytoplankton and their
population density become an essential part
of the study; perhaps in this we solve the
question of whether the Daphnia are the
prime predator or an essential factor in a
more complex food-chain system
2. The study will seek to correlate the data
of the Klamath lagoons with that of the
California lagoons which possess the same
algae-Daphnia cycle.
Special attention will be devoted to the
grazing problem of Daphnia upon the algal
forms present. The proposed method is to
use two 1-gallon jugs in the water under
study, suspended in situ. One jug to con-
tain raw water as sampled, the other will
be the same but from which the Daphnia
have been filtered. Initial algal density
counts will be checked against the end of
the 24-hour experiment. The Daphnia pop-
ulation will likewise be checked.
Plans also call for the measurement of
rates of production of the algae through the
use of the oxygen light and dark bottle
method.
3. Checks will be made on natural-water
plankton populations to determine their re-
sistance to the presence of detergent con-
centrations; this should answer the question
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
451
of whether our lagoons are developing spe-
cial resistant strains.
These checks will be done in the labora-
tory upon native species from pond waters
that have had no contamination from de-
tergents, or, are bothered by heavy blue-
green algal growth It may be that these
same native species introduced into water
samples taken from heavy growths of Aphan-
izomenon will give us some information in
regards the antibiotic effect, as we know of
no way of analyzing for these antibiotics
except possibly by bioassays—in a field into
which we are not equipped to follow.
4. Ten test plots of one-thousandth-acre
areas will be set up in natural waters known
for their high production of bloom. These
plots, 8 feet in diameter, will be located in
water of varying depths; they will consist
of a polyethylene tube of 20 gage sheeting
standing upright in the water, secured to
the bottom by a sheet metal ring pressed
into the bottom mud. The top will be sup-
ported by a floating ring Life goes on with-
in the plot isolated from the main body of
water and not influenced by drift Check
samples will be taken within the plot and
outside the protected area for comparison
Such plots make possible the ability to
check normal growth; and through fertiliza-
tion the problem of succession, influence of
detergents, and other essential study data
under normal climatic conditions. Other
such plots will be added as needed as we
prefer to pursue as much of the study under
natural conditions rather than the artificial
life of the laboratory.
5 On the hypothesis that the native
Daphnia population is held in balance in
the natural waters by antibiotic effects or
other natural controls, tests will be run to
seek "ways of upsetting this natural balance
by introducing Daphnia in a swarming state
into lagoons where algal bloom is heavy.
We have talked with the Fish and Wildlife
Service in regard to the lagoons on the Kla-
math-Tule National Wildlife Refuges. Daph-
nia swarms to come from the local oxidation
ponds.
6. If simple introductions of swarming
Daphnia are not sufficient to upset the natu-
ral balance, checks will be made to see if
some pretreatment of spot areas by detergent
may make the introduction effective.
Significance of the work is the fact that
we believe noxious algal bloom can be
brought under control by biological methods
rather than by expensive treatment with
commercial algicides These chemical meth-
ods are far too expensive to cope with the
Klamath problem which affects more than
200,000 acres of water The heavy load of
algae in the waters of the Klamath reach
from the mountains to the sea and have
created serious hazards to aquatic life, re-
sulting in dramatic fish kills. There is some
concern that livestock drinking the water
may develop physical and physiological
manifestations that might be misinterpreted
as nutritional deficiencies or some similar
ailment Botulism which annually attacks
ducks in this area is largely attributed to
effects created by algal bloom The biology
and chemistry of the Klamath River is very
definitely affected by the load of algae it
must carry and the total length of the river
from the Klamath Basin to the ocean carries
quite a uniform population Fear is being
expressed that the building of additional
impoundments will greatly increase the or-
ganic load and put an end to fish life in this
stream The most immediate complaint is
largely esthetic from appearance and odor.
FACILITIES AVAILABLE
1 The surface oxidation ponds at Klamath
Falls, Oreg.; and, ponds at Blue Lake, Arcata,
Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol in California
2. Upper Klamath Lake, Klamath River,
and Klamath-Tule National Wildlife Refuge
ponds.
3 The laboratory of the Klamath High-
lands Research Center in Klamath Falls.
4. Facilities of Southern Oregon College,
Ashland, Oreg
Previous work done on this project has
been largely at the instigation of Mr William
G. Shackleton, executive officer, and Mr.
Wendell H Candland, engineer, of the water
pollution control board, north coastal region,
of California, who will act as consultants on
this project. John N. Wilson, biologist,
Water Supply and Water Pollution Con-
trol, Pacific Northwest, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, will also
act as a consultant. Much of the early
work of these investigators concerns the pol-
lution problems created by algae in the
waters of the Klamath River Practically
no research has been devoted to the study as
outlined, other than personal observations
and transplants of Daphnia by Mr. Cand-
iand The principal investigator of this
proposed study came into the picture in 1959
and started preliminary observations which
led to the discovery of the algal kill on
Klamath Lake m 1959 and 1960. His previous
experience with the waters of the lake was
confined to its chemical composition and the
use of its waters for the production of steam.
The high organic content coupled with lime
and silica content made for a very difficult
treatment problem before it served industrial
use.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I had
the privilege of serving on the Committee
-------
452
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
on Public Works in 1956 when the first
major bill in this field was passed, which
became Public Law 660. It was my privi-
lege to support and to vote for that bill
at that time. It was also my privilege
to vote for the bill which was passed by
this body last year which eventually ran
into a Presidential veto. I have also
voted for this bill as it came out of com-
mittee this year.
The problem of pollution in the
streams today is a most serious one and
a number of factors are causing it to be-
come particularly critical. In the first
place, the growth of the population of
our country without any material in-
crease in the total water supply has in-
creased the ratio of pollution to the
same amount of water that is available
in this country.
In the second place, the further de-
velopment of our skills in the field of
industry has caused additional types of
chemicals and materials of that kind, to
be produced in plants, with related dis-
charges going into our streams, some of
which we do not know how to control.
Thirdly, as we get into the atomic
energy field, we are also beginning to
create atomic wastes and we are not
sure how to control those wastes when
some of them get into our water supply.
All of these problems are going to pre-
sent a serious challenge to us in the years
ahead. For this reason the section in the
bill providing for the establishment of
research facilities in different parts of
the country I think is going to be par-
ticularly important to us. Also the in-
crease in grants from $3 million to $5
million a year to the States to help them
set up control programs I think is going
to be particularly important.
The fact that I voted for this bill in
committee does not necessarily indicate
that I think this bill is ideal. I think
there could be improvements in it. One
[p. 7156]
of the fields in which I think we could
make improvements is to bring the
States into this program. We have
brought the States into a number of
other programs where it has worked ex-
tremely well; for instance, the ABC
highway program, for primary and sec-
ondary roads, where we have a 50-per-
cent Federal and a 50-percent State
contribution, and that program has
worked extremely well.
It seems to me we should ask the
States to join us in conducting this cru-
sade to clean up the Nation's streams.
We are putting up 30 percent in grants
for plants to meet pollution in the com-
munities, but we are not asking the
States to do anything. I think we could
do better by telling the States they
should recognize that they have an in-
terest in this problem and should be
sufficiently interested in the program to
join with us in providing matching funds
for carrying out the program.
I supported in committee and intend
to support on the floor today an amend-
ment that the States should come into
this picture from a matching standpoint
and that the States should match any
Federal grants above the present $50
million per year program of Federal
grants. I think that is fair, I think that
is reasonable. We should ask the States
to give recognition to their interest in
this problem by joining with us in mak-
ing a contribution to cleaning up our
Nation's streams.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. BAILEY].
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I take
the floor for the purpose of expressing
my deep appreciation of the efforts of
the gentleman from Minnesota in his
program and campaign to clear up our
streams and the bodies of inland waters
from the pollution from which they
presently suffer.
I had occasion to address the Petro-
leum Association of West Virginia some
years ago. In inviting me they failed
to tell me what topic they wanted me
to discuss. I wired them, and they wired
back, "Use your own judgment." I spoke
on the subject of "Water, Black Gold of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
453
the Future." They often refer to oil as
black gold. It was quite an eyeopener
to those folks because they had been
interested only in petroleum and natural
gas. I told them about this subject, of
pollution control that is more necessary
today than ever.
Let me tell you something about West
Virginia and why I am particularly in-
terested. We have completed four huge
reservoirs and are constructing a fifth.
The waters of those reservoirs are con-
taminated by millions of gallons of sul-
furic acid pouring out of the open mines
in the State and polluting not only the
rivers but killing all the aquatic life in
those rivers. They have polluted four
huge reservoirs. This pollution prevents
the State of West Virginia from making
use of its potentialities, because you can-
not clear up those streams and reservoirs
and, particularly, stock them with fish
without removing the pollution. We are
looking forward in West Virginia to
making use of those potentialities by at-
tracting tourists. It will help the sit-
uation considerably in the State of West
Virginia. The only way we can do it is
to seal between 5,000 and 6,000 open coal
mines that are pouring sulfuric acid into
our streams, because we let oxygen get
into the mines and change iron pyrites
into sulfuric acid.
So I can pledge the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK] and others
supporting this legislation that I will be
greatly disappointed if there is not a
unanimous vote from the West Virginia
delegation for this bill, regardless of
their politics.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. DOOLEY].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the committee's bill, H.R.
6441, because it represents a forward
step in solving one of the most critical
problems of our times.
Our wonderful country today, with all
its amazing techniques and technologies
for modern living, with all its attention
to high-speed engines, to data-sorting
machines, to beautiful buildings, to jet
planes, has not yet found a way to prop-
erly maintain or approximate the nat-
ural conditions of its rivers and streams.
The result is that people in many parts
of our country are drinking water which
has been befouled by organic and plant
wastes many times over. Only by in-
tensified treatment is this water made
potable.
To reduce the amount of Federal
participation in water pollution control
might be likened to constructing a beau-
tiful patio around an old-fashioned out-
house. Some who oppose this bill base
their opinion in part on the need for
matching funds from the States. There
is of course much to be said for this
viewpoint, but the fact remains that
polluted water constitutes a national
problem—a grave national problem
which I believe the Federal Government
must face up to. It does face up to it
in the provisions of H.R. 6441.
The waters of the Mississippi River at
New Orleans contain the polluting in-
gredients of some 30 rivers that flow
directly or indirectly into the Father of
Waters. Every town and city on those
rivers that lacks an adequate pollution
treatment plant is an offender and a
jeopardizer of the public health. The
same is true of rivers in certain other
areas.
Teeth are needed in the law, and the
bill, H.R. 6441, has such teeth in it to
require cities and towns to carry out
their responsibilities to other com-
munities.
Criticism has been leveled at this bill
by those opposed to it, because it would
increase the amount of Federal aid for
disposal plant construction. The aid, to
my way of thinking, would be a boon,
rather than a detriment. The grant of
30 percent or a maximum of $250,000,
whichever constitutes the lesser figure, is
provided for under the present law. This
is inadequate to the necessities of the
times. The legislation under discussion
would raise this figure to a maximum of
$800,000.
-------
454
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The proposed formula provides that a
Federal grant would amount to 30 per-
cent of the first million dollars of the
cost of a project, plus 15 percent of the
next $2 million, plus 10 percent of the
remainder, with $800,000 being the limit.
This is a realistic approach.
Not long ago a plant near my con-
stituency was constructed at a cost of
$9 million. The maximum Federal com-
mitment of $250,000 under the present
law could hardly be called a strong in-
centive, but under the new bill which
permits a higher maximum Federal con-
tribution the incentive would be sub-
stantial.
Admittedly most of the water pollu-
tion control plants are in the smaller
category insofar as costs are concerned,
but I think it can be conceded that the
old formula did not do justice to the
larger cities and communities, where the
cost of a plant ran into millions of dol-
lars. As a matter of fact, it was devel-
oped during the hearings this year that
the need for construction of treatment
plants by municipalities, exceeding
50,000 population, amounts to about 30
percent of total U.S. needs, yet these
cities have received less than 15 percent
of the Federal grant funds under exist-
ing legislation.
It is comparatively easy to dream up
formulas for State-matching funds.
For example, there is suggested an ar-
rangement which provides that if the
States are required to match that por-
tion of annual appropriation in excess of
$50 million per year, the authorization
in H.R. 6441 can be reduced from $100
million to $75 million per year while
still making $100 million available an-
nually by a combination of Federal and
State aid for the construction of local
pollution control plants.
The problem is that the States would
be slow or even reluctant to participate
in such a plan. To date only a few
States offer any incentive of a financial
nature to communities constructing pol-
lution control plants—some four in all.
Obviously the ideal situation would be
one in which States participate with
matching funds, but there is little evi-
dence of a willingness or inclination on
the part of the States to cooperate along
these lines. If they agreed to such a
plan, it would take action by the State
legislatures to validate it—a time-con-
suming process—and the whole enter-
prise would not be implemented until
1965.
The gentleman from New York feels
that Federal money earmarked for water
pollution control plants is money well
spent. It assures cleaner streams and
rivers and healthier drinking water.
Under the proposed bill, enforcement
would be strengthened by extending
Federal enforcement jurisdiction to all
waters and to any pollution which en-
dangers the health or welfare of any
person. The bill would make an order of
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare relative to abatement of pollu-
tion a final order, unless an appeal were
taken to the U.S. circuit court of Ap-
peals, in which event the court review
is limited to the record of the proceed-
ings below, and the findings of the Sec-
retary if supported by substantial evi-
dence are conclusive.
[p. 7157]
Lastly, it would provide for the en-
forcement of the Secretary's order by
the U.S. district courts in a civil action
brought by the Attorney General of the
United States at the request of the Sec-
retary, without any requirement as in
existing law for the consent or request
of an interested State.
Under existing law, Federal enforce-
ment to secure an abatement of pollu-
tion is applicable only to pollution of
interstate waters which endanger the
health or welfare of persons in a State
other than that in which the discharge
originates. Hence, both the waters in-
volved and the pollution itself must be
interstate in character as a prerequisite
to Federal enf' rcement jurisdiction. It
is interesting to note that of the esti-
mated 26,000 water bodies in the United
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
455
States only about 4,000 are of an inter-
state nature.
H.R. 6441 eliminates both of the
above-mentioned requirements for Fed-
eral enforcement jurisdiction. No longer
would Federal jurisdiction be limited to
interstate pollution. By substituting the
word "navigable" for "interstate" waters,
Federal enforcement jurisdiction encom-
passes a wider area than formerly.
Under H.R. 6441 the Federal Govern-
ment may enforce the abatement of
pollution in either interstate or intra-
state waters which are or can be made
navigable, whether such waters flow
across or form a part of State bounda-
ries, or are confined within the bounda-
ries of a single State.
In other words, for all practical pur-
poses the new enforcement provisions
would apply to all waters in every State.
This I think is entirely equitable.
It is claimed that the Federal Gov-
ernment is taking over the States' re-
sponsibilities in abatement of pollution
by substituting Federal enforcement for
State enforcement in intrastate waters.
This is a measure born of necessity be-
cause the States have been lax in their
enforcement of water pollution abate-
ment.
While the Federal Government has
broadened its enforcement area, the
States nevertheless have concurrent en-
forcement jurisdiction in intrastate pol-
lution. I do not believe the States are
going to shift their enforcement re-
sponsibilities to the Federal Govern-
ment as has been claimed by some. Pol-
lution abatement enforcement is a job
requiring both State and Federal coop-
eration.
This measure merits wide support.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Kentucky [Mr. BURKE].
Mr. BURKE of Kentucky. Mr. Chair-
man, during the hearings on H.R. 6441
testimony was received by the Public
Works Committee from the Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers reporting a
recent survey of municipal waste treat-
ment needs.
This is the most complete report on
needs that has come to my attention.
The information I will give you today
was provided by the State Sanitary En-
gineers themselves and not by the Fed-
eral Government.
These figures represent State estimates
of their own needs existing at the be-
ginning of the present year. They do
not take into account new needs con-
tinuously arising from obsolescence and
increasing population.
Forty-eight States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands responded to the Conference of
State Sanitary Engineers in this survey.
They reported 5,127 communities re-
quiring new sewage treatment plants,
plant enlargements, or major additions,
to serve a present population of 42 mil-
lion people. Of this number, 4,136 cities
and towns require new plants to prevent
the discharge of raw sewage from a
population of some 23 million.
A substantial majority of needed new
plants are for smaller communities of
less than 10,000 population. However,
the cost of providing new facilities for
larger cities is approximately the same.
Most States reported a large backlog of
treatment needs for communities still
discharging untreated or inadequately
treated sewage. New plant construction
needs account for nearly 70 percent of
the total backlog cost.
The estimated cost of all municipal
waste treatment needs is $2 billion.
Calculations by the Public Health Serv-
ice indicate that the removal of this
backlog of needs in 10 years, together
with providing for population growth
and obsolescence of existing works, will
require an average annual expenditure
of $600 million.
We have experienced a great deal of
progress under the existing Water Pol-
lution Control Act with the present $50
million a year for construction grants-
in-aid. There is every reason to believe
that we can reach the required $600
million per year expenditure required
-------
456
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for effective control of pollution from
municipal wastes with an increase in
Federal grants to $100 million annually.
Even at this rate, it would take a full
decade to get the job done. Without the
proposed increase in grants the task is
insurmountable. With it, we can master
the municipal water pollution problem
and rid the Nation of this monstrous
blight.
I hope the bill will pass by a large
majority.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Mich-
igan [Mr. DINGELL].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want
to commend the distinguished Public
Works Committee for bringing forth a
bill which when enacted will prove to be
a great milestone in law for the protec-
tion of the American people. This bill
has two features which are going to do a
great deal to preserve the health of the
people. The first of these is an increase
in the grant program to $100 million,
double what it was under Public Law 660
for the construction of sewage abate-
ment works; and, second, the section
which increases the ability of the Fed-
eral Government in cooperation with
the States to abate pollution of the wa-
ters of this great Nation of ours.
Mr. Chairman, I think there are some
things that need clarifying today. My
very distinguished friend from Florida
[Mr. CRAMER], is either confused or has
been seeking to confuse the House. I
choose to take the more charitable inter-
pretation of what my very good friend
has been saying today, to believe that he
is confused. I speak today, Mr. Chair-
man, as one of the authors of this bill,
and as one of the authors of a series of
predecessor bills which were presented
to this House during the previous session.
The language of both the legislation
before us today dealing with pollution of
navigable waters and the language of
the report make it amply clear and
abundantly plain that we do not seek to
usurp the functions of the States, or to
take away their prerogatives to abate
pollution within their borders or to in
any way impair State water pollution
control activities. Indeed, the language
of the bill on page 8, line 17, is as clear
as crystal to anyone who would read the
declaration of policy:
Consistent with the policy declaration of
this Act, State and interstate action to abate
pollution of navigable waters shall be en-
couraged and shall not be displaced by
Federal enforcement except as otherwise
provided—
And so on. The language goes further
on page 8, line 24, and states:
Whenever requested by the Governor of
any State, a State water pollution control
agency or with the concurrence of the State
water pollution control agency for the State
in which the municipality is situated, the
governing body of any municipality, the
Secretary shall, if such request refers to
pollution of navigable waters which is en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in
a State—
And so on.
This language is clear as to intent. It
shows very clearly that we do not wish
not intend to usurp the function of water
pollution control nor to exclude the
States from their legitimate and proper
activities in this field. We intend,
rather, and I say to my good friend who
has displayed a very considerable degree
of erudition on this subject, we seek only
to offer to the States, to the municipali-
ties, and to the Governors of these
States, an additional weapon in dealing
with the hard core polluters, both mu-
nicipal and industrial, that have been
soiling and defiling the waters of this
country to a point where it has become
intolerable. We do not weaken the
States or their pollution programs; we
give incentive and a tremendous weapon.
We make available trained staffs of the
finest sort to help the States, and Fed-
eral financing to assist them in their
war on polluters and conduct of pollu-
tion abatement procedures. Pollution
is not, as somebody stated here today, an
isolated thing, nor is it a uniquely local
plight. The pollution of the waters
from which the people of St. Louis or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
457
New Orleans may drink originate as far
north as Chicago, it may originate in
Pittsburgh, or it may originate as far
up as the headwaters of the Missouri
River. These substances are of equal
toxicity when they are put in 1,000
yards up stream and when they are put
in 1,000 rules upriver. These sub-
stances which are inserted into the wa-
ters of our land today are not the sub-
stances which we know or understand
or, indeed, of which we have any under-
standing of proper and adequate treat-
ment for removal of these substances.
Rather, these substances are not only
[p. 7158]
often in their own right toxic but they
may even permit the waters to harbor
other toxic matters to the point where
they cannot be purified so that they may
serve as useful, decent water for our
people to drink.
I pay tribute to the committee for the
compromise amendment eliminating
controversy by placing the water pollu-
tion control activities under the Sec-
retary of HEW. This is recognition of
failure by the leadership of the Public
Health Service to sufficiently, vigorously
prosecute the program. I am hopeful
that the vigorous and active people who
have been so liberated from the dead
hand of bureaucracy will not later be
again buried within the Public Health
Service or a bureau of environmental
health.
The original bill made the water pol-
lution control agency an independent
and autonomous agency directly under
the Secretary. The original provision I
would favor over that in the committee
amendment. But regard the compro-
mise as a vast step forward in giving the
devoted public servants who have so long
worked to make this program vigorous
and aggressive in spite of the desire of
the Public Health Service high command
to not walk on toes and to conduct a po-
lite and genteel program of research,
lecture, and study. This liberation, if
respected, offers vast promise for the
future. I hope that the Secretary and
the administration will respect it.
Mr, AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. ROBISON],
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBISON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida .
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to point out to the gentleman from
Michigan that he failed to read the bal-
ance of the last sentence on page 8, in
the exceptions.
except as otherwise provided by or pursuant
to a final order issued in accordance with
subsection (e) of this section or a court order
under subsection (g) of this section.
The action or policy against infring-
ing on the State or interstate water pol-
lution agency is not involved in this area
in the exceptions.
Those are the exceptions, and they
are broad.
I will also point out the gentleman was
not specific in regard to the areas he
felt were not clarified in my remarks.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, there
should be little question over the fact
that the need to prevent and control
water pollution should stand high on our
list of national priorities. As our society
grows and becomes ever more complex,
the threads of water quality and water
quantity will become inextricably inter-
woven. Already, as our water needs
spiral upward, the repeated reuse of
water is becoming the rule rather than
the exception—more and more people
and machines demanding more and more
water and, in a vicious cycle, at the same
time producing more and more pollu-
tion to degrade those same waters.
Thus America faces another problem
of urgent national concern, calling for
clear concepts and principles and for
action that cannot be postponed. This
is not a problem for the next generation
to worry about. Our need is not tomor-
row—it is today.
Congressional awareness of that need,
however, demands more than hasty ex-
-------
458
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pedient action. Implicit in that aware-
ness on our part is also a challenge to
attempt to strike and to maintain certain
balances—balances in the apportionment
of responsibility, the distribution of costs
and the application of enforcement reg-
ulations. Obviously, the most difficult
balance for us to strike, in the multi-
layered, interwoven economic and ad-
ministrative world of today, will be in
the area of responsibilities.
Both for reasons of tradition and
practicality, the fundamental responsi-
bility for pollution abatement and con-
trol should, in my judgment, remain at
the source—with the local municipalities
and industries concerned—and, in my
further judgment, in the long run our
success in solving this problem will be
directly proportional to the acceptance
of responsibility for the application of
abatement measures by those •whose very
existence creates not only the demand
for clean water but the pollution prob-
lem itself.
I think it is equally clear that the
several States ought to be the keystones
in our national pollution-abatement
effort. Historically, legislatively, and
logically, our ability to stimulate a
stronger interest and participation in
this problem at the State level has been
and, in my judgment, will continue to be
a major determinant of our long-range
success.
Finally then, rounding out what one
might call a trinity of responsibility,
comes the unmistakable Federal concern,
derived from the interstate nature and
national scope of this complex problem.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is
here a virtually unbounded opportunity
for Federal leadership in the Nation's in-
terest—for leadership in research and in-
vestigation, for leadership in contribut-
ing to a more enlightened awareness
concerning this problem on the part of
both public and professional interests,
and for leadership in stimulating and
strengthening action at both the State
and local levels.
There are many facets involved in our
consideration of H.R. 6441 to which I
might address myself, but I would like to
focus your attention on what I consider
to be the need to develop a better balance
of that three-way responsibility I have
been talking about. Now I know that
there are those here who will argue that
if we get into this subject we will be
running the risk of becoming bogged
down in a provincial squabble that might
threaten the passage of this bill or the
future of this program—that if we de-
cide to endeavor to encourage greater
State participation, no matter how de-
sirable that might be, we might end up
in only delaying the "steady progress"
(as the majority refers to it), that is
being made by virtue of the grant-in-aid
feature of the 1956 act. I must admit
that there may be such a danger, but I
submit that it is necessary to run the
risk thereof because, while the task we
face may prove to be too big for any one
or any combination of two of the three
necessary partners, it is not too big for
all three if we can get them working to-
gether in tandem with the support of an
enlightened industrial community.
Perhaps a brief historical review might
help at this point. Strong national im-
petus to tackle this one of our many
problems was provided by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948—an
act that delineated the principle of Fed-
eral-State cooperation and, for the first
time, provided for a Federal role in the
fields of research and technical assist-
ance for limited Federal authority over
interstate waters and a small amount of
Federal financial assistance as well.
This authority was further extended and
expanded upon in 1956 when Congress
added the principle of Federal grants-in-
aid to provide our smaller local munici-
palities with both the incentive and some
of the dollars needed in order that they
might break out of the straitjacket of in-
action that had been imposed upon them
by a lack of adequate financial resources
and the notion, held to by most of their
hard-pressed taxpaying residents, that
the economic and social benefits of pollu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
459
tion abatement were far more real for
their downstream neighbors than for
themselves.
There are still those who will question
the initial wisdom and propriety of that
Federal grants-in-aid program. Some
of them even argue that this program
has hindered rather than helped us
toward our goal of cleaner waters. Be
that as it may, it seems to me that we
have long since turned the corner of "no
return," and that we could only aban-
don the existing Federal participation in
this program with the certain knowledge
that we would be impeding further prog-
ress. If you should happen to agree with
me, then the only remaining question is,
Where do we go from here?
In searching for the proper answer,
we must first pause to see what we have
accomplished. On paper, the "carrot on
a stick" approach represented by the
grants-in-aid program would seem to
have generated close to $5 in local ex-
penditures for abatement purposes for
every $1 of Federal money similarly in-
vested. Over 2,500 local sewage-treat-
ment projects have been approved for
Federal participation since 1956. Of
these, as of the time of the recent Na-
tional Conference on Water Pollution,
1,246 are completed, 717 were under con-
struction and the rest were awaiting con-
struction. Those most friendly to the
grants-in-aid program claim that it has
stimulated a 62-percent increase in
treatment-plant construction since the
passage of the 1956 act. Be that as it
may, it is also estimated that the Nation's
construction backlog, excluding such
new needs as will accompany popula-
tion growth, amounts to some $600 mil-
lion a year for the next 10 years, a total
of $6 billion. I think that estimate fairly
accurately shows the magnitude of our
problem, and the point I would like to
now make as clearly as I can is that the
burden of that problem, even if H.R. 6441
is passed in its present form, will con-
tinue to fall the heaviest on the one
partner—the local municipality—in that
[p. 7159]
trinity of responsibility which is prob-
ably the least able to afford it.
This is so—and will surely continue to
be so if H.R. 6441 is passed in its present
form, because the Federal Government's
entry into this field with Federal tax
dollars has, almost without exception,
been chiefly cause for sighs of relief from
our respective State legislatures. Only
three States—Maine, Vermont, and
Maryland—since 1958 have been stimu-
lated sufficiently by the Federal program
to shoulder any major part of the dis-
proportionate burden assigned to the
local municipality. New Hampshire, to
its credit, has recently become an added
starter along with those original three
States in recognition of the principle
that this is a three-way partnership
problem, and I also understand that
Georgia may soon join their ranks. I
wish I might also say to you that my own
State of New York was preparing to
assume its share of responsibility here,
but unfortunately I cannot.
In any event, I would choose to con-
sider that the five progressive-minded
States I have mentioned represent solid
evidence of the point stressed in the
minority report that it is not so much a
question of whether or not the various
States can afford to join hands with
Uncle Sam in tackling this problem, as
it is that most of them have not so far
assigned to this problem the high pri-
ority that it deserves.
I recognize that it is considerably
easier for those municipal associations
and civic organizations who are most
seriously concerned with water pollution
to obtain additional Federal moneys in
order to speed up our attack on that
backlog of needs than it is for them to
be required to approach 45 reluctant
State legislatures. Thus, it is not sur-
prising that H.R. 6441 was so vigorously
supported before our committee by State
water pollution control administrators,
sanitary engineers and civic organi-
zations ranging all the way from the
League of Women Voters to the Izaak
Walton League. I also recognize that we
-------
460
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
here sometimes get States rights mixed
up with States' responsibilities. How-
ever, I for one, happen to think that the
continuing emphasis on the bankruptcy
of local government is not quite con-
sistent with the continuing expenditure
by our people of billions of dollars annu-
ally on the auto, the cosmetic and the
other excitements of daily living so
characteristic of our way of life.
So what do we do here today? Do
we pay no attention to the fact that
there is an absence of realistic data
establishing the inability of the various
States to accept their rightful responsi-
bilities? Do we ignore the testimony
of almost every witness that came before
our committee, including Secretary Rib-
icoff, himself, admitting that it would be
a most beneficial thing if we could some-
how get the remaining 45 States into
the picture? Do we once again take the
escapist view that local responsibility is
bankrupt and local resources are ex-
hausted, forgetting that it is those same
resources and only those that nourish
the coffers of the National Government?
Do we want our States to become mere
conduits for the receipt and allocation
of Federal moneys, or do we want them
to be strong and active partners in all
the various areas of shared responsi-
bility?
Many members on the minority side
of our committee would like to support
this program. We worked hard to come
up with suggestions that would not
weaken or negate the purposes of this
program nor impede the progress that
is being made. The gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER] will offer an
amendment or amendments, which I
urge you to support, that will go along
with a substantial increase in Federal
participation in the construction pro-
gram as it now exists—from an authori-
zation of $50 million a year to $75 mil-
lion a year, thus bringing H.R. 6441 in
line with its companion measure in the
other body. For 3 years those additional
Federal dollars, if appropriated, could
be used to attack the construction back-
log now existing. During that 3-year
period it is hoped that those States
which need to do so will enact enabling
legislation that will eventually authorize
their participation in this partnership
endeavor in the same way that five of
their sister States are already doing or
preparing to do. Then, beginning with
the appropriations for fiscal year 1965,
the Cramer amendments will require
State matching funds, dollar for dollar,
for any Federal funds appropriated in
excess of the existing annual $50 mil-
lion authorization.
These amendments will preserve the
existing program as a base upon which
to build. I think we could well consider
that that base program represents a ful-
fillment of the basic Federal share of
responsibility in this field. Then, after
that 3-year waiting period, Federal
funds offered over and above that base
program will serve as a "carrot on a
stick" to stimulate State participation in
the same way that the base or existing
program now serves as a "carrot on a
stick" to stimulate local action.
This, in my judgment, represents a
responsible and a progressive approach
to the needs of our Nation. It will equal-
ize the burden shared by the three
responsible partners. It will stimulate
construction. It will tear away the last
vestiges of local public apathy. It will
strengthen the program. It will help us
get the job done. I hope those Cramer
amendments will carry.
Before closing, I would like to com-
mend the committee for adopting the
new provisions contained in H.R. 6441
which will encourge joint construction
projects for several communities banded
together. The minority sponsored a ceil-
ing on this feature of the bill so that a
metropolitan complex could not absorb
the lion's share of any State's allocated
portion of Federal funds thus continuing
the program's emphasis on aid to the
smaller community. This feature is a
decided improvement, and will be of im-
mediate benefit in my congressional dis-
trict where a number of such joint proj-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
461
ects were presently under consideration.
Finally, I would like to urge that, in
view of industry's important role in the
attack on water pollution, other com-
mittees of Congress should give their
early consideration to various measures
that have been and may be proposed to
give industry a better incentive—per-
haps through faster tax writeoffs for
treatment-plant construction—than it
now has to accept its responsibility, in
full. In the long run, our ability to pro-
vide such an incentive may be as impor-
tant to our eventual success as what we
seek to do here today.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from Kentucky [Mr. STUBBLE-
FIELD].
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
I wish to record my strong and enthusi-
astic support of H.R. 6441. This bill,
expanding the highly successful Federal
water pollution control program and
providing for additional research in the
field of water pollution control, is of
great value to the Nation. The need to
maintain the purity of one of this Na-
tion's greatest resources — water—can
hardly be overestimated.
The district I have the honor to rep-
resent is bordered by the Ohio and the
Mississippi Rivers, and bisected by the
Tennessee, the Cumberland, the Clarks,
the Little, and the Pond Rivers. The
purity of the waters of these rivers and
more particularly Kentucky Lake and of
the Barkley Lake which will be im-
pounded in 1984 is our minimum duty
as citizens. Desecration of these waters
with untreated or inadequately treated
sewage and industrial wastes would
reflect great discredit on our democratic
concept that freemen can govern them-
selves and can work together for their
mutual best interests.
I salute the great Public Works Com-
mittee for bringing forth this bill, and
more particularly the Subcommittee on
Rivers and Harbors, ably chaired by our
colleague, the gentleman from Minne-
sota, JOHN BLATNIK.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Idaho [Mr. HARDING] may extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARDING. Mr. Chairman, it
gives me great pleasure to speak today
in support of H.R 6441. I concur with
the views of the gentleman from Min-
nesota [Mr. BLATNIK], and our other
colleagues who want to improve our
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
I am from the Snake River Valley of
Idaho. This is one of the most beau-
tiful rivers in the world. It provides
our residents of Idaho and our visitors
from other States and throughout the
world with a body of water where we
can swim, water ski, fish, and hunt
waterfowl. It provides vital irrigation
water for about 650,000 acres of Idaho
cropland. After rendering this service
to Idaho, this river flows on through
Oregon and Washington, into the Co-
lumbia River and then to the Pacific
Ocean.
We in Idaho want to give this water
to our downstream neighbors in just as
pure a state as we have received it—
fresh from the beautiful springs and
snow runoffs of our mountains.
[p. 7160]
Today we have in Idaho a fast-grow-
ing industrial economy. We have in-
creased urban populations and vegetable
processing plants, many of which are
still dumping untreated waste into the
Snake River. It is a disgrace if we
allow it to become a river of disease and
a public sewer for every community and
processing plant that wishes to dump
their waste into the Snake River.
I feel that H.R. 6441 will provide the
controls and the incentives to help the
people of the Snake River Valley and
Idaho, as well as the people throughout
America, to maintain pure and beautiful
-------
462
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
While the Water Pollution Control
Act as it was earlier enacted has greatly
benefited Idaho, contributing $2,695,-
340.70 to which the State has matched
$4 for every Federal dollar received,
there is still much to be done.
Idaho State Health Department offi-
cials estimate that there are 104 com-
munities serving 190,000 people which
need sewage plants estimated to cost
$5,906,000. Additional work to put these
plants in good operating condition
would require $4,724,000 or a total
expenditure for water pollution of
$10,630,000.
Nationally the picture is similar. Ac-
cording to a recent Public Health Serv-
ice report, 21.5 percent of the 102 million
people living in communities served by
sewers still discharge their raw sewage
into public water. Nearly 2,900 new
plants are required for the treatment of
this raw sewage. Some 3,000 other com-
munities need replacement or enlarge-
ment of facilities to meet the obliga-
tions of their downstream neighbors.
The Public Health Service further esti-
mates that an additional 6,000 industrial
waste treatment projects should be in
operation right now.
With greater Federal stimulus, I be-
lieve we can solve this problem. I am
proud to rise in support of this much-
needed legislation.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. WRIGHT].
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, many
years ago a very wise man named
Solomon wrote: "Where there is no
vision people perish." In 1956 when we
began this landmark legislation to con-
trol the pollution of the Nation's streams,
I believe that the Congress was acting
with great vision.
One of the really overpowering truths
of our time is the rapid rate at which
our population has been expanding.
Every evening when we sit down to din-
ner there are some 7,200 more of us
needing to be served here in the United
States than there were the evening be-
fore. At the same time that our popula-
tion is growing by such strides, our per
capita consumption of water is growing
even more swiftly. So that one of the
truly great challenges of our time, of
this civilization, is to look ahead and
make provisions to the end that there
shall be sufficient quantities of usable
water for the next generation and the
generations which will follow it upon
this land.
When we first began the water pollu-
tion control program of grants to munici-
palities, the fear was expressed on the
part of some minority members that it
would not achieve the goal of stimulat-
ing local activity. Rather than increas-
ing the work done to clear up the
streams by sewage treatment plants, they
said these Federal matching grants
would slow down the work by discour-
aging the cities from undertaking activ-
ity on their own and encouraging them
instead to wait until the Federal Gov-
ernment made grants available to them.
By any yardstick you can apply this
has been a monumentally successful
program. Let us look at the record.
In the 5 years which immediately pre-
ceded the beginning of this program the
average total annual amount of money
spent on sewage treatment plant con-
struction was some $222 million. In the
5 years of the program's activity the
average annual amount has been 62 per-
cent greater, two-thirds again almost.
During this time when the Federal Gov-
ernment has appropriated and made
grant offers for a total of $219,300,000,
we have stimulated on the part of local
communities the spending of more than
$1 billion in order to qualify for this
amount of money.
A total of some 2,671 communities
have thus been encouraged, have thus
been aided, have thus been given an
incentive to tackle this problem. For
every Federal dollar expended on this
program there has been more than
$4.80 spent to match it at the State and
local levels. So, you see, the fear that
was expressed in the first place has had
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
463
no validity whatever.
Those in the minority are saying now
that they accept the basic philosophy of
the program which first they resisted.
They now publicly accept the idea that
we should make grants, but they simply
do not want us to make grants any
higher. They accept the idea that we
have done a great thing in stimulating
and encouraging on the part of the
States and local communities some ac-
tivity on their own to abate this grow-
ing pollution problem, but they do not
want to spend any more money than we
have been spending.
A few years ago in an effort to oppose
the program of grants to cities, they
said, "All you need to do is beef up
enforcement. We can cure this pollution
problem without giving any money to
anybody if you just strengthen the
enforcement procedures." Now we come
to you with a program which not only
makes money available to those com-
munities which could not effectively
tackle the problem without these grants,
but we have strengthened the enforce-
ment procedures. Yet today they have
reversed their position entirely. Instead
of saying that grants are bad and en-
forcement is good, they appear today
saying that grants are good but enforce-
ment is bad.
Just what do we do in this bill?
First, we increase the total authoriza-
tion to $100 million a year. Second, we
increase the maximum amount that is
available to an individual municipality
to the end that larger municipalities also
may be helped under this bill, they being
some of the most extremely important
targets we must reach if we are to con-
trol the pollution of our streams.
Third, we make it possible for groups
of municipalities to join together in
concerted action to build area treat-
ment plants aimed at serving all those
municipalities without being limited to
the maximum grant figure that would
apply to one municipality alone.
In the fourth place, we strengthen
the enforcement procedures and it
strengthens also the powers that are
available to the States and the State
pollution control agencies where they
exist by giving them another weapon
they may use against willful polluters
by allowing these States at their option
to call upon the Federal authority.
I call your attention to the fact that
in no instance does this bill authorize
the Federal authority to enter the field
of enforcement except upon the invita-
tion of the States. Where shall we have
lost States rights in this?
I direct and invite your attention to
the language beginning at the bottom
of page 8 of the bill, where it states:
Whenever requested by the Governor of
any State, a State water pollution control
agency, or (with the concurrence of the
State water pollution control agency for
the State in which the municipality is situ-
ated) the governing body of any municipal-
ity, the Secretary shall * * '• .
The Secretary shall give formal noti-
fication, enter into a hearing in which
the States themselves are parties, and
ascertain the extent to which the pollu-
tion has occurred and the extent to
which it is subject to being abated by
Federal order. In no instance can the
Federal Government enter into the en-
forcement procedures except upon the
invitation of the State.
The gentlemen seem to be saying that
after the Federal Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare has issued an
order to desist from the pollution of a
stream, the States ought to have the
right to veto the enforcement of that
order. This would amount to nullifica-
tion. I do not think any reasonable or
prudent person would say that a State
could possess inherent in its jurisdiction
or sovereignty the right to veto the
enforcement of a valid Federal order.
This is not consistent with our long-
standing policy of separate powers and
divided responsibilities in the large area
of concurrent jurisdiction between State
and Federal authorities. So, Mr. Chair-
man, we have done nothing to invade
or violate States rights, but rather have
-------
464
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
given to those States an additional
weapon with which they can, if they
wish, stop the pollution of the streams
that flow through their borders.
Finally, the bill contains a new section
providing that prevailing wages shall be
paid in contracts under this bill. There
is nothing new or revolutionary in this
requirement. It is the only thing we
can consistently do consonant with long-
standing public policy.
There is ample precedent in Federal
grant programs for the guarantee of
prevailing wages. This same protection
is afforded in the Housing Act, the Hos-
pital Act, the Federal Airport Act, the
School Construction Act, the Community
[p.7161]
Facilities Act, the Civil Defense Act, and
the Federal Aid Highway Act.
Exactly what does the wage provision
say? Does it say that Federal moneys
shall be used as a lever to pry up the
existing wage levels in an area? Not
at all. It simply says that Federal
moneys shall not be used to depress the
existing wages of an area by setting up
an unfair competition for jobs.
Does it oppress a contractor or place
him at an unfair disadvantage with his
competitors? Not at all. It simply as-
sures him that he can pay the average
wages which prevail in the immediate
area without himself being placed at a
competitive disadvantage by an un-
scrupulous competitor who might other-
wise walk away with the contract by
undercutting the wages that others in
the industry are paying.
It simply sets up an understandable
ground rule for all concerned and re-
moves the matter of wages as a haggling
device by which to get the jump on a
competitor. What possible objection can
there be to such a policy? If we were
to oppose the payment of prevailing
standard wages, then would this not
mean that we favored the payment of
substandard wages? Surely the Con-
gress does not wish to take that posi-
tion.
Those who propose the removal of this
guarantee have thrown up the false ar-
gument that some communities, if re-
quired to pay the standard, average
wages of the locality, might lose more
than they would gain in the Federal
grant. The fallacy of this argument
should be evident on its face. The Fed-
eral participation in most cases amounts
to about 15 or 20 percent of the total
project. If any firm should be paying
such pitifully low wages that he could
thus underbid the cost of an entire job
by 20 percent, then, obviously, he is de-
pressing wages, and his gain is ill gotten.
It is and has been the policy of our
Government for many years to promote
decent wages for the working force of
this Nation. It has been the conscious
policy of our Government to eradicate
substandard wages and thus to elevate
the standard of living of our people.
This policy is inherent in the mini-
mum-wage laws. It stems from the
realization that labor is not just another
inanimate commodity in the market-
place to be bargained for at the lowest
possible price in the cold and unfeeling
manner in which we might bargain for
a secondhand car or a piece of used
machinery. Labor is flesh and blood.
It is the currency of life, the ultimate
product of the human creature, and the
measure of the worth we assess as a
nation to the individual person.
It is precisely this realization which
distinguishes a humane and civilized
society from the law of the jungle. It
is just this official concern for the wel-
fare of the humblest American which
has made this Nation an inspiration to
mankind.
So, I think the House will agree with
the committee that this is a sound bill
providing an overdue expansion of a pro-
gram which has proven to be one of the
most successful avenues of approach we
have developed in the Congress toward
the solution of one of the growing and
truly crucial social and economic prob-
lems of our time. I ask you then to join
with us in giving it your support to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
465
end that we may move forward and
keep pace with the growth of this prob-
lem and, perhaps, gain a bit on it so that
the next generation and the generations
to follow will not find a ravished land
with polluted streams and inadequate
supplies of usable water even for their
drinking needs, and to the end, Mr.
Chairman, that those words of Solomon,
"Where there is no vision, the people
perish," may not become the epitaph of
our civilization.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. BARRY].
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, today
we have before the House the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1961. We all want to keep our
rivers and streams clean and useful. We
all wish to lessen water pollution. It is
my belief that we can do more to help
in cleaning up water pollution and L
intend to vote for this bill. There is
vital need to increase our supply of clean
usable water. We have today harnessed
most of our sources. In the future there
will be no new sources to tap, especially
around great urban centers such as New
York. We must clean up the water we
now have and reuse it. This requires
more emphasis on preventing pollution.
I support the proposal in this bill to
put full responsibility for the conduct of
the Federal water pollution control pro-
gram directly with the Secretary of the
Department concerned, Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, instead of with the
Surgeon General in the Public Health
Service, a subdivision of the Department.
This is in conformity with the recom-
mendation of the Hoover Commission
and is a sound proposal.
I support the establishment of regional
water pollution control laboratories,
especially since the locations mentioned
in the bill are not intended to exclude
any other area where such facilities are
needed.
I also strongly support the statement
in the bill which reaffirms the primary
responsibility and right of the States for
preventing and controlling water pollu-
tion. However, the bill in fact does not
carry out this policy. It extends the area
of Federal enforcement from its proper
area, interstate waters, to all navigable
waters. This in fact gives control of all
waterways to the Federal Government
in the field of pollution. Thereby Fed-
eral power will preempt State in yet an-
other area. Extension of such Federal
power raises a serious policy question. I
fully support strong Federal enforce-
ment measures. In fact, I believe that
strong enforcement through the com-
bined efforts of Federal, State, and local
authorities is a greater stimulation to
cleaning up our water than any other
part of the act. However, I do not be-
lieve that the Federal Government is
acting properly when it takes over State
responsibilities and substitutes Federal
enforcement in matters entirely intra-
state. The Federal Government should
encourage and promote State and local
enforcement rather than undermine it
by preempting the field.
The other section of the bill with
which I am not entirely satisfied is that
which increases by 100 percent Federal
grants for waste treatment plant con-
struction. The bill authorizes doubling
the present Federal financial assistance
from $50 to $100 million annually with
a total authorization of $1 billion. No
provision is made for the States to share
in financing the construction program.
An increase in Federal grants without
any requirement for State matching will
merely discourage State action since the
local authorities will wait for Federal
action rather than initiate their own. If
the urgent ne^d for treatment plants is
to be met, it is essential that the States
have incentive to participate in provid-
ing the facilities. Equally important is
the need to curtail Federal expenditures
wherever it is possible for the State or
local governments to do the job.
Thus, while I am voting for this bill
because I feel strongly the need for water
pollution control, it is not a satisfactory
bill. The interests of the States are by-
-------
466
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
passed beyond reason or necessity with
new Federal encroachments and ill-con-
ceived expenditures. However, it is the
only bill that will come before the Con-
gress for several years and so for lack of
a better bill I shall support it. We would
hope that before too long wiser proposals
will be presented to the House.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman,
I have no further requests for time.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time.
*****
[p. 7162]
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
am deeply concerned that section 2(d)
of H.R. 6441, in providing for the estab-
lishment of field laboratory and research
facilities throughout the United States,
has omitted specific reference to the
Middle Atlantic area.
This region, comprised, as a minimum,
of the States of Pennsylvania, West Vir-
ginia, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland,
with its population today of approxi-
mately 21 million, is in desperate need
of the establishment of its own regional
laboratory and research facility. The
committee in its report emphasized the
problem of acid-mine draining from
abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. These drainage prob-
lems quite obviously affect the States
of Maryland and Virginia. The Chesa-
peake Bay region needs immediately
research assistance to find ways to com-
bat the effects of water pollution on the
region's great seafood industry.
The State of Maryland has for a con-
siderable period of time conducted its
own research program and in recent
years has undertaken cooperative re-
search efforts with the State of Vir-
ginia. I believe the public is now
becoming fully aware of the effects of
certain kinds of pollution, both indus-
trial and municipal, on fish and other
marine resources. I am deeply con-
scious of the fact that an alarming num-
ber of public beaches have been closed
by health agencies and that the use of
oysters, clams, and other foods has been
forbidden, if taken from polluted areas,
the number of which is on the increase.
This is a problem of the greatest magni-
tude to our Nation's economy, and is of
paramount importance to the Middle
Atlantic area. It is recognized that the
seafood industry is in real need of assis-
tance, end the location of a research fa-
cility in the area as called for by my
amendment will not only be of inesti-
mable value to this region, but will sup-
ply sources of information that will
assist other States dependent, as we
are in Maryland to a large degree, upon
a vigorous and healthy seafood industry.
The advantages of locating a regional
laboratory in the Middle Atlantic area,
I believe, are self-evident. Not only
would such a facility be in close prox-
imity to Washington, but it would also
be close to many colleges and private
research organizations that would en-
able the establishment of graduate
training in various fields connected with
this most complex problem.
Gov. J. Millard Tawes of Maryland, in
his letter to me of March 15 supporting
my amendment, expressed his deep con-
cern that all too many of the areas of
the Chesapeake Bay have shown evi-
dence of increasing pollution. He is
certainly correct when he refers to the
Chesapeake Bay as the greatest natural
resource of the State of Maryland. I
submit that it is an area that will not
only provide increased recreational op-
portunities for all the people of the Mid-
dle Atlantic region, but one which is
even now a principal source of income
for many residents of the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware.
Earlier this week, I advised my col-
leagues from the five States directly
affected of my intention to offer this
amendment. I am very encouraged by
their overwhelmingly favorable re-
sponse. I strongly urge acceptance of
the amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
467
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman from Minnesota is well aware
of the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Maryland, well aware of the
problem of the Middle Atlantic area.
We included in our report specific refer-
ence to other areas including, but not
limited to, one to be located in the north-
eastern area of the United States, one
in the southeastern area, one in the
midwestern area, one in the southwest-
ern area, one in the Pacific Northwest,
and one in the State of Alaska.
Speaking for the majority of the com-
mittee, we accept the amendment.
Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the chair-
man and express the hope that the mi-
nority will be equally willing to accept
the amendment.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANKFORD. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I had some difficulty
in determining whether the Middle At-
lantic should be specifically noted as a
separate area. It seems as though the
Secretary would have authority to lo-
cate one there, or that this area would
come within the Northeast and South-
east, why to say they could not locate a
laboratory in the Middle Atlantic area
as part of one of these two. Do I in-
terpret it correctly?
Mr. LANKFORD. As I understand
the bill it calls for six locations.
Mr. CRAMER. That is correct.
Mr. LANKFORD. Northeast, South-
east, Midwest, Pacific Northwest, south-
western area, and one in the State of
Alaska.
I feel that the problems of the mid-
Atlantic area States are peculiar to that
area and as such merit a laboratory to
deal with these problems.
Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the gen-
tleman that under those circumstances
I do not believe the minority would ob-
ject to the area being considered a sepa-
rate area for a laboratory.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? j
Mr. LANKFORD. I yield.
Mr. HARDY. I wish to compliment
the gentleman for calling the attention
of the House to the need of the Mid-
Atlantic area for such a laboratory.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Maryland.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr SCHERER- On
page 7, line 1 through 4, strike out all of
subsection (d); and on line 5 strike out
"(e)" and insert in lieu thereof "(d) "
Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment would keep at the present
level the Federal aid money to cities, as
in the present law, namely $50 million
a year, with a maximum amount over
a 10-year period of $500 million.
The bill provides that we increase the
amount from $50 million a year to $100
million a year, with an overall increase
of $1 billion over a 10-year period.
As I said in general debate, there is
no question that the pollution of our
waters today, as in the past, is as out-
lined so ably by the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. BLATNIK. There is no
question about that. The question we
have to determine is whether or not we
want to continue to have the Federal
Government take an ever-expanding role
in granting moneys to cities in the
United States to help them clean up
their own pollution. That is the real is-
sue insofar as this bill is concerned.
In 1956 the Senate did approve a bill
which broadened the base of Federal
enforcement jurisdiction. It put teeth
into the enforcement provisions of the
law at that time. There was no grant-
in-aid program to cities in that bill.
The Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare at that time opposed any
grant-in-aid provisions for that bill.
The then President of the United States
opposed it and vetoed the bill because
it did eventually contain such a pro-
vision.
-------
468
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The proponents of increasing the
amounts of Federal money argue that
this money stimulates the construction
of disposal plants in cities that cannot
afford to build their own plants. That
is not so, in my opinion, because you
must remember that these strong en-
forcement provisions and the broadening
of the base of Federal enforcement came
in the 1956 act. It is and was those
strong enforcement provisions, both at
State and Federal level, that caused and
compelled many of these cities to get
busy and build their own treatment
plants. That is what caused the ex-
penditure of the money for disposal fa-
cilities by cities. Anyone who feels that
the $50 million a year we have been
expending to give to the cities to help
them build a pollution plant is an incen-
tive is living in a fool's paradise, because
disposal plants cost money. In my own
city the disposal plant cost $62 million.
What in the world can we do with $50
[p. 7165]
million a year for the entire United
States? As I said in 1956, this is a foot
in the door for another big continuing
ever-expanding Federal-aid program.
We are now being asked to increase
the Federal money available from $500
million to $1 billion. If you are going
to do any kind of a job, if the Federal
Government is going to continue to par-
ticipate in this program, the total cost
may eventually reach $5 billion. We
ought to know where we are headed.
That is the reason for my amendment.
The President in his veto message last
year stated the issue better than I can:
Because water pollution is uniquely a
local plight, primary responsibility for solv-
ing the problem lies not with the Fed-
eral Government but, rather, must be
assumed and exercised, as it has been, by
the States.
The President continued in his veto
message as follows:
By holding forth the promise in a large-
scale program of long-term Federal support,
it would tempt municipalities to delay
water pollution abatement efforts while they
waited for Federal funds.
That is what is going to happen.
Cities will delay going forward. They
will wait hat in hand for Federal moneys
which they know will be increased from
year to year. Let us adopt this amend-
ment and let local governments take care
of their own waste as many cities have
already done with their own money—
without Federal aid. Let us not make
these cities who paid to take care of
their own waste now pay to get rid of
the laggard's dirt.
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, all of us wish that it
were possible to accomplish this program
with a less expenditure of money than
is contemplated in the bill. Unfortu-
nately, it is obvious from the experience
that we have had in the 5 years in which
the program has operated that a larger
amount of Federal grants is necessary
in order to accomplish the minimum
needs that are involved. What we need
to realize now is that unless we estab-
lish a program that is in keeping with
the minimum established needs, that
the cost to us in the not very distant
future is going to be far more than the
$100 million a year that is authorized
here. The $100 million authorized here
will meet the problem as it has been sur-
veyed both by the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and by the As-
sociation of State Commissioners who
operate in this field. However, if there
is further delay, if the needs pile up, if
a more accelerated crash type of pro-
gram becomes necessary, the present
authorization is going to be insufficient,
and we are going to have to meet far
greater costs than are envisioned in the
bill here.
INCENTIVE
I do not think I have to explain to any
of you who have watched this program
in your individual States about the in-
centive that is involved in it. I have seen
in my own State communities which had
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
469
no thought of participating in the pro-
gram; who were not under any threat
of State or local government as a re-
quirement to participate in the program,
who joined in the program because of
the incentive offered by the 30 percent
grant. The increase from $50 million to
$100 million is designed for no other pur-
pose than that each need throughout the
country can be met in an orderly fashion.
According to the estimates that have
been made by the authorities in this
field, within the program envisioned
here in the next 8 years, the current
needs can be met. If we adopt this pro-
gram now, we will be doing it at far less
cost to the taxpayer than if we put it
off and have to move into a crash pro-
gram later.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. I yield to
the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. In the final
analysis, looking at this from a sensible
standpoint, would it not be very un-
realistic for this body to extend consid-
erable coverage in this program to more
than 22,000 bodies of water not now
covered by the program and yet hold
down the sum of money to the present
figure that the gentleman from Ohio
advocates?
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. We, of
course, have to increase the allocation to
meet the additional coverage. We have
to do it primarily, however, because it
is a cheaper way for us to assure a sup-
ply of cleaner water for the future than
if we have to get it through some other
means. This is the biggest individual
weapon that the communities can have
in an overall water pollution control
program. We have to have the pro-
gram expanded insofar as the grants are
concerned to enable us to meet the
clearly defined needs for our water
supply in the future. Our water is go-
ing to cost us a whole lot more in the
future in terms of both the Federal and
local costs if we do not attempt to meet
this problem right now through the au-
thorization of these additional grants
that are absolutely essential.
Mr. Chairman, it is in the interest of
a long-range program to vote down the
amendment and vote for the figure out-
lined in the bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask
the chairman or the acting chairman of
the committee a question. Under the
provisions of the bill, H.R. 6441, the State
of Mississippi would do pretty well by
way of obtaining funds, would it not?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Yes, on a
proportionate basis on which the dis-
tribution is made. On the $50 million
formula, the State of Iowa would fare
equally well. The table is set out on
page 14 of the report showing the
amounts that each State would be eligi-
ble to receive under the terms of this
bill.
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps the gentleman
from Alabama cannot answer the ques-
tion, but perhaps the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. SMITH], who just ad-
dressed the House, can answer it. Did
the State of Mississippi a couple of years
ago reduce its State income taxes?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I would have
to defer to the gentleman from Missis-
sippi [Mr. SMITH] for an answer to that
question.
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps the gentleman
from Mississippi can answer the ques-
tion.
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman ask the question
again?
Mr. GROSS. Did the State of Missis-
sippi within the last 2 or 3 years reduce
its State income tax?
Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. The State
of Mississippi reduced its State income
tax, but I was not a member of the legis-
lature that did that.
Mr. GROSS. I am not saying any-
thing about the gentleman's being a
member of the State legislature. So,
Mr. Chairman, we have a situation here
-------
470
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
where the State of Mississippi has, as I
understand it, substantially reduced its
taxes on corporations and individuals,
and now comes crying to the U.S. Gov-
ernment for help. We have had no re-
duction in State income taxes in the
State of Iowa and we do not benefit as
much as does the State of Mississippi
under the terms of this bill.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield, if the gentleman
can shed any light on why we should be
spending money to increase the alloca-
tion to the State of Mississippi when it
is reducing the taxes on their people.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I should like to
point out to the gentleman from Iowa
that there are other States that have
increased their tax loads who are asking
for this legislation.
Mr. GROSS. I do not doubt that at
all, but I do not see any reason why
the Federal Government, with a debt of
$290 billion, should be increasing allo-
cations to States that find it possible to
decrease the taxes upon their own people.
Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman
realizes, I hope, that these allocations
in the final analysis go to the municipali-
ties, within the States, and not to the
governments of the States themselves,
to the State sovereignties.
Mr. GROSS. They are integral parts
of the State governments, are they not?
Mr. EDMONDSON. Practically every
municipality in the country has been in-
creasing its taxes in recent years and I
am quite sure that that holds true in
Mississippi as well as in the gentleman's
own State of Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I just got through say-
ing to the gentleman that the gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. SMITH] admitted
that that State has reduced its State in-
come tax. You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. EDMONDSON. This money is
going to the municipalities. I do not be-
lieve the gentleman from Iowa can point
to any municipality in Mississippi that
has not been increasing its tax load, as
well as other cities in other States.
Mr. GROSS. I am sure that the peo-
ple who live in the municipalities pay
State income taxes in the State of Mis-
sissippi, too. The gentleman will agree
with that, will he not?
[p. 7166]
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. The point that the
gentleman is making, of course, is well
taken, particularly as it relates to State
responsibility. The amendment which
I intend to offer, and which I shall offer
shortly, would require that by 1964 the
States would accept some responsibility
by matching the additional moneys above
$50 million with State funds. That is
the problem in the whole program. The
States have not shown enough interest,
because the States have not had to put
up the money. This is a program by the
Federal Government, to be offered to the
local governments. The States should
bear their fair share. As I said, the gen-
tleman's point is well taken. The States
have not gone ahead with programs, ex-
cept in five States. I think we should
encourage them to do so and by 1964 we
should require them to do so.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
SCHERER] has a comment with regard to
Cincinnati as it relates to the matching
funds, if the gentleman will yield to him.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
from Florida and yield to the gentleman
from Ohio.
Mr. SCHERER. There are many,
many cities in the United States that
have gone forward and built sewage
treatment plants without aid from the
Federal Government and have not only
imposed income taxes as in my own city,
but also have imposed water taxes to pay
for these sewage disposal treatment
plants. If we continue to expand the
amount the Federal Government is going
to contribute to the cities, these cities to
which I have just referred, are going to
have to pay twice.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
471
Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to support the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1961, to pro-
vide, among other things, additional
funds for grants to communities to as-
sist in the construction of sewage-treat-
ment facilities.
I believe this legislation is urgently
needed and long overdue. There is no
question about water pollution having
become a very serious national prob-
lem, and if we are to insure that in the
future our country will have water suffi-
cient to meet its ever increasing needs,
we must take action now to control and
abate pollution of our waterways.
I have been interested in this overall
problem, but there is another urgent
need for this legislation, particularly as
it will help the area which I represent.
There exists at the present time in my
district a serious situation, which may
exist in other parts of the country also,
in that almost all residential, commer-
cial, and industrial construction is at a
standstill, not because of economic con-
ditions but because of a ban on new
building construction imposed by the
Michigan State Department of Health.
The department has imposed this ban
because of inadequate sewage facilities
which will prevent pollution in the area.
As I have pointed out many times, my
area suffers from one of the highest rates
of unemployment in the country and the
halt in construction has only aggravated
the situation. Therefore the legislation
under consideration will help alleviate
not only the water problem but also the
unemployed problem in an econom-
ically depressed area.
I urge approval of the legislation now
under consideration.
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, for
individual as well as national well being,
I feel it is imperative that the water
pollution bill be passed.
A grave shortage of pure water exists
in most parts of the United States io-
day. This problem is not confined to the
businessman and the industrialist, but
to the homemaker and the farmer. Each
of us share a basic need for pure, uncon-
taminated water. Each of us share a
primary concern in the deterioration in
health. And my fellow colleagues, this
concern will be intensified unless some-
thing is done and done now.
At the present time, water is being re-
used, but this method will have to be
stepped up and increased if we are to
meet present and future needs. Re-
search must go forward for in less than
20 years it is anticipated that we will be
using double the amount of water that
is being used today. States and cities
should be encouraged to participate more
fully with water pollution control
activities.
Physical fitness is of paramount im-
portance to the individual and to our
country's welfare and because of the fast
pace which is kept by all Americans, it is
imperative that we maintain places
where we can get away from it all. But
as I have seen, and I am sure each of
you have seen, in many, many of our
parks today we find posters—warning us
of contaminated water.
In my home area, Metropolitan Kan-
sas City, Mo., the shortage of pure, safe
water may become acute. I am sure that
most of you find the same potential
shortage in your metropolitan areas.
Yes, this program will cost money—
but I do not believe we can say it is an
expense—rather it is an investment in
the future of America—an investment
we cannot neglect to make in the face of
our expanding population.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in favor of H.R. 6441, a bill to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for a more effective program of
water pollution control. This legislation
will authorize the establishment and
maintenance of field laboratory and re-
search facilities in various parts of the
country and the conduct of water quality
studies of the Great Lakes; increase
grants to State and interstate agencies
for the operation of their water pollution
control programs from $3 to $5 million
annually and extend the authorization
-------
472
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for such grants to June 30, 1971; in-
crease the authorization of appropria-
tions for waste treatment works
construction grants from $50 million to
$100 million annually and the total au-
thorization from $500 to $1 billion, and,
among other things, increase maximum
allowable grants from $250,000 to
$800,000 and substitute sliding scale for-
mula for present 30 percent grant limi-
tation.
Mr. Chairman, as the Committee on
Public Works has so well stated in its
report to the House, water has become
the No. 1 resource problem confronting
the United States today. As a member
of the Appropriations Subcommittee for
Public Works, I have been keenly aware
and most concerned about this problem.
The water problem is directly related to
our country's rapid population and eco-
nomic growth. This growth is creating
a major impact on water resources
from a rapidly growing demand for water
to produce the things we need to eat,
wear, and use, and for an ample supply
of clean, safe water for drinking and
for recreation.
FRESH WATER DEFICIENCY WILL REACH 85
BILLON GALLONS DAILY IN 1980
The committee report points out that
by 1980 our population is expected to
reach the 232 to 247 million range and
that our estimated fresh water needs
will total 600 billion gallons a day—
nearly double present water use. How-
ever, by 1980 the developed dependable
fresh water supply is expected to total
about 515 billion gallons a day. There-
fore, demand will exceed supply by 85
billion gallons a day in just 20 years. It
is obvious that the Nation's water needs
from now on must be met by using the
same water over and over. Thus,
through this legislation and vital pro-
gram, the highest priority in water re-
sources developments must be given to
the all-important need of providing for
the cleanliness of the limited water sup-
ply so that it can be used and reused in
meeting the Nation's increasing re-
quirements for water for all purposes.
Mr. Chairman, more "new" water can
be provided to meet needs by controlling
pollution than by any other means.
Pollution control has the advantage of
permitting the use of an already avail-
able distribution system, the waterways
of the country, to deliver water of satis-
factory quality to the points where it is
needed. I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, as
one who advocated and supported the
passage, in 1948, of the first water pollu-
tion control bill, I rise to urge my col-
leagues to promptly approve the measure
presently before us, H.R. 6441, designed
to amend the existing Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in order to provide
for a more effective program in this
area which so vitally affects the Nation's
health and welfare.
From the expert testimony that has
been presented so ably here by the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Minnesota,
the author of this bill, it is unquestion-
ably clear that water has become the
No. 1 resource problem confronting the
United States today.
Although Federal financial assistance
has been of great help to the States in
dealing with this urgent problem of water
pollution control, the evidence before us
demonstrates the urgent need for an ex-
pansion and extension of the current
program.
Over the past 4 years, contract awards
for sewage treatment plant construction
have averaged almost $360 million an-
nually, an increase of 62 percent over
the 5-year average before Federal aid
became available.
However, according to the U.S. Pub-
lic Health Service 4,136 new plants are
[p.7167]
required for 23 million people in com-
munities now afflicted with health dan-
gerous sewage, and to replace sewage
treatment plants that have long been
obsolete and operationally deficient.
Another 991 communities require major
additions and enlargements of existing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
473
plants to provide the minimum measure
of health safety for 19 million persons.
Mr. Chairman, it is eminently worthy
of note that nothing in the measure be-
fore us is intended to impair or in any
way affect any right or jurisdiction of
the States with respect to the waters
of the States, including but not limited to
the power, authority, and jurisdiction of
the States to enforce their own water
pollution control laws and regulations.
I submit that the problem of water
pollution control is so essential to na-
tional welfare and progress that it can
be most realistically overcome only by
the joint efforts of the States and the
Federal Government. Let us bear in
mind, however, that under the provisions
of this bill the role of the Federal Gov-
ernment is that of a stimulator and
helper to keep the important pollution
abatement program moving ahead.
Mr. Chairman, the basic duty we all
have in the enactment of legislation is
the fullest exercise of our reason and
intelligence in attempting to provide to-
day, as best we can, a solution for the
problems of the future. In my considered
judgment, we now have the opportunity,
in this measure, to discharge that basic
responsibility in great measure.
In order to sensibly forestall the dis-
aster of a growing water pollution and
shortage problem, let us approve this
bill without extended delay so that the
expanded procedures of research, plan-
ning, and construction, so necessary to
preserve the health, safety, and welfare
of American citizens, may begin.
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, the
subject of H.R. 6441, the water pollution
bill, is one which is of very great inter-
est, not only to the people of my district
but to all Americans who share their
concern with the preservation of our
great national heritage of rivers, lakes,
streams, and beaches, for health, for
beauty, and for recreation.
I am privileged to have sponsored
similar legislation on this subject and
warmly associate myself with the pro-
posals embodied in the measure intro-
duced by the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. BLATNIK].
The bill would, among other things,
first, increase the annual authorization
for grants for waste treatment works
construction from $50 million to $100
million and the total authorization from
$500 million to $1 billion; second, in-
crease the maximum allowable grant
from $250,000 to $800,000 and substitute
a sliding scale formula for the existing
30 percent grant limitation; third, re-
quire priority for previously filed appli-
cations under $250,000; fourth, increase
from $3 million to $5 million annual
grants to State and interstate water pol-
lution control programs, and extend the
time limit from June 30, 1931, to June 30,
1971; and fifth, transfer the administra-
tion of the Federal water pollution con-
trol program from the Surgeon General
of the Public Health Service to the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
It is essential that we should act im-
mediately, through the Federal Govern-
ment, to protect our coastal waters and
navigable streams and many other
waters which are now faced with the
threat of sewage, industrial wastes, gar-
bage, and other sources of pollution.
The plain fact is, Mr. Chairman, that
the tremendous growth of population,
especially in the suburbs of our metro-
politan areas such as my own district in
New York, requires action of a kind
which was not needed in an earlier,
simpler age. Practices which were tol-
erable even a generation ago, today
threaten the homes, health, and happi-
ness of millions of decent, self-respecting
American families. I know nothing that
is of greater ultimate national impor-
tance than to preserve our heritage of
water for ourselves and our children. I
freely acknowledge that State and local
governments also share this responsi-
bility. We of New York State have long
recognized our obligation, through our
long fight for conservation which began
over a generation before the Federal
Government concerned itself with this
-------
474
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
great national problem. It is clear now,
not only for reasons of jurisdiction over
coastal and navigable waters, but for
the pooling of experience and the ad-
ministration of broad conservation poli-
cies to deal with problems which are
interstate in their nature, that the Fed-
eral Government should play a stronger
and more decisive part in the struggle to
preserve our heritage.
I hope that in the enactment of this
bill in its entirety that the Congress and
the Government of the United States
will lend full authority, wisdom, and ex-
perience to the solution of the many
problems of pollution and deterioration
which have been created by generations
of human carelessness and indifference.
Mr. Chairman, again I say I am
pleased to be identified with this vital
legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. SCHERER].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. SCHERER)
there were—ayes 59, noes 132.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER: On
page 6, line 6, strike out the period and
insert in lieu thereof a comma and the fol-
lowing: "and such subsection (b) is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: 'if the total of all
appropriations, made under authority of
this section, for any fiscal year which be-
gins after June 30, 1964, exceed $50,000,000,
no grant shall be made for any project from
that portion of the appropriation in excess
of $50,000,000 which is allocated to any
State unless such State shall pay toward
the cost of such project an amount equal lo
the Federal contribution made to such proj-
ect from such amount in excess of
$50,000,000.' "
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have
a second amendment, on page 7, lines 2
and 3, dealing with the same subject
matter. I ask unanimous consent that
these amendments may be considered
en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr CRAMER- Page
7, lines 2 and 3, strike out "$100,000,000"
and insert in lieu thereof "$75,000,000", and
on line 4, strike out "$1,000,000,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$750,000,000".
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, these
amendments are very simple. What
they do is reduce the authorization as
proposed in the bill from $100 million
to $75 million annually and require
after June of 1964 that the States match
all funds in excess of the present pro-
gram of $50 million. In other words,
until June of 1964 the program of the
$50 million plus an additional $25 mil-
lion, or a total of $75 million, will con-
tinue to go forward, for a period of 3
years.
My amendment acknowledges that we
have serious problems in connection
with the abatement of water pollution.
I initially supported Public Law 660;
that is, I was one of those who intro-
duced one of the bills which became
Public Law 660. I was opposed to the
bill, which was vetoed by the President,
on the basis that I believed it should
be on the basis of the States matching
the money, because I feel we will never
have an effective water pollution pro-
gram until we have the States contrib-
uting to this program, and giving them
adequate time to do so legislatively so
that they can provide the money to
match the additional $25 million or such
amount as may be approved above the
present $50 million program.
That is all the amendment does. I
think it is sound. I am an advocate of a
strong antipollution control program. I
do not believe we should go so far in
enforcement as to include intrastate
streams, which is dealt with in another
amendment that I will offer.
So far as the grant-in-aid program
is concerned, this amendment provides
for a $25 million increase. We just got
through voting on the floor of the House
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
475
and recently passed in this body a bill
which would provide for such funds in
surplus labor areas, the so-called de-
pressed area bill. We had a program of
$100 million in loans and $75 million in
grants in that bill, any portion of which
can be made available for exactly the
same purpose as this program. Like-
wise, with reference to the Housing and
Home Finance Administration which
has a program to put money into a sew-
age disposal plant. As a matter of fact,
that is where most of the $100 million
authorized money has gone. As a matter
of fact, that is where practically all of
that loan money has gone so that we find
the Federal Government giving a grant
of 30 percent and giving their Housing
and Home Finance Administration a
loan program for the balance of the
money.
This puts the grant program in proper
focus. I say to you the additional $25
[p. 7168]
million proposed in the amendment I
have offered requiring State-matching
funds in 1964 is a sound approach, and
for this reason if we do not get the
States into this program on a State-
matching fund money basis, then I do
not think this program on a longrun
basis can ever really do the job when it
comes to sewage disposal treatment plant
construction.
The matching of an additional $25
million annually and authorization for
Federal grants will have the same result
that the majority wants in the bill to
provide $100 million for the program,
after June of 1984, with the States ac-
cepting their responsibility for an in-
creased amount. The requirement of
the States matching of additional au-
thorizations would result in more effec-
tive screening of the project applications
since the State would have a financial
interest. The State under such a match-
ing arrangement would want to confine
its grants to projects of outstanding
merit most urgently needed to handle
the real water pollution problem if they
had to match the money. Cooperation
by the State with the Federal Govern-
ment would greatly strengthen the
water pollution control program. Like-
wise, it would mean—and please listen
to this—it would actually mean more
money would go to the local communi-
ties. It would mean additional matching
funds. State and local, on a percentage
basis would go to local communities. It
would mean the States would be able
to put up additional matching funds
and the local communities themselves
would be able to put up less than the
present maximum requirement of ap-
proximately 70 percent.
So what you would be doing through
State participation is encouraging the
State i to go forward with even greater
Federal-State matching funds. So this
would have the effect of providing up
to 40 percent of State-Federal money
as compared to 30 percent Federal
money today to the local communities.
To those who wish to see this pro-
gram go forward, this will give the
State more effective participation in the
water pollution control program. That
is what the fight is between the minority
and the majority today on this bill. We
all want and, so far as I am concerned,
of course, I want water pollution control.
We want adequate control of water pol-
lution. We want adequate funds in the
bill. We want the States to be proper
partners in the program and not have
the Federal Government exclusively ac-
cept the responsibility. My amendment
will accomplish it.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida is a repe-
tition of the previous amendment which
was considered and which was offered
by the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, in the last 50 years
this Congress has considered over 100
bills dealing with the pollution problem,
but it was not until 1948 that we passed
a bill that specifically dealt with the
-------
476
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
water pollution problem, the Water Pol-
lution Control Act of 1948. That bill
did not contain a grant section. It was
passed with the expectation that there
would be great gain from its operation
over the ensuing 10 years, that disclo-
sures would be made as to whether or
not cooperative action with the States
would be satisfying in dealing with the
problem realistically. Eight years passed
and there were no accomplishments and
there were no gains made under the
Antipollution Act of 1948. But in 1956 an
act was passed providing for grants, and
it has been one of the most successful
water acts ever passed by the Congress.
It has been received and accorded ap-
plause in every State of the Union as
demonstrated by the fact that almost
every State has participated to the maxi-
mum extent of allotments available.
So if we are to achieve greater success
and attain the ends we seek in this bill
we must increase the minimum require-
ments.
I hope the committee will not accept
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I would like to congratulate
the committee, both the majority and
minority members, on the hard work
which has been put in on a most im-
portant and difficult subject. I have
been very active in my own State on
water affairs, having been a member of
the water committee of the State leg-
islature for 4 years, having sponsored
research studies on methods of replen-
ishing underground waters without con-
tamination, and having sponsored and
helped to push through a metropolitan
sewage-disposal district which will pro-
vide service for a great number of mu-
nicipalities in the Denver metropolitan
area. I am, therefore, aware of the im-
portance of the measure and aware of
the local efforts which have been made
by many areas to solve the problem of
waste disposal.
I suggested to the water conference
held in Washington, D.C., in December
1980 that consideration be given to the
enactment of a uniform law containing
provisions which would standardize pol-
lution criteria and enforcement of anti-
pollution measures. I feel that Federal
aid should be conditioned on a State
adopting such law. Unfortunately, how-
ever, no such law has yet been com-
pleted, and, hence, this type of approach
is not now feasible.
It is my own feeling that Federal par-
ticipation in local sewage-disposal dis-
tricts must at least be conducted on a
partnership basis with the States in-
volved so that there will be a true Fed-
eral, State, and local partnership, with
the costs shared in proportion to their
respective responsibilities. Without this,
it seems to me that, instead of providing
an incentive for action by local commu-
nities to accept obligation for local re-
sponsibilities, we will be inserting the
Federal jurisdiction into local affairs. I
earnestly request, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, that for these
reasons you consider favorably the pro-
posal advanced by the gentleman from
Florida, under which State participa-
tion in these projects would be required.
This proposal is not extreme, as it gives
ample time for the States to take action
to provide such assistance.
If we are to retain our system of
sharing responsibilities between govern-
mental levels, we should not at the same
time take away responsibility from the
basic element of our Government—the
States—and transfer it to the Federal
Treasury.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. CRAMER].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. CRAMER) there
were—ayes 69, noes 138.
So the amendments were rejected.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMER: On
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
477
page 8, line 10, after "of" insert "inter-
state".
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 ad-
ditional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I will
take only so much time as I think is
absolutely essential to explain the pur-
poses and the reasons for the amend-
ment I have offered.
Mr. Chairman, during this discussion
we have heard quotations of Solomon
and quotations of proposals by Senator
Taft. But I would venture to say if
Solomon were considering this question
his position would be that the Federal
Government has limited powers and
States have responsibilities and authori-
ties that should be protected, and that an
all-powerful Federal Government is not
a proper approach in a representative
form of government in a republic, as we
have in this country.
That is the fundamental issue in-
volved in this particular amendment. I
venture to say further if Senator Taft
were present, and I venture to say any
proposition made by him would not be
one that would include the Federal
Government taking over jurisdiction
from the States so far as water pollu-
tion is concerned over intrastate waters,
waters flowing within the boundaries of
States, waters flowing within th«> States
to coastal waters, which are of course
the vast majority of the shorter streams
throughout the country. The larger in-
terstate streams are largely covered by
present legislation and would be covered
by the bill before us; adding the Great
Lakes and streams forming State
boundaries.
I say to you it is a crucial question of
Federal responsibility, a crucial question
of policy which this Congress must de-
cide, and I think by implication involves
the basic constitutional concept of sep-
aration of powers as between Federal,
State, and local governments.
Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested
that because I take the position the
States should retain jurisdiction, and
[p. 7169]
by retaining jurisdiction I mean over in-
trastate waters, I am for some unknown
reason supporting some polluters. This
is absolutely false. No one has been a
stronger supporter of Public Law 660,
having sponsored the bill myself, or of
needed amendments to this bill than
myself. So far as I am concerned, if my
amendment is adopted, I will support
the bill. The result of it as so amended
would be that you would have stronger
water pollution control throughout this
country because you would have the
States retaining intrastate jurisdiction,
and in so retaining jurisdiction accept-
ing responsibility and going in and doing
the job themselves on their own intra-
state streams and working conjunctively
with the Federal Government where it
properly has jurisdiction on interstate
streams. My objective is to strengthen
water pollution control by strengthening
the hands of the States, by retaining in
them residual jurisdiction, which means
this will help them in beefing up their
water pollution programs. They can
only be encouraged to do so if the Fed-
eral Government does not sap up all of
the jurisdiction. That is what this fight
is about, that is what the difference of
opinion is. It is a very deepseated feel-
ing, so far as I am concerned.
I believe that the States have certain
rights and likewise they have certain
responsibilities. Nothing has been
shown to indicate that the States have
not been accepting that responsibility.
As a matter of fact, it has been shown
that States have been coming in with
stronger antipollution laws because they
have jurisdiction over these intrastate
streams. Now we are going to dis-
courage them from doing that job by
taking away from them exclusive intra-
state jurisdiction which they now have.
As a matter of fact, it is important
-------
478
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the significance of this proposal be
understood, in view of what the present
law is and what this bill proposes in the
way of enforcement provisions.
Let me say I am wholeheartedly in
favor of strengthening the enforcement
provisions that relate to proper Federal
interstate stream jurisdiction. I am
wholeheartedly in support of strength-
ening the water pollution control arm of
the Federal Government in cooperation
with the States as it relates to interstate
waters, which is a proper Federal func-
tion. I am not in favor of going beyond
that to include intrastate waters, a
proper State function.
Where did this idea come from? Again,
it is not necessarily only mine. It came
from the previous administration in its
recommendations to Congress in the last
session. What did the administration
say at that time with regard to this very
same question, realizing, of course, that
today the only jurisdiction the Federal
Government has under present law is
over interstate waters?
So, the question is, Do we want to
broaden that jurisdiction to include
practically every shallow stream in
America? That is the question in my
mind. Do we want to include every
stream that can float a log? That is
what it amounts to, even though it has
nothing to do with interstate commerce
whatsoever, let alone intrastate com-
merce, in fact, when it comes to actually
using the stream for navigation.
So, here is what the previous adminis-
tration recommended:
The first recommendation for the
amendment of section 8 would make
these procedures available also when-
ever there is pollution affecting the
legitimate uses of the waters of any
navigable interstate stream, whether or
not there is interstate pollution.
And, we go along with that. We ac-
cept that proposal.
Federal jurisdiction in this kind of pollu-
tion situation, however, would be exercised
only upon request by the State, and then
only when the interference with legitimate
uses is judged to be of sufficient significance
to require the initiation of enforcement pro-
cedures Such an extension of Federal
authority could serve to improve serious pol-
lution situations which are also of great
national importance although not endanger-
ing the health or welfare of persons in a
State other than that in which the discharge
originates Inclusion of navigable interstate
waters within the scope of the water pollu-
tion enforcement procedures is consistent
with constitutional authority over these
waterways.
So, this is consistent with the previous
administration's program of jurisdiction
only over interstate waters but includ-
ing intrastate pollution on those waters
if such exists. So, we go along with that
extension, but we do not go along with
the extension of including intrastate
waters within Federal jurisdiction, and
I think for many, many sound reasons.
As a matter of fact, this proposal is con-
sistent with the broad recommendations
suggested by Senator KERB'S special
committee in the other body. It is con-
sistent with the position of the distin-
guished Senator, who is an authority on
this subject in regard to enforcement, in
that the bill he introduced carried in the
first place a $75 million figure, which was
just defeated by the House, but also did
not include additional law enforcement
provisions, because he apparently felt
they were adequate today.
You have to realize that if this is in-
cluded, you are discouraging not only
the individual States, but look at all
these compact States, these river basin
States. Many of them in these areas
joined together to lick this problem
themselves. I say that the Federal Gov-
ernment taking over the enforcement
authority is going to destroy and not
build up that concept which is so essen-
tial for the control of a proper water
supply in the future as pointed out in
the Kerr committee report. Unless we
adopt this amendment, the result is that
we are going backward instead of for-
ward in carrying on a very essential
program between the States and the Fed-
eral Government, and believe you me,
as far as I am concerned, that is the
only way we can ever have a strong
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
479
program. You cannot do it by weaken-
ing the States. Not only do you take
in intrastate jurisdiction, but the States
have nothing to say, as they do under
present law, about the form of the order
issued by the Secretary. The Secretary
does not have to consult them when
he makes the order. Also, when he goes
to court to get an order enforced, he
does not have to consult with the States,
as he does under present law. That is
why we are concerned about extending
this Federal jurisdiction, because the
enforcement sections are being so broad-
ened and the States left out of the pic-
ture, in the final stages, and therefore
the intrastate feature should be excluded
from the bill.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman I am
going to ask just which bodies of water
the gentleman would bring in and just
which bodies of water he would leave
out by the inclusion of this word which
he suggests for insertion. I recall yes-
terday in the Committee on Rules when
a group of us from the committee ap-
peared the illustration was given of the
Rappahannock and if I recall properly
the gentleman's definition, he said the
Rappahannock would still be in.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER]
has expired.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 1
additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield.
Mr. WRIGHT. I believe he said at
that time that under his proposed defini-
tion the Rappahannock would still be in;
is that correct or incorrect?
Mr. CRAMER. I think the gentleman
has made a good point and I am glad he
has given me the opportunity to em-
phasize this. If he will look at page 16,
line 7, he will find the definition of inter-
state waters. It is agreed by the minor-
ity and the majority that the proper
definition of that term is, as it affects
coastal streams—that is, streams flowing
from within a State to the coast—the
proper definition would mean that those
would be excluded by my amendment.
It is intended for them to be intrastate
streams in the future as they have been
in the past, and therefore the determi-
nation of interstate waters does not in-
clude streams that flow from within a
State, not across State boundaries to
the coast. Those would be excluded by
my amendment and properly so, because
in the past they were.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER]
has again expired.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I can agree with just
about one statement which has been
made by the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. CRAMER], and that is his statement
that this is a significant amendment.
There is no question about it. If you
want to take the innards out of this
bill, if you want to emasculate its oper-
ation, if you want to take out of its
scope about 85 percent of the waters of
the United States, then adopt the
amendment of the gentleman from
[p. 7170]
Florida. If you agree with him that pol-
lution is a uniquely local problem, you
should vote with him. If, instead, you
believe that the laws of gravity operate
in our streams and on our waters and
that pollution, once deposited in a
stream, moves downstream, just as
everything else does, and pollutes the
people downstream, then you will say
that it is not a uniquely local problem
and we want to see all navigable waters
in the United States covered by this
program.
-------
480
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
What are some of the shallow waters
that the gentleman says he wants to keep
out of this program? He says he wants
to see that we do not affect these shal-
low streams. Let me name a few of
them that would be excluded under his
amendment if it is adopted. You will
find them on page 8 of the report. They
are, the greater part of the Great Lakes
and their tributaries, the coastal waters
of the Nation in their entirety, the
Detroit River, most of the rivers and
streams of Florida, all rivers, streams,
lakes, and coastal waters of Alaska,
Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico; international boundary
streams such as the St. Lawrence, Ni-
agara, lower Colorado, and Rio Grande
Rivers. These are some of the shallow
streams that the gentleman from Florida
says represent uniquely local problems,
purely intrastate problems, that the Fed-
eral Government should not be con-
cerned about.
Mr. Chairman, if you want to see an
effective program that covers the 26,000
bodies of water in the United States,
that deals with the problem upon a
national basis, that treats fairly the peo-
ple of the 50 States, you will vote against
his amendment. The gentleman would
give to the people of Alaska no oppor-
tunity to participate in this program.
He would give to the people of Hawaii
no opportunity to take part in it and
be protected by it. He would limit it
only to completely interstate situations
involving navigable streams. Only there
could this program be invoked.
We say let us take the standard of
navigable streams or navigable waters.
Ever since 1865 when the Supreme Court
spoke clearly on this subject it has been
established that the Federal Government
has undisputed responsibility for navi-
gable waters, not limited to navigation
matters. We propose to take this long-
standing principle and say we are going
to take care of the problem of pollution
on these navigable waters wherever we
find them in the United States. There
is nothing radical or revolutionary about
this. It is facing up to the problem and
facing up to it on a national basis. I
say let us defeat the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida and do
a national job on a national problem.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. We both want to cure
the problem of water pollution. With
regard to the problem as to whether
the Great Lakes are included in my
amendment, the Great Lakes will not
be taken out nor will any river forming
any boundary between any two States,
or coastal waters, which are excluded
under present law, so the only thing ex-
cluded under my proposal would be
streams flowing within the State that
do not form part of the boundary be-
tween two States, which is true under
present law covering streams which flow
into certain waters. Alaska would be
included because of its border with Can-
ada. I am afraid the gentleman does
not understand the amendment or its
effect.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I decline to yield
further to the gentleman. The gen-
tleman has completely misstated and
misrepresented the amendment, I am
sure unintentionally. It is quite clear to
us from a reading of the amendment
offered by the gentleman that it would
severely restrict the scope of this
program.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I should like the rec-
ord to be made clear that there are those
of us who have been engaged in this
whole matter for quite some time and
there is no question in our minds what
this amendment will do. What the gen-
tleman is doing is trying to get this pro-
gram down to the level of the weakest
link, trying to have it operate on the
lowest level. His amendment would
only do this, that the enforcement sec-
tion of this bill would apply to only
about 4,000 bodies of water out of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
481
26,000 where this program is of impor-
tance.
I should like to refresh the gentle-
man's recollection, that at the 1960 Re-
publican Convention when they adopted
the platform, in the section devoted to
human needs and the subsection under
the heading of health, they announced
this pledge, that they are for strength-
ening Federal enforcement powers in
abating pollution. I say the gentleman's
proposal would weaken this. I hope the
amendment is defeated. All it does is
either constrict or restrict or obstruct or
destruct. That is about all I can think
the gentleman's amendment would do.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. With regard to the
streams that would be included under
this amendment, are not my remarks
correct that the Great Lakes would con-
tinue to be included and that streams
on boundaries would be added? There
is no question about that.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman's
amendment would restrict it so that 80
percent of the waters would not be
touched by enforcement. The gentle-
man gives the wrong impression. He
says interstate streams would be subject
to enforcement. You take the Missouri
River, the shallows of the Missouri.
Mr. CRAMER. It crosses the State
boundary; does it not?
Mr. BLATNIK. The Missouri is defi-
nitely an interstate stream and can be
polluted from here to Kingdom Come on
an intrastate basis, and there is nothing
here in the enforcement section of exist-
ing law that can cause it to cease and
desist unless you go downstream and
prove that it came from a certain
affluent.
Mr. CRAMER. There is nothing
under my amendment which would pre-
vent it from being done or to delete it;
is there?
Mr. BLATNIK. Your amendment
actually would prevent it.
Mr. CRAMER. It would not prevent
it. It would permit enforcement on
interstate streams and does not change
the present situation when it comes to
intrastate pollution. The gentleman
knows that. It is specifically stated in
my amendment, and I so state it on the
floor, and if the gentleman will examine
this language in the present bill, he will
see that that is true.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment, but actually I rise to
clear up one point which I have already
discussed to a limited extent. Of course,
the committee knows I have always
favored doing away with stream pollu-
tion, but on page 25 of the report, I
read this language:
Thus, for all practical purposes, the new
Federal enforcement provisions apply to all
waters in every State.
I have an inquiry, Mr. Chairman, from
a large plant which employs several
thousand people. These people do use
some chemicals and over the years they
have developed at their own expense a
lake or body of water which has been
used largely for their own purposes and
to discharge some of the chemical wastes
from that plant. It so happens that a
portion of that water is located in Loui-
siana and part of it is in the State of
Arkansas. I want to ask the gentleman
this question: These people are disturbed
about this bill. Is there anything in this
bill that would make their situation
worse than it is under the present law,
and do they have any means of protect-
ing themselves in a case of this sort
where the work has been done at their
own expense and with the tacit consent
of the local people in the development
of a waterway for one particular pur-
pose, which is for the discharge of
chemical wastes.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The answer
to the gentleman's inquiry is "No"—
there is nothing in this bill that affects
the situation you have just described.
-------
482
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. The fact
that you have this statement in the re-
port here that covers all waters in every
State would not necessarily cover their
body of water; would it?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. They are
covered in the 1956 act which, of course,
has been in operation since its enact-
ment.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. There is
nothing then in this bill that would make
conditions any more rigorous against
that company?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. No, there is
not.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield in answer to his ques-
tion?
[p. 7171]
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield to
the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I think the gentleman
from Alabama and I have a little differ-
ent opinion as to what the effect would
be. It is quite obvious that the State's
authority in joining with the Federal
Government in cleaning up this particu-
lar stream would find that they would
be substantially limited and restricted
as compared to the situation under the
present law. Assuming that it is an
intrastate stream, the State would have
nothing to say—and I will repeat it over
and over again—the State would have
nothing to say as to what kind of order
the Secretary would issue ordering the
local community to clean it up. The
State has nothing to say if the local com-
munity refuses to obey the order as to
whether the Federal Government shall
go to the court and force it to carry out
that order as they do under the present
law, and I challenge the gentleman
from Alabama to dispute that statement.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. My un-
derstanding has been that under the
present law the State is in the same
position as it would be under this bill.
Mr. CRAMER. And I have explained
why that would not be the case.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I yield to
my distinguished friend, the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. The statement of
the gentleman from Florida that the
States have nothing to do with the pro-
cedures under this revised bill is abso-
lutely incorrect. The States participate
in initiating the case; the States par-
ticipate in the hearing boards; they
name a member of the hearing board
which makes the recommendation on
which the Secretary acts. So it is an
absolutely inaccurate statement to make
in this House.
Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Would I
be correct in saying that this particular
plant would be just as well protected
under this bill as it is under the present
law?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida.
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. CRAMER)
there were—ayes 70, nays 151.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee having had under con-
sideration the bill (H.R. 6441) to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to provide for a more effective program
of water pollution control, pursuant to
House Resolution 274, he reported the
bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted in the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule the
previous question is ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr.
McGown, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate agrees to the report of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
483
the committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 3935) entitled "An act to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended, to provide coverage for em-
ployees of large enterprises engaged in
retail trade or service and of other em-
ployers engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, to
increase the minimum wage under the
act to $1.25 an hour, and for other pur-
poses."
[P. 7172]
1.2g(4)(b) May 3: Amended and passed House, pp. 7195-7196
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1961
The SPEAKER. The unfinished busi-
ness is the further consideration of the
bill H.R. 6441, which the Clerk will
report by title.
The Clerk reported the title of the
bill.
The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote
demanded on any amendment? If not,
the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were 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.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
Mr. CRAMER. I am, sir.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. CRAMER moves to recommit the bill,
H.R 6441, to the Committee on Public Works,
with instructions to report the same back to
the House with the following amendments.
One page 6, line 6, strike out the period and
insert in lieu thereof a comma and the fol-
lowing: "and such subsection (b) is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence:
" 'If the total of all appropriations, made
under authority of this section, for any fis-
cal year which begins after June 30, 1964, ex-
ceed $50,000,000, no grant shall be made for
any project from that portion of the appro-
priation in excess of $50,000,000 which is al-
located to any State unless such State shall
pay toward the cost of such project an
amount equal to the Federal contribution
made to such project from such amount in
excess of $50,000,000.' "; and on page 7, lines
2 and 3, strike out "$100,000,000" and insert
in lieu thereof "$75,000,000", and on line 4,
strike out "$1,000,000,000" and insert in lieu
thereof "$750,000,000", and on page 8, line
10, after "of" insert "interstate".
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, on that
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 165, nays 256, not voting 11,
as follows:
[p. 7195]
So the motion to recommit was
rejected.
*****
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 308, nays 110, not voting 14,
as follows:
[p. 7196]
-------
484
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2g(4)(c) June 22: Amended and passed Senate; Senate insisted on
its amendments and asked for conference, p. 11074
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move to
strike out all after the enacting clause
of H.R. 6441 and to insert in lieu thereof
the language of S. 120, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Oklahoma.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment. If there
be no further amendment to be pro-
posed, the question is on the engross-
ment of the amendment and the third
reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill (H.R. 6441) was read the third
time, and passed.
The title was amended, so as to read:
"A bill to amend the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to provide for a more
effective program of water pollution
control, and for other purposes."
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I move to lay that motion on
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move that
the Senate insist on its amendment,
request a conference with the House of
Representatives thereon, and that the
Chair appoint the conferees on the part
of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Oklahoma.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Messrs.
CHAVEZ, KERR, MCNAMARA, RANDOLPH,
CASE of South Dakota, COOPER, and SCOTT
conferees on the part of the Senate.
[p.11074]
1.2g(4)(d) July 13: Conference report submitted to House and agreed
to, pp. 12471,12475-12496
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill
(H.R. 6441) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide for a
more effective program of water pollu-
tion control, and ask unanimous consent
that the statement of the managers on
the part of the House be read in lieu of
the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
The conference report and statement
are as follows:
* * * * *
[p.12471]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may use.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report
which is before the House on H.R. 6441,
amending the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, is in essence the bill which
overwhelmingly passed the House sev-
eral weeks ago by a vote of 307 to 110.
As a result of the conference there were
certain modifications in the bill as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
485
passed by the House which I will now
attempt to explain to you.
The conferees agreed to a number of
major changes in the bill as it passed the
House. In addition, certain provisions
agreed to in the other body and not
included in the House bill were accepted
in conference. For instance, the bill now
contains a provision on water quality
control which provides that the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,
or other Federal agency shall give con-
sideration in the survey or planning of
any reservoir to inclusion of storage for
streamflow regulation for water quality
control purposes, except that such stor-
age and releases shall not be provided
as a substitute for adequate treatment
or other waste-controlling methods at
the source.
Also the bill contains an amendment
to the Water Supply Act of 1958 which
was not included in the original House
version. The present Water Supply Act
of 1958 provides authority for the Corps
of Engineers and the Bureau of Recla-
mation to include municipal and indus-
trial water supply capacity in reservoirs
under their jurisdiction. The present
law provides that not to exceed 30 per-
cent of the total cost of any project may
be allocated to anticipated future de-
mands if State or local interests give
reasonable assurances that they will
contract for the use of storage for antici-
pated future demands within a period
of time which will permit paying out the
cost allocated to water supply within the
life of the project. The conference re-
port will permit the Federal agency con-
cerned to make its own determinaton of
future water supply needs and, on the
basis of such determination, to include
capacity in a project without definite
contractual commitments from State or
local interests.
In addition, the research provisions
of the House bill were substantially
strengthened by the addition of a new
subsection which would require the
development and demonstration by the
Secretary of, first, practicable means of
treating sewage and other wastes to
remove the maximum amounts of pollu-
tants in order to maintain the Nation's
water at a quality suitable for repeated
reuse; second, improved methods of
identifying and measuring pollution;
and, third, methods for evaluating the
effects of augmented streamflows to con-
trol pollution not otherwise susceptible
to abatement. An authorization for
these purposes of not to exceed $5 mil-
lion per fiscal year with a total limitation
of $25 million is also provided by the
amendment.
These were three additions to the bill
accepted by your conferees.
In addition to these new provisions,
your conferees agreed to certain modifi-
cations in the House-passed bill, most
important of which were reductions in
grants for sewage treatment plant con-
struction and changes in Federal en-
forcement procedures. With regard to
construction grants, the conference sub-
stitute provides authorization of $80
million for the fiscal year 1982, $90 mil-
lion for the fiscal year 1963, and $100
million for each of the fiscal years 1984
through and including 1967. This total
authorization of $570 million represents
a decrease of $198 million from the
House-passed bill and an increase of
$130 million in the amount originally
approved by the Senate. Also, the con-
ference bill increases the maximum
grant allowable from $250,000 to $600,000,
which is $200,000 less than originally
approved by the House and $100,000
more than the Senate version.
With regard to enforcement, the House
bill provided that a conference initiat-
ing Federal enforcement procedures,
must be called on the request of: First,
the Governor; second, the State water
pollution control agency; or third, with
the concurrence of the State water pol-
lution control agency, the governing
body of any municipality, whenever the
pollution endangers the health or wel-
fare of persons in a State other than
that in which the discharge originates.
The Secretary on his own initiative may
-------
486
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
call such a conference when he has
reason to believe that such interstate
pollution is occurring. Such a confer-
ence must be called whenever requested
by the Governor, the State water pollu-
tion control agency, or, with the con-
currence of such agency, the governing
body of any municipality when pollution
is endangering the health or welfare of
persons only in the State requesting the
conference, unless the Secretary deter-
mines that the effect of the pollution is
not significant enough to warrant the
exercise of Federal jurisdiction.
The Senate amendment differed from
the House bill in that a conference could
be called because of interstate pollution
on request of the Governor of the State
or the State water pollution control
agency and could be called because of
intrastate pollution only upon the
request of the Governor of a State.
The conference substitute provides
that a conference could be called in the
case of interstate pollution upon the
request of the Governor, the State water
pollution control agency, or, with the
concurrence of both the Governor and
the State agency, the governing body of
any municipality. The Secretary may
call such a conference on his own initi-
ative in the case of interstate pollution.
The conference substitute provides in
the case of intrastate pollution that a
conference may be called only when
requested by the Governor of the State
where the pollution is occurring. In
cases involving intrastate pollution the
Secretary may refuse to exercise Federal
jurisdiction if in his judgment the pollu-
tion is not of sufficient significance to
warrant so doing.
The House bill amended subsection
(e) of section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide that the
board which under present law conducts
the public hearing to make findings
whether pollution is occurring and
whether effective progress toward abate-
ment is being made shall be formally
known as a hearing board. The House
bill further amended section 8(e) of
existing law to provide that findings and
recommendations of the hearing board
shall be those of the Secretary except to
the extent the Secretary believes other
findings or recommendations are war-
ranted. The House bill also authorized
the Secretary to make an order requir-
ing the abatement of pollution, which
order shall become final 60 days after
its issuance unless an appeal is taken.
The Senate amendment made no
changes in the existing law.
The only change in existing law which
the conference substitute made would be
to formally designate the board holding
the public hearing as a hearing board.
The House bill amended subsection (f)
of section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act to provide a detailed
method for appealing an order of the
Secretary issued under subsection (e)
of section 8 as proposed to be amended
by the House bill.
The Senate amendment made no
change in existing law.
The conference substitute provides
that if pollution is not abated within the
time specified in the notice following the
public hearing the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare may request the
Attorney General to bring a suit on be-
half of the United States to secure abate-
ment in the case of interstate pollution;
however, in the case of intrastate pollu-
tion he may request the institution of
such a suit in the name of the United
States only with the written consent of
the Governor of the State.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House
represents a half century of effort on
the part of many dedicated people,
mayors and municipal officials, State
health and sanitation officials, conser-
vationists, women's organizations and
other civic groups and Members of this
House to bring about enactment of an
effective Federal water pollution con-
trol program. Passage of this bill today
[p.12475]
will give the Federal Government work-
ing in a joint effort with State and local
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
487
authorities the necessary tools to pre-
vent the wasteful blight of polluted
waters. I urge its adoption.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES] may require to explain
briefly two features of the conference
report with which he is most intimately
and thoroughly familiar.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity afforded me
by the chairman in yielding to me.
However, Mr. Speaker, this matter has
been completely discussed previously in
this forum. As far as I know there has
been no objection to these two sections
dealing with water quality control and
the Water Supply Act of 1958 from either
side of the aisle. As the chairman has
explained, these amendments merely
clarify the Water Supply Act of 1958,
which was part of the Flood Control Act
of that year and bring into law water
quality control. I believe these amend-
ments are very important and very use-
ful sections of this bill. They will aid
tremendously in the development of
reservoirs to be constructed by the De-
partment of the Interior and the Corps
of Engineers and other agencies charged
with the responsibility of our national
water resources program.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
chairman yield to me for a question?
Mr. BLATNIK. I would be glad to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. I inquire of the gentle-
man what the money figure in this bill
now is. What it was and what it now
is. What was it when it left the House?
Mr. BLATNIK. The per-project limi-
tation raised the existing $250,000 per
project in the present law up to $800,000.
The Senate figure was $500,000, and we
settled on $600,000. Our sliding scale
was struck out. The conference report
sets a figure of $800,000, or 30 percent of
the project cost whichever is the lesser.
We made this additional allowance in
order to accommodate the smaller com-
munities to the effect that all applica-
tions now pending up to a $250,000 limit,
and all further applications yet to be
filed for a year from the date of the en-
actment of this law on the same figure,
should it become law, shall have priority.
They must be disposed of first and have
first claim on sewage grant funds before
any of the larger projects are awarded.
Mr. GROSS. Do I understand that
the amount involved in this bill is now
down to something like $570 million; is
that correct?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. The House bill
had a total figure of $768 million and the
Senate figure was $440,000. We came
down to $570 million over a 7-year fiscal
period.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further and bear with me, because
I do not like to ask him to be repetitious,
but on the intrastate control will the
gentleman explain that again, although
I do not wish for him to go over all of
his remarks?
Mr. BLATNIK. On the intrastate
matter—exclusively intrastate dealing
with Federal enforcement action—the
bill requires that the Secretary call a
conference on intrastate pollution only
when requested by the Governor of the
State involved and that request refers
exclusively to intrastate pollution on
intrastate navigable waters. The Gov-
ernor must ask for the Secretary to come
in before he can act.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I will be pleased to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. The House bill as
originally passed had language at the
bottom of page 1 which read as follows:
To this end the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
hereinafter in this Act called the "Secretary,"
shall administer this act.
It was my understanding that the pur-
pose of that language was to remove
from the Surgeon General at least tem-
porarily the water pollution control
enforcement activities and to vest them
-------
488
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
directly in the Secretary.
Is that language in the conference re-
port, and is it in the language adopted by
the conferees?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, the language is
in the conference report, and it was
adopted by the conferees. They did up-
grade the Department and took it out of
the basement where it has been for many
years and put it up directly under the
Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank the
gentleman, and I want to commend the
conferees for retaining this section. As
one of the coauthors and cosponsors of
this particular measure, I have been very
much distressed by the fact that the bu-
reaucrats within the U.S. Public Health
Service have consistently and continu-
ally stifled this program and have delib-
erately and callously and calculatedly
hamstrung the efforts of the people who
have been seeking to do the work to
clear up this pollution. I am speaking as
one of the coauthors and cosponsors of
this legislation. I will look with favor
on any move which will upgrade this
Department, as has been put in the con-
ference report.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman has
every right in the world to speak as he
does, and I would like to have the RECORD
show that during the hearings before our
full committee it was the gentleman
from Michigan's testimony that was most
pertinent and very convincing on the
need for such upgrading. It was action
that the House committee took and
which the House passed, and which was
sustained at our request in conference
by the Senate.
Mr. DINGELL. I certainly want to
commend the gentleman, and state that
if this recommendation of Congress is
not taken by the Secretary and the bu-
reaucrats concerned I shall regard it as
a personal affront, and I hope this body
will so regard it also.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I should
like to bring to the gentleman's attention
the new subparagraph (f) added to sec-
tion 3 of the act which authorizes a study
with respect to the quality of the water
of the Great Lakes and an evaluation of
the municipal, industrial, and vessel
waste treatment and disposal practices
with respect to such waters, and a study
of alternate means of solving water pol-
lution problems with respect to such
waters. May I inquire of the gentleman
if it is his understanding that increased
diversion of the Great Lakes water
would be permitted for such a study in
terms similar to those provided in the
O'Brien bill of the last Congress?
Mr. BLATNIK. This would not per-
mit increased diversion, but it recognizes
the pollution problem in the Great Lakes
area where in recent years because of
increased population and industrial
growth in the Great Lakes area plus the
influx of the liners from the high seas
has seen a growth of pollution in this
region. We need more study. That is
the purpose of this paragraph. It would
be a study of the nature, cause, and pos-
sible cure for the situation that exists
on the Great Lakes.
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I wish to
commend the gentleman from Minnesota
for his interest in this problem. I repre-
sent a district which borders on the
Great Lakes. I agree with the gentle-
man's analysis of the very serious
problem we are facing in that region. I
commend him for his advocacy of this
kind of provision. I also wanted to make
the record clear that it did not include
the type of diversion of which I spoke.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct.
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
489
Mr. KYL. Merely seeking informa-
tion, certainly with no criticism of any-
one or any legislation of this kind, may
I say there are several departments and
agencies of Government which are in-
volved in trying to clear up questions of
water pollution and the desalinization of
salt water and brackish water, and so
on. Is there any one group anywhere
in the Government which is attempting
to coordinate the efforts of these various
agencies of the Government?
Mr. BLATNIK. On the matter of
water pollution abatement and control
there is one agency, which is in the
Surgeon General's Office, now under the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. We are trying to broaden the
scope of their operation and place the
program on a higher level. As to de-
salinization, that is a new field of scien-
[p. 12476]
tific and technological exploration, to try
to find methods by which salt or brack-
ish water can be made into sweet water.
Pollution abatement, by reducing pol-
lutants and affording pollution control,
permits the reuse of existing water many
times.
Mr. KYL. It is my understanding that
this provides for such research?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes.
Mr. KYL. Insofar as that research is
concerned, it is obvious that you would
be dealing with many similar problems.
I was simply inquiring to find if there
is coordination in this kind of research
that is going on in all the related fields.
Certainly there is a relation.
Mr. BLATNIK. I am confident there
will be coordination between the desali-
nation program and pollution abatement
program, and any further advances with
respect to these new chemicals and new
diluents which are used in streams and
rivers which will help solve this problem.
Mr. KYL. I hope the gentleman is
correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Flor-
ida [Mr. CRAMER].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for yielding me this time
and my remarks will be brief.
Let me explain three or four aspects
of this legislation to put it possibly in
a better focus.
First. I am very much in favor of
adequate water pollution control
throughout the country. So the ques-
tion is: How are you going to get it?
In my opinion, the only way we are ever
going to get water pollution control in
America is not by appropriating billions
of dollars in Washington and not by
taking over the jurisdiction of the States
and not by sopping up existing State
jurisdiction over intrastate streams and,
thus, causing the States to withdraw
from the program, but rather the way
to solve it is to encourage the States to
come into it. Does this bill fit that pat-
tern? Does this conference report fit
into that pattern? The bill initially
passed by the House, as I stated to the
Members, did not, in my opinion, accom-
plish it. This conference report is little
ii any better, and in some respects it is
worse. It does not accomplish it either.
What does it do? In the first place, to
continue this program going, you do not
need this legislation. You already have
$50 million a year authorized for the
next 5 years. You have an existing pro-
gram of $500 million. In addition to
that, you have a program of over $100
million under the Area Redevelopment
Act which we passed earlier in this
session of the Congress which under cer-
tain conditions might be allocated to the
construction of disposal treatment plants.
That is what we are talking about in
this authorization. That is the only
thing we are talking about in this
authorization—how much money should
the Federal Government put into sew-
age disposal treatment plants on a
grant-matching basis—the Federal Gov-
ernment with the local community? I
tried to get the committee to bring the
States into the picture so that it would be
a State-Federal-local relationship. But,
no, the Federal Government wants to
-------
490
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
deal directly and solely with the mu-
nicipalities so far as the State allocation
of funds is concerned. So we have an
existing program.
The existing program has been work-
ing well. It has caused the States to do
what? It has caused the States to ac-
celerate their own programs. What is
this program going to do by adding $50
million a year more and taking away the
State jurisdiction and giving the Federal
Government in the enforcement provi-
sions jurisdiction over every stream in
America that can float a log. Let me
repeat that—this bill gives from an en-
forcement standpoint jurisdiction to the
Federal Government for the first time
for water-pollution abatement purposes
jurisdiction over every stream in Amer-
ica that can float a log. That is the best
definition you can give for a navigable
stream. So, instead of the present cir-
cumstances and the present law, where
the Federal Government has jurisdiction
only when a stream crosses the State
boundaries and, therefore, it is an inter-
state stream, and where the pollution is
interstate, which is a sound approach,
the Federal Government now wants to
come in under this legislation and the
proponents want the Federal Govern-
ment to come in and take over the State
jurisdiction of any of these intrastate
streams for pollution purposes. If they
do it for pollution purposes, what is going
to be the next purpose of the Federal
Government taking over jurisdiction?
So the effect of it will be that it will
dry up the States' responsibility. It will
dry up the incentive on the part of the
States to do something about this prob-
lem. So this bill, this proposal, this con-
ference report, does not meet the
fundamental test of solving this problem
on a partnership basis. It concentrates
more power in Washington and it gives
the Federal authority more jurisdiction,
but it does not encourage the States to
try to continue with the job they have
been doing and which they have been
accelerating under the 1956 act, which is
presently in existence. So the Federal-
State relationships are being affected
very substantially by this legislation.
This conference report does not stress
fiscal responsibility at all. Already
that has been shown. So there are
fundamentals involved in this legisla-
tion: Federal-State relationships, proper
budget authorization, the question of
fiscal responsibility. The Members of
this House will have occasion to vote for
fiscal responsibility. The States should
be encouraged to pay for their share of
the problem.
Why should fiscal responsibility be
stressed? Let us review briefly what the
House has already done with regard to
spending money just in this session of
Congress: Appropriations now approved
or pending in the House amount to $85
billion, substantially in excess of Presi-
dent Eisenhower's proposal.
The cost of enacted and proposed
major programs in the House of Repre-
sentatives is estimated as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
491
Bill or program
*Keogh bill
*Feed grains bill . .
*Aid dependent children
Foreign aid
General education
Higher education
National Defense Education Act . .
Impacted areas
Civil defense
Job retraining ...
Airport aid .
Agricultural proposals
Total
Description
$8800,000,000 back door
$300,000,000 back door
In loss of revenue
Deviation from general fund .
Required dollar amounts to reimburse CCC
$339,800,000 in advance certifications to be
matched after planting season, plus $18,000,000
in USDA funds through appropriation bill.
$350,000,000 over 15-month period
$105,000,000 in CCC funds back door
$1 200 000 000 back door over 5-year period
$2 500 000,000 3 years
$1 250 000 000 5 years . . . .
. $375,000,000 over 3 years in loans to private
srhools
. $100,000,000 1st year, much more later
$100,000,000 1st year, $600 000 000 thereafter
$375,000 000 back door
Estimate
for fiscal
year 1962
Billions
$2.3
.394
.125
050
.150
2.0
.698
.990
280
.105
.240
4.8
.833
.360
.125
310
.100
.100
375
10
24 335
5-year
potential
assuming
current
plans
Billions
$9.05
1.5
1.525
.250
750
2.0
.698
.900
.350
.105
1 2
26.8
41
1.25
.625
1 55
.800
2.5
1 875
50
107.918
"Indicates bill has already passed the House.
Thus Congress is grappling with pro-
posals which would cost over $24 billion
in fiscal year 1962 and at least $107 bil-
lion in the next 5 fiscal years if enacted.
This is a modest estimate, since funds
counted as back-door spending could be
spent more rapidly and new authority
enacted to take its place. Also, future
appropriations will not diminish if this
year is an example of future policies.
Appropriations now passed and pend-
ing in the House total some $85 billion.
Thus, counting present appropriations,
future authorizations and back-door
spending, Congress is already being
forced to deal with budgets stretching
far in excess of $100 billion annually.
The House has already enacted new
programs calling for new spending in
the amount of $7,332 million, including
$50 million for water pollution or sewage
disposal plant construction grants.
Is not that reason to be skeptical when
you have before you a conference report
in which they are asking $30 million
more than provided by existing law for
fiscal 1932, $40 million more for 1963,
and $50 million a year more for 3 years
[p. 12477]
commencing with fiscal year 1964, and
an additional $100 million for fiscal year
1967.
So there are the basic considerations
involved. The conference report did not
cure the fundamental objections which
I have previously pointed out and which
I repeat at this time. We are encroach-
ing on the States in the enforcement
section. There is no question about it.
If you have an interstate stream pollu-
tion problem the States are never neces-
sarily brought into the picture. Under
present law it is required that they agree
and consent to a court action to carry
out the finding of the Board. Under
-------
492
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
this proposal as to interstate streams
the States need never be consulted be-
fore the Federal Government goes in and
gets an order carrying out what the
Federal Government alone and exclu-
sively has decided that the States should
do. I say that is a major injection of
the Federal Government into State and
local functions. The Congress 5 years
ago specifically stated in existing law
that any time an enforcement action
should be brought into court for deter-
mination that the States have to consent
to it. That provision has been elimi-
nated with regard to interstate streams.
We tried to put it back in conference
and we failed.
So for these fundamental reasons I
say this legislation is just as objection-
able as it was at the outset.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
woman from New York.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I am informed
that in the Senate bill there is a state-
ment which does not occur in the House
bill and occurs only in extremely veiled
terms in the conference report. The
statement is "that when need for pollu-
tion control in a community is due to
Federal activity an additional allocation
may be made to meet an equitable por-
tion of such need."
I ask this question because some of us
have Federal installations in our dis-
tricts and in some cases they have posed
quite a problem.
Mr. CRAMER. The distinguished gen-
tlewoman has brought up a question
which was considered by the conferees.
The conference version provides relief
for Federal institution impact similar to
the bill passed by the Senate, but de-
creases the time before unobligated
funds can be reallocated for this pur-
pose. It decreases the time in which
they will be available for obligation by
a State, and not turned back to the
Treasury for reallocation in other States,
from 2 years to 18 months, and then per-
mits the Secretary prior to such reallo-
cation to make an additional grant from
such funds with respect to projects in
that same State where the need for such
projects is due in part to Federal insti-
tutions or construction activity.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of this conference report.
The assignment of conferees represent-
ing the House in a bill of this kind is for
the purpose of taking the matter up with
the conferees in the other body and to
see if within the limitations or borders
of the two bills passed by the respective
bodies a better bill can be brought out.
In my opinion, the bill that is now be-
fore the House is tightened up, it is a
better bill than the one originally passed
some weeks ago. I must respectfully
disagree with my colleague from Florida
who has done a very able job in this
committee as to his contention that
there is a larger authorization in this
bill than in the original bill. I do not
believe the conference report bears that
out.
The law as it exists today and prior to
the passage of this bill provides an au-
thorization of $50 million per year, with
a maximum of $500 million. The bill
that passed the House increased that au-
thorization to $100 million per year, with
a maximum of $1 billion, again no limi-
tation on the number of years. It was
not actually limited to 10 years. So the
additional authorization passed by the
House over the amount appropriated to
date amounts to $768 million because
$232 million has been appropriated to
date.
The Senate passed a bill that author-
ized $440 million. So, there were the
two boundaries: the $768 million by the
House and the $440 million by the Sen-
ate. The conference report that is now
before you is a compromise between
those two figures in the sum of $570
million authorized over the next 6 years
and a carryover from the 5 years past
of $18 million, making a total maximum
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
493
of $588 million.
Now, this bill passed the House orig-
inally by a vote of 308 to 110. Anyone
who at that time voted for the bill can
be sure that this bill offers lower au-
thorized expenditures than you voted for
at that time. Actually, it likewise re-
duces the maximum application for any
one project from a maximum of $800,000
to $600,000, and therefore you will be
able to have this allocated to more in-
dividual applicants in your area than
was true in the bill as it passed the House
originally.
As to enforcement, I think this bill
is a better bill from the standpoint of
enforcement than the original bill, be-
cause we gave the Secretary power that
I did not think was proper to give to
him, and that was the power to issue an
order, power for him to amend any deci-
sion of a hearing board and then to issue
an order without any right of appeal in
the meantime and then have him issue
an order to enforce whatever determina-
tion was made. This is a very broad
allocation of power, and that power to
issue such an order was taken out of
this conference report and reverted back
basically to the original law which re-
quires that he issue a notice and then,
if there is no compliance, he has the
right to ask the Attorney General to
bring a case into court for enforcement,
and therefore it better protects any per-
son's right he has under court procedure.
I think anyone who voted for this bill
originally, a month ago, can safely vote
for it now again, and those who are in-
terested in the amount of allocation,
which is actually lower than the original
bill, and who voted against the bill orig-
inally, might find it possible to vote for
the conference report today.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. HALLECK].
PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK
AND NEXT WEEK
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time to inquire of the majority
leader as to the program for the balance
of the week and next week.
Mr. McCORMACK. There is no fur-
ther program for the balance of the week
after the disposition of this pending con-
ference report on which the conferees
have done an excellent job. It is a very
excellent bill.
The chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means just indicated that he
is going to ask unanimous consent to call
up a bill a little later on to concur in the
Senate amendments and a bill extending
the time to December of this year, I
think it is, of the feed grain bill relating
to agriculture, a law that expires tomor-
row, and unanimous consent will be
asked for.
Mr. HALLECK. Will the gentleman
permit me to make one observation at
this time?
Mr. McCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. HALLECK. I know that was in-
cluded in what is known as the omnibus
farm bill when we had the same sort of
situation existing with the extension of
the school milk program. Now, I have
agreed to let this one be called, but I just
want to serve notice that I am a little
resentful of this practice that has grown
up and is becoming too prevalent of put-
ting measures that would be difficult to
vote against in some big controversial
measure, and then when you cannot get
the controversial measure out wanting
us to agree because it presents an emer-
gency to enact legislation which has ex-
pired. As I say, I have agreed to this,
and I have talked to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN], about it, and we
have agreed to let this measure go
through, but I must say that hereafter
under certain circumstances like that I
might not find it possible to go along
with the request.
Mr. McCORMACK. I might say in
reply to that, without knowing the par-
ticular matters that the minority leader
has in mind that we Democrats have
found ourselves in the same position
when the gentleman's party was in
power and we rather admired him for
-------
494
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
his tactical leadership.
Now for the program. On Monday
there will be seven bills called under
suspension. They are as follows:
First. H.R. 44, U.S.S. Arizona Memo-
rial. That is an authorization bill.
Second. H.R. 6691, a bill to provide
protection for the Vice President, Vice
President-elect and former Presidents.
Third. H.R. 7403, relating to the
postal service. This is known as the
downgrading bill. This has to do with
situations where an employee through
reclassification is given a lower grade
but retains his salary of the higher
grade. At least, that is my understanding
of the purpose of the bill, and I believe
it is a meritorious one.
[p. 12478]
Fourth. House Joint Resolution 435, a
joint resolution relating to the centen-
nial of the Department of Agriculture.
Fifth. House Joint Resolution 438, re-
lating to the centennial of the land-grant
universities and colleges.
Sixth. H.R. 2555, a bill relating to pay
and allotments of Federal employees in
advance.
Seventh. H.R. 4473, to amend the
Bankruptcy Act in relation to limiting
priority.
The Consent Calendar will be called
on Monday.
On Tuesday we will have the Private
Calendar.
For Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
we shall take up Reorganization Plans
No. 7, 6, and 5, in that order. In rela-
tion to Nos. 7 and 6, the minority have
the right if they desire, to bring up either
one of these plans on the question of
rejection.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman explain to us why we are tak-
ing them up in that inverse order? Some
of us think that they ought to be brought
up in the order in which they came up
here, Nos. 5, 6, and 7.
Mr. McCORMACK. They can be
taken up either way, but we are simply
taking them up in the order of Nos. 7,
6, and 5.
Mr. HALLECK. Is that some more of
the tactical leadership the gentleman
referred to?
Mr. McCORMACK. I would say that
we are keeping them in some kind of
chronological order, at least so far as
the numbers are concerned.
There is the usual reservation that
conference reports may be brought up
at any time, and any further program
will be announced later.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. SCHWENGEL].
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I
think I heard some kind of a groan when
the gentleman from Minnesota yielded
me 5 minutes of time to speak. I resent
that just a little bit because I have been
working for a long time on a speech that
I hope will be the best one that I ever
gave to the Congress. Now I find there
are some people here who do not want to
listen to it. I cannot understand it.
I hope that this call of "Vote," an indica-
tion of complaint, did not come from
those Members whom we normally rec-
ognize as the Tuesday-to-Thursday boys
around here. I would like to suggest
that you are going to get paid for tomor-
row, whether we are in session or not.
And while I know that this speech I am
going to give is good enough to keep you
over for a day, I do not propose to take
that much time.
Mr. Speaker, no one in the Congress
can be more interested in the conserva-
tion of our natural resources or in re-
solving the pollution problems than the
Congressman who has the privilege of
serving the First District of the State
of Iowa.
My interest on this question stems
back to the time I was a very young man
and while I was living on an Iowa farm.
My father, who had been born and
reared in another country, told me about
the terrible sin of abusing the soils and
the natural resources that have been
preserved for us by God and nature.
Since that time, I, of course, have had
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
495
much time to reflect on what was and is
a part of my own heritage, to read about
it, to study and become acquainted with
the total problem of conservation and its
many phases that are important and
need our attention.
This explains, too, why I have been so
interested in studying and considering
the legislative phase of this question.
After I came to the Congress and was
assigned to the Public Works Committee,
my interest was quickened and my study
was increased and slowly but surely I
came to the conclusion that here is a
question that needs attention by every
American and needs sympathetic consid-
eration by every public official who can
have an influence on reasonable and
right solutions to this manifold and
sometimes frustrating problem.
Because the problem was complex and
difficult and misunderstood, I joined with
State Senator J. V. Whitfield, of North
Carolina, and a number of other con-
servationists and with the chairman of
our subcommittee, the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BLAT-
NIK], to ask the Secretary of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare, Arthur Flemming,
and President Eisenhower to call a White
House Conference on this question.
They accepted our recommendation.
A Conference was held here in Wash-
ington, D.C., in December of 1960.
To this Conference came men and
women from all over America, from
every walk of life and from every inter-
est group, to discuss the problem and
some solutions to the problem.
It was my pleasure to have the oppor-
tunity to attend the Conference, to join
in some of the discussions and listen to
some very appropriate and timely state-
ments and discussions that bear upon
this question.
In order that the House may have the
benefit of knowing something about what
took place here, I ask unanimous consent
to have placed in the RECORD at this
point a brochure entitled "Clean Water:
A Challenge to the Nation, Highlights
and Recommendations of the National
Conference on Water Pollution."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The matter referred to follows:
CLEAN WATER- A CHALLENGE TO THE NATION
(Highlights and recommendations of the Na-
tional Conference on Water Pollution—
U S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service Publication
No. 816)
"It is a pleasure to send greetings to the
citizens assembled in Washington for the
National Conference on Water Pollution. It
is heartening to know that this conference
has attracted such a splendid representation
from across the land.
"We in the United States are fortunate in
having generally adequate amounts of rain-
fall over large areas of our country, but we
waste much of this precious natural re-
source by water pollution. We cannot con-
tinue to do so and still have enough good
water for the growing needs of our popula-
tion, industry, and agriculture. Nor can we
continue to expose our people to the health
hazards of water pollution.
"In asking the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to call this National
Conference, I stressed the mutual responsi-
bilities of all segments of our society in
cleaning up our waterways. We need appro-
priate action by Federal, interstate, State and
local agencies. We need greatly expanded
research, the continuing efforts of industry
and agriculture, and, most important of all,
we need the wholehearted support of the
individual citizen. It is the business of ihe
Conference to study and assess the problem
of water pollution in all its aspects and to
develop goals and programs that will assure
progress in this field.
"I am delighted to add my best wishes for
a most successful meeting.
"DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER "
"The National Conference on Water Pollu-
tion will affect the economic and public
health planning of our Nation for many
years to come It held up to public view
one of the critical problems of our time;
it helped develop new information and fresh
points of view about pollution control, and
it focused attention on many different areas
where new action is needed.
"The Conference opened a few hours after
the onset of the worst snowstorm to occur
in Washington in many years, one which
virtually paralyzed the city. Despite the
weather, nearly 1,200 people registered at
the Conference and took part in its delibera-
tions. For their attendance and for their
-------
496
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
help in shaping its recommendations, they
deserve the gratitude of the American peo-
ple.
"LEROY E. BURNEY, M.D ,
"Surgeon General."
INTRODUCTION
The National Conference on Water Pollu-
tion was called at President Eisenhower's
request. In a message to the Congress, Feb-
ruary 23, 1960, he stated that such a meeting
was needed to "provide a forum in which
all concerned can confront and better appre-
ciate their mutual responsibility for solving
this pressing problem."
The Honorable Arthur S Flemming, Secre-
tary of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, subsequently called upon the
Public Health Service to organize the Con-
ference and at the same time invited 37
distinguished citizens to serve as a steering
committee to help and advise the Service.
The committee was composed of highly
qualified individuals representing municipal,
State, interstate, industrial, civic, labor, and
women's organizations, and other citizens'
groups having an interest in the water pollu-
tion problem. The committee met with the
Public Health Service staff for the first time
on June 22, 1960, and worked closely with it
during the summer and fall The Conference
itself opened at the Sheraton-Park Hotel in
Washington, D.C , on December 12.
This booklet presents the highlights of the
Conference—excerpts from some of the prin-
cipal addresses, reports of the various panel
groups, and a final summary of Conference
recommendations. It is not, nor can it be, a
complete and balanced report of the Con-
ference; for this, readers must wait for the
final proceedings which will be published
in the near future. But it may give an
overall view of what went on during the
3 days of December 12, 13, and 14, 3 days
which may have a lasting influence on
American attitudes toward the manage-
ment of water resources and the need for
control of water pollution.
Conference planning
Early in its planning for the Conference,
the steering committee and the professional
staff fixed upon four basic areas of concern
in the field of water pollution control. These
[p. 12479]
became, with only small change, the topics
assigned to the four panel groups. The first
was the effect of pollution on the Nation's
health, welfare, and economy; the second
was the importance of water pollution con-
trol on the management of water resources;
the third was the responsibilities of govern-
ment, industry, agriculture, and the public in
combating pollution; and the fourth was
the need for research and professional train-
ing.
The division fixed upon by the committee
and staff worked well. It was possible to
obtain four outstanding people to serve as
panel chairmen and with their help, to build
self-sustaining and effective programs. The
chairmen, whose reports are presented in
this booklet, were the Honorable Thomas A.
McCann, mayor of Fort Worth, Tex., and a
member of the Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board; Dr. E. A. Ackerman, execu-
tive officer of the Carnegie Institution of
Washington, D.C.; Dr Abel Wolman, profes-
sor of sanitary engineering at the Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md ; and Dr.
Gordon M. Fair, professor of sanitary engi-
neering at Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
The four panel sessions ran concurrently
on the second day of the conference; on the
first day, one plenary session was held and
a banquet at which outstanding Members
of Congress spoke. On the third and final
day there was a plenary session for closing
remarks and conference summary.
The Conference was conducted without
the adoption of formal resolutions. Reports
and recommendations were prepared by sub-
committees which are listed elsewhere in
this document The subcommittees were
chosen in such a way as to insure that all
interested groups were represented. Follow-
ing each panel session and summary report
an opportunity was provided for comments
from the floor. This summary report con-
tains only the reports of the subcommittees.
Floor discussion will be found in the pro-
ceedings
The program set up during the summer
and fall suffered one defeat as the result of
the "winter weather beginning on December
11. It was necessary, in the face of a crip-
pling snowfall, to forgo the opening morn-
ing session and to postpone the scheduled
address of Secretary Flemming to the final
day of the meeting. In all other respects
the program went on as originally planned.
Public information
A basic part of preconference activity was
the carrying on of an intensive public in-
formation program to focus attention on
the problem of water pollution and to in-
crease public awareness of the need for its
control. The conference staff published a
monthly bulletin, as well as a series of
leaflets covering the effects of water pollu-
tion on recreation, on fish and wildlife, and
on the public health and welfare A chart
book was also published and distributed at
the time of the Conference and other pro-
motional material was planned.
The steering committee was helpful not
only in planning and directing the Confer-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
497
ence, but also in developing the public
awareness program. Organizations repre-
sented on the steering committee distributed
Conference material to their members, pub-
lished a great deal of information about Lhe
Conference in their own magazines and jour-
nals, and in some cases carried on cooperat-
ing publicity programs. A number of other
organizations and groups not associated with
Conference planning also contributed to the
information activities, most notably the ad-
vertising council, the National Association
of Broadcasters and the Outdoor Writers'
Association. John Charles Daly contributed
greatly to the radio and TV information
program.
The Conference itself was widely publicized
in the press and on radio and TV during its
3 days of sessions.
Accomplishments
It is too early to assess what the long-range
impact of the Conference may be. Three
things, however, seem apparent—the Con-
ference brought new public attention to the
problem of water pollution; it reached agree-
ment on many significant issues connected
with water pollution control; and, finally,
it identified two major areas of disagree-
ment.
The first of these areas of disagreement
concerned the Federal Government's role in
pollution control An examination of Con-
ference minutes shows no serious question-
ing of the need for a Federal program and
no serious questioning of the general areas
in which this program should function But
there was sharp divergence of view, reflected
in this booklet, on what the extent of Gov-
ernment activity should be
There was also uncertainty among Con-
ference participants on the standards of
cleanliness which should be set for our rivers
and streams. What is economically feasible
for a community, a river basin, or a nation
to insist upon? What safeguards should be
set against some of the newer pollutants,
and what safeguards should be set against
the use of chemicals which will eventually
reach our water supplies?
If no agreement could be reached on these
major issues, very considerable agreement
was possible on a number of others—the
need for more research and basic data, pub-
lic awareness, keeping water as clean as
possible, comprehensive river basin develop-
ment, a need for stronger State leadership,
the important responsibility of the Federal
Government in research and technical as-
sistance, and the need for more and better
trained manpower Published in this book-
let are the 30 recommendations which were
developed by the subcommittees and pre-
sented to the Conference group for comment.
They represent the consensus of informed
and highly interested persons representing
every significant point of view on water
problems
The final accomplishment of the Na-
tional Conference is the one which may in
the end have the most effect upon how we
use our water resources in the future. The
conference, in 6 months of planning and in
3 days of actual session, brought new na-
tional attention to the need for the control
of water pollution in the United States
As executive secretary of the Conference,
I should like to express the thanks of the
Public Health Service to members of the
steering committee, to Conference speakers
and participants, and to my fellow members
of the staff.
FRANK A. BUTBICO,
Executive Secretary, National Confer-
ence on Water Pollution.
CLEAN WATEE
(By Dr Leroy E Burney, Surgeon General,
Public Health Service)
This Conference is one of many hearten-
ing indications that the American people are
coming to a full recognition of the realities
of our technologic age To a far greater ex-
tent than ever before, we live in a man-
created and man-controlled environment.
It is within our power to shape our own
future, to guide the evolving patterns of
society and determine the nature of the sur-
roundings in which we and our children will
live.
Few if any problems are more intricately
interwoven into the fabric of our society
than the control of water pollution Clean
water is essential to life itself, it is essential
to our industrial technology, and to agricul-
ture; is essential to the conservation and
use of the many natural resources upon
which the richer life depends
FEDERAL VIEWPOINT
In describing the water pollution picture
from the viewpoint of a Federal health
agency, I should like to develop four prin-
cipal points
First, that water pollution control is an
integral part of the broader problem of wa-
ter resource development and use;
Second, that water pollution control is an
inseparable part of the broader problem of
environmental health protection;
Third, that an impressive amount of pro-
ductive activity is already underway in con-
trolling water pollution;
And, fourth, that the problem demands a
still stronger effort on the part of Federal,
State, and local authorities, industries, and
all others concerned.
AN ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE
All of you are well acquainted with the
overwhelming statistics on water usage, both
today and in the foreseeable future. Al-
-------
498
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ready, in many areas, there is not enough
water to go 'round. To cite one outstanding
example, it is estimated that the water in
the Ohio River, at times of low flow, is used
almost four times as it flows from Pennsyl-
vania to the Mississippi. It is at this point
of reuse, of course, that the threads of water
quality and water quantity become inex-
tricably interwoven. And it is at this point
also that considerations of national health
enter the equations.
A BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE
There is no room for doubt that we are
presently passing through a second indus-
trial revolution. Its byproduct wastes and
side effects threaten a new kind of health
problem for our own and future generations,
caused by the environmental pollutants and
conditions to which we are continuously
exposed every day of our lives—the chemi-
cals in the water we drink, the food we eat,
and the air we breathe, plus ionizing radiation
from both natural and manmade sources.
I do not intend to suggest, of course, that
our microbiological problems are solved,
once and for all. I do wish to emphasize,
however, that in the public health profes-
sions we stand at the microchemical fron-
tier.
We know that the biological effects of
some chemicals in our environment, and of
low-level radiation, may build up over long
periods of time The hazard to the indi-
vidual may well be related to the cumula-
tive total of radiation or toxic chemicals
received throughout his lifespan, continu-
ously or intermittently, whether their source
be water, air, food, or any of several others.
A substance like lead, for example, coming
from such sources as agricultural sprays
and automotive exhausts, is present in
food, water, air, and tobacco.
The effect on human health of the con-
temporary environment cannot be neatly
packaged in mutually exclusive categories
labeled "water pollution," "air pollution,"
"radiation," "occupational health." The in-
dividual's health is, at root, indivisible. The
total environment has a cumulative impact
upon it.
PROGRESS IN POLLUTION CONTROL
The present Robert A. Taft Sanitary En-
gineering Center is the largest research en-
terprise of its kind in the world Among
its recent accomplishments has been the de-
velopment of new and extremely sensitive
devices to extract and identify organic com-
pounds in extremely small amounts. Other
developments at the center include new cri-
teria for using sand filters in water-treat-
ment plants, and a successful pilot project
of a sewage-treatment procedure applicable
to housing subdivisions beyond the reach of
[p. 12480]
metropolitan sewer systems. Among the
many basic problems now under study are
methods of identifying compounds present
in wastes and determining whether or not
these compounds can be successfully as-
similated by the treatment plant or the
stream.
We recognize, of course, that even this
greatly accelerated research effort is only a
beginning. Research must be expanded and
diversified manifold, not only in Public
Health Service installations but also at uni-
versities and other research centers through-
out the land.
BASIC DATA
The Public Health Service has initiated a
long-range basic data program which includes
among others: (1) A national network of 75
stream sampling stations, to be increased
eventually to 300, on interstate streams to
measure water quality, and (2) inventories
of water, sewage, and industrial waste facili-
ties in the United States, published at regu-
lar intervals.
INTERSTATE ENFORCEMENT
Where pollution of interstate waters en-
dangers the health or welfare of persons in
a State other than the one in which the
pollution originates, the Surgeon General
and the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare are empowered to take action to
abate pollution. Enforcement actions have
been taken thus far in 13 interstate pollu-
tion situations, involving more than 4,000
miles of streams. The remedial measures
agreed upon will include the construction of
some $500 million worth of waste treatment
facilities.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
A total of 2,483 sewage treatment projects
have been approved for Federal construction
grants from 1956 through November 30, 1960.
Of these, 1,246 are completed, 717 are under
construction, and the rest are awaiting con-
struction. They received grants of $205 mil-
lion, and the total project costs were $1.2
billion The stimulating effect of the Fed-
eral grants is seen in the better than 64
percent rise in sewage treatment plant con-
struction since the grant funds became
available.
PROGRAM GRANTS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
authorizes $3 million a year for 5 years as
grants to help support State and interstate
pollution control programs. The States are
required to pay from one-third to two-thirds
of the costs of these programs. In general,
the States have been able to expand their
operations, and some have initiated new re-
search and stream surveys as a result of the
grants. Appropriations by the States for
water pollution control activities have risen
from $4.2 million (in 1956) to $6.5 million
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
499
(in 1959) since the program grants became
available.
TRAINING
The Public Health Service offers advanced
training for engineers, chemists, and other
scientists and technicians from Federal and
State agencies, municipalities, industries,
and foreign countries, as another of its serv-
ices designed to aid the States and other
allied agencies and organizations
THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE
There has been genuine progress in pollu-
tion control There has been a heightened
willingness on the part of the many agencies
and groups concerned to assume their right-
ful responsibilities. In short, there is cause
for encouragement.
There is not, however, cause for compla-
cency The condition of our waters is a na-
tional disgrace It is tragic for the world's
richest, most powerful and most techno-
logically advanced Nation to foul its own
nest, limit its own growth, and threaten
the health of its people.
Plainly, the most fundamental responsi-
bility of all rests at the source—with the mu-
nicipalities and industries concerned Our
success or failure in pollution control will
be proportional to the application of con-
trol measures by those who discharge wastes
to the waters.
Clearly, too, the States must continue to
be keystones of our pollution control efforts
Historically, legislatively, and logically the
strength of the State agency is a major de-
terminant of success in pollution abatement
Finally, there is an unmistakable Federal
responsibility derived from the national
scope and enormous complexity of the prob-
lem itself—a responsibility for leadership in
research and investigation, for contiibuting
to an enlightened awareness on the part of
both the public and the professions involved,
for aiding and strengthening programs at
State and local levels.
Water pollution control is a national prob-
lem of the first magnitude, both in its re-
lationship to water resources development
and in its involvement with man's health
It is not, however, an insuperable problem
In a nation such as ours, we can find enough
money; we can develop enough scientific
and technological capability, enough public
concern, and enough mutual confidence and
good will to reach a balanced solution
A MATTER OF SURVIVAL
(By Albert E. Forster, president and chair-
man of the board, Hercules Powder Co ,
Wilmington, Del )
The responsibility for solving the water
pollution problem belongs to each individual
American, working in community with his
neighbors until it becomes one all-consum-
ing national effort. Every American con-
tributes to the problem simply through the
fact of his existence, and because of his in-
sistence on a high standard of living
The seriousness of the water situation is
the fault of no one group or organization,
yet every one of us is responsible for depleted
stocks and increased requirements. Trying
to point the finger of blame may be easy
and tempting but is utterly devoid of con-
structive cuticism.
Recently there was proposed a three-part
water management program in the Pacific
Northwest. This was an industry-oriented
program, one which I wholeheartedly en-
dorse because it takes into full account the
equities of all water users This program
would perform the following three steps:
1. By aieas, the present and future bene-
ficial water uses of an area would be deter-
mined and enunciated These uses most
certainly would include the disposal of in-
dustrial wastes as a legitimate water use.
And at this point I would like to emphasize
the word "area " Water problems differ
sometimes radically from one area to an-
other. The answer to a problem in Delaware
might be totally inadequate in California.
For that reason the first step toward any
solution of water resources problems must
begin within the area, whether that be a
municipality, State, or geographic region
2 Water quality criteria would be estab-
lished to protect these uses—criteria which
would allow maximum use and reuse of the
waters
3 A program of monitoring to maintain
required standards would be established and
carried out.
This proposed program springs from a self-
centered motive—the motive to survive It is
proposed by industry which is facing tre-
mendous problems of industrial waste dis-
posal. It is carefully thought out and it
preserves the equities of all concerned
REUSE OF WATER
We are apt to overlook the tremendous
extent to which the reuse of available water
now makes the same million gallons of water
serve many masters It is estimated that
the present reuse of water by industry ap-
proaches 100 percent, and that this may be
expected to rise to 400 percent in the future
—that is, one gallon of intake water would
be used five times.
It is obvious to those of you here today
that conservation of water by dams and
reserve stocks along our great rivers will
assist materially in the near future both for
supply and pollution control I think it is
also obvious that the desalting of sea water
on a cost basis which we can bear will be-
come a reality before too long. Neither of
these factors, however, will obviate the pres-
-------
500
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ent and future need to reuse the water we
have many times over.
I would like to submit for your consider-
ation a program and philosophy I believe
must be embraced in order for us to suc-
ceed as a Nation in solving our water re-
sources problem.
My first and most important proposal is
that water resources and pollution control
be considered on a State level, with funds,
manpower and dedication as important as
highways and schools.
In too many States, attention has been put
to these problems only when everything else
has been budgeted, if indeed any action at
all has been taken. What's left over pro-
vides a pitiful amount of money to engage
the services of too few professionals in this
field. And the whole program, small as it
is, is stripped of any authority to do any-
thing because the States' lawmakers are so
blind to the critical urgency of it.
In most all of our States, the greatest
emphasis, attention, money, and public sup-
port is given to highways and schools. Cer-
tainly, better schools and highways are
needed, and undoubtedly more money can
be wisely spent on each of these items But
at the same time, we must allocate more
to water resources if we insist upon con-
tinuously raising our standard of living.
Therefore, I say that each State should
have the necessary facilities, empowered by
the necessary laws, and staffed by the best
engineers, so that the overall problem is
licked first on the State level and working
closely together with other States or inter-
state agencies on a regional level. Guiding
this development of State and regional con-
trol should and must be the Federal Govern-
ment, acting very much as our research and
development team in industry does
State and interstate control agencies must
be able to call upon the Federal Government
for guidance and counsel. A duplication of
research effort on the State level would be
impossibly costly and futile of any great
achievement, since there are not enough
trained personnel to go around.
Furthermore, the science of sanitary engi-
neering is finding it increasingly difficult
using known methods to solve some of the
problems now being faced. New ones are
cropping up every year.
Therefore, my second proposal is that a
vastly increased research effort be brought to
bear immediately upon the water pollution
problem under the guidance of the Public
Health Service, utilizing to a far greater
extent than is now done the research pro-
grams being carried out by industry and
private foundations on this common prob-
lem.
Coordinate, I suggest, all of the existing
extensive research done on water pollution,
find in that manner where more is needed,
and then organize all of this knowledge and
talent so that it may be immediately avail-
able and usable to anyone.
What will it take to carry out this re-
search? Public Law 660 of 1956 now pro-
vides for a broader research program within
the Public Health Service and for greater
Federal cooperation on these areas through
research grants, research fellowships, con-
tract research and training In addition, it
[p. 12481]
provides for strengthening the broad re-
search program within the Public Health
Service.
This is now being utilized to the extent
consistent with appropriations being made
under the law by Congress. It is evident
that these are insufficient. Therefore, in-
creased funds should be made available by
Congress so that these programs in research
can be implemented at a greater rate.
My third proposal, I sincerely believe, holds
the key to success or failure of our common
effort. I said at the start of my talk that
the problem of water management in the
United States is the responsibility of every
citizen. Until a majority of our citizens are
convinced, first that a problem does exist,
second that we have no choice but to find a
solution—and soon—and third that they must
assume their share of responsibility in the
solution, we as a Nation will fall short of
the solution required.
INFORMATION PROGRAM NEEDED
In simple words, I am suggesting that a
well planned information and education pro-
gram must be launched and carried through
to success if we are to solve our water re-
sources problem.
This program of information and education
is another example of a job too big for any
one of us alone. We must establish a common
ground of attack, pool our resources, our
available skills and funds, and then move
on all fronts at one time to convey in many
forms, and using many media, the vital im-
portance of water conservation.
Government on a Federal, State, and mu-
nicipal level, industry, and the citizenry,
must work out together the management and
improvement of this resource in order that
we may continue to live and grow and
prosper.
In the last few decades, I submit that in-
dustry for the most part has not only as-
sumed its responsibility in the conservation
and safekeeping of water supplies, but has
done so at a faster rate than many munici-
palities so anxious and eager to have indus-
try as a neighbor.
The chemical industry, which I represent,
has been outstanding in Us program of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
501
water pollution control. In the past year,
alone, more than a hundred million dollars
has been spent by the chemical industry of
the United States on water pollution control
Some of it has been done by edict, and I
will be the first to admit that there are
now—and perhaps always will be—those
members of the business community who re-
quire the harsh arm of the law to make them
act as good citizens
I am gratified that most of it has been
done voluntarily. The recalcitrants, like the
bad apples in any segment of our society,
and each segment has them, should be treated
as the exception to the rule and not be al-
lowed to blemish the reputation of the
majority.
In developing a total approach to ade-
quate water supplies we must consider
maximum utilization of our flowing streams
No longer can we afford the economic loss
from recurring periods of flood, or the waste
of this water so necessary for implement-
ing dry-weather flows Regulation of flow
throughout the year will provide additional
summertime volume, thus increasing the
assimilative capacity of the stream as well
as providing additional volume for use by
all.
Such a program for harnessing our streams
is one which must encompass an entire wa-
tershed and which would affect several
States It is therefore, one in which Fed-
eral participation must be considered In
such a national approach to our water re-
sources problem, flood control, power genera-
tion (where feasible with flood control), flow
regulation and recreational use must be
completely correlated for maximum use con-
sistent with the economic benefits to be
derived.
POLLUTION Is A PEOPLE PROBLEM
(By Dr. Ira N. Gabrielson, president, Wildlife
Management Institute)
The public to which casual reference some-
times is made, and whose viewpoint I was
asked to express today, is the sum total of
all the people who use water It extends
from householders to farmers, from indus-
trialists to recreationists, and from city
planners to businessmen who try to accel-
erate community and State development and
advancement
Regardless of position and affluence, we
share a common need for adequate suppl.es
of uncontaminated water. We benefit from
water that is clean, and we are penalized
by that which is dirty This is why I say
that water pollution is a problem of the
people
The head of the family ends up paying
the bill regardless of the pollution-control
philosophy that is followed He pays it in
the form of extra cents on his shopping bills
when the costs of industrial water tieat-
ment facilities are passed to the consumer
He pays the cost as taxes which are levied
to undeiwrite municipal, State, and Federal
programs.
The people pay in another way when pol-
lution abatement responsibilities are ig-
nored They pay by having to live with
recurring water shortages, blighted neigh-
borhoods, impaired health, loss of industrial,
business, and real estate revenues, and sacri-
fice of social, cultural, and recreational op-
portunities When waste treatment belat-
edly comes to those many areas where it
has been delayed, the people still are going
to be out-of-pocket.
Some appiaisals of the threat of water
pollution overlook achievements that have
been and are being made by industry, agri-
culture, and local, State, and Federal units
Progress has been made in a number of
important ways
The record shows clearly, however, that
these efforts collectively fall short of the
mark. They are too few and too isolated to
have substantial impact.
Much more must be done. Research must
be accelerated and the findings applied In-
dustry should recognize pollution abatement
as a regular operational expense. Clean wa-
ter requires substantial expenditures at all
levels.
A contributing factor to the present di-
lemma is the number of people who persist
m viewing watercourses as sewage and waste
disposal channels regardless of the difficul-
ties imposed on others
Inspired, dedicated, and as well equipped
as the staff personnel may be, State pro-
giams are hampered by the unwillingness,
reluctance, or inability of the legislative
bodies to provide necessary appropriations
Funds for State agencies have about tripled
in the last decade, rising from $2 2 million
in 1950 to S6 5 million last year The aver-
age State and junsdictional investment in
1959 was approximately $130,000, a grossly
inadequate sum This weakness is further
underscored by the realization that 40 per-
cent of the $6 5 million was invested by four
States
The Federal contribution to State pro-
grams last year was $2 6 million Federal
funds have comprised between 28 7 and 29 5
percent of the State's programs during the
past 3 years The record also shows that
State investments fell off during the years
1953-56 when Federal assistance was not
available
Federal grants and assistance programs to
the States are not recent innovations The
first began in the 1870's
It is my personal opinion, and one which
apparently is held widely, that the Federal
piogram of grants-m-assistance for the con-
struction of pollution abatement facilities
presently is one of the best approaches to
-------
502
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
this national dilemma that is making clear
water a scarce resource.
FEDERAL INVESTMENT VITAL
Federal investment for the protection of
our surface and ground water supplies is
fully as vital to our national life as are ex-
penditures for defense, post office, transporta-
tion, agriculture, and others.
Only three States have substantial grants
programs for assisting municipalities in
meeting their responsibilities for construct-
ing water treatment facilities. State leader-
ship toward solving water pollution problems
continues to lag And the dim prospects for
any greater participation appear to be the
principal reason for the vigorous suppoit of
the Federal program by State water pollution
control administrators and sanitary engi-
neers.
Water pollution control has outgrown its
classification as primarily a public health
problem. Pollution now rates full mem-
bership in the vexing relationships that
dominate the entire water resources field.
Freeing water of contaminants and prevent-
ing the introduction of additional pollutants
is an overriding water resources challenge of
this century. This technological and con-
struction gap cannot be denied parity with
flood control, storage, navigation, and irriga-
tion.
There is concern about the "Final Report
of the Study Group on Mission and Organi-
zation of the Public Health Service," dated
June 7, 1960, which recommends inclusion of
the water pollution control functions in
a Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control in a new Bureau of Environmental
Health Five of the six divisions of this
Bureau would incorporate functions and re-
sponsibilities of existing organizational units.
This plan offers no boost for water pollution
control. That activity already has divisional
status. Other activities, such as air pollution
and occupational health, which presently
have only branch and program status, would
be elevated to divisions This recommenda-
tion clearly falls short of public expectations
Pollution control would remain a sub-base-
ment activity with a mission that is primarily
directed toward public health The pub-
lished public record makes doubtful con-
gressional acceptance of this report
Extensive amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act are being
readied for introduction in the 87th Con-
gress These proposals most likely will in-
clude the status of the program within the
Federal establishment, construction grants Lo
municipalities, program grants to States and
interstate agencies, extension and strength-
ening of Federal enforcement, and the con-
trol of pollution from Federal installations
Several points whose acceptance by all
water users would do much to assist in
achieving pollution control objectives are:
1. A national system of water quality
standards from a health, recreational, in-
dustrial and aquatic life basis should be
developed and accepted by all units of gov-
ernment. These standards should be en-
forced vigorously and uniformly. Damage
and loss should not be required as proof of
pollution.
2 All users of water have the responsibil-
ity of returning water with all wastes re-
moved from it that can be achieved up to
and including ultracleansing where required.
The national objective should be to keep pol-
lutants out of streams The design capacity
of treatment systems should be computed for
maximum treatment of wastes independent
of the estimated capacity of streams to ab-
sorb and stabilize wastes
[p. 12482]
3 Users of water do not have an inherent
right to pollute A desire for clean water
was the toremost viewpoint expressed in
communications from national membership
organizations.
4 Public awareness programs should be
expanded at all levels
5 The public should insist that all juris-
dictions accept and fulfill responsibilities to
protect the national well-being by keeping
surface and ground waters free of pollutants.
6, Pollution control objectives should be
achieved by use of construction giants for
waste treatment facilities, tax amortization
incentives, watershed erosion control meas-
ures, and strengthened law enforcement at
local, State, and Federal levels
7 States and municipalities should be en-
couraged to participate more fully in water
pollution control activities Federal per-
suasion and leadership should be provided LO
obtain acceptance of local and State roles
where necessary. The Federal Government
does have responsibility for research, en-
forcement, grants assistance, and other nec-
essary activities.
8 Federal assistance should be conditioned
on guarantees of stronger State programs and
improved participation in pollution control
activities.
WATER POLLUTION IMAGE
(By Mark D Holhs, Assistant Surgeon Gen-
eral and Chief Engineer, Public Health
Service)
If we agree that water pollution results
from concentrations of people in a progres-
sive dynamic economy, then certainly it
should surprise no one that we have today
an involved and complex problem This is
simply in keeping with the tenor of the
times A requisite need, perhaps, is to break
down barriers of provincialism, the prejudices
of propnetaiy interests, and varieties of nar-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
503
row traditional points of view, too commonly
shared by so many of us
What is now important, it seems to me, is
to see whether this National Conference can
stimulate something beyond a cool air of
coexistence, to see if we can modify the
spirit of competing interest, of conflicting
interest—to something more akin to a spirit
of allied interest, of common goals and
common objectives; to remove the feeling of
incompatibility between the reasonable pro-
tection of the Nation's waters and the ob-
vious necessary use of these same wateis for
the final disposal of liquid wastes
As we look ahead two decades, by 1980,
the urban population wilt be in the 200
million range The population depending
on surface streams for drinking water will
be about 165 million The sewered popula-
tion will be at 200 million We assume all
waste will be treated Average stream .flows
will be the same. For most streams the
waves of pollution shocks will become some-
what additive—there will be little time for
the stream to recover between such shocks
Distances between waste outfalls and water
intakes will be wedged closer and closer to-
gether. Hundreds of new type, more per-
sistent pollutants will further complicate
the situation
The pollution image will broaden and likely
it will darken At the same time water needs
will spiral upward toward astronomical
figures Repeated reuse of waters will be-
come the rule—not the exception Three-
fourths of the 1980 population will live in
metropolitan areas Six-times reuse of the
same water must be anticipated What then
will water quality be like9 What will "the
stream environment be like1' What about
recreational and aquatic values9 These are
pertinent questions
Let's lemember that waste treatment is
partial treatment—-not purification Treat-
ment is designed to condition the waste and
reduce its pollutional shock—with the
stream completing the job. Foi most aieas,
this concept is still workable and will so re-
main for the predictable future Economi-
cally this is important, because costs are
quite high for advanced stages of treatment.
On the other hand, in some areas, the com-
posite residual loadings after treatment are
already overtaxing stream capabilities This
situation will become common in the years
ahead Improved treatment will be aeeded
This is one of the several new situations we
must face as we move toward our bright
new world
Today metropolitan and industrial wastes
are huge in volume and include increasing
amounts of new type synthetic chemical
contaminants Most of these wastes wei e
practically nonexistent in 1940 Now ihey
are present in concentrations up to 500 parts
per billion in several major streams These
synthetic organics do not break down like
natural organics, they are persistent over
long peiiods, and to a considerable extent,
they are not icmoved either by sewage treat-
ment or by normal water purification prac-
tices We have much to learn about the
behavior of these new contaminants in
streams, their relationship to natural stream
purification phenomena, and their long-
range subtle effects on public health, on
aquatic life, and on municipal and industrial
water supplies They add the question of
toxicity to the age-old problems of typhoid
fever and similar diseases.
CANNOT IGNORE POLLUTION
This aspect of the pollution situation is
characterized more by what we don't know
than by what we do know This is not the
type of problem that should be "swept under
the rug" and forgotten It needs to be in
the open and it needs to be worked on For
when we project trends for a decade or two
this aspect of pollution does have sobering
implications and creates a real sense of ur-
gency for research action now The public
health aspect of water pollution again moves
front and center.
PREVENT, DO NOT CORRECT
Let's remind ourselves that we are in the
midst of an era of accelerating change—with
increasing tempos affecting almost every
facet of our daily lives Pollution control in
the past has been largely corrective In the
futuie it must be preventive Remedial
measures mu3t leplace corrective actions
The tenor of the times and the complexity
of the problem simply oulmode the philos-
ophy of postponement. The present so soon
becomes the past that continually, from here
on, we must work with a critical eye to ihe
future.
We must remember too, that when we
speak of 1980 or 1990, no longer do we mean
some far distant dim future that the next
generation might worry about On water
pollution, the need for clear concepts and
principles, for stepped-up research and bold
action cannot be postponed This need is
not tomonow—K is today Perhaps sven it
was yesterday
We must lecognize that we cannot enjoy
the great advantages of modern technology
without accepting some of the consequences
Pollution is one of these But the pollution
impact from human activity in these areas
ol "wall-to-wall" people can be moderated—
and it must be moderated How clean and
puie we attempt to maintain our streams is
a matter of economics and realities, and of
values both tangible and intangible If our
objective be pristine purity foi purity's sake,
we can easily "pi ice" ourselves out of prog-
ress. On the other hand, if our objective
be solely the dollar sign, continually to un-
-------
504
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
dercut the necessary cost of controls, we
can easily "prosper" ourselves out of criti-
cally essential water resources. Between
these extremes come the tough hard choices
To say it costs too much to prevent ex-
cessive pollution is just plain nonsense But
we do need a clear understanding and a clear
definition of "excessive." Obviously, pollu-
tion must be kept below the levels of sig-
nificant personal health damage. It should
be kept within bounds that do not destroy
recreational and wildlife values. It is de-
sirable to keep pollution within bounds
which preserve the natural stream habitat.
For every stream, each of these levels has its
corresponding price tag—and you can be
sure that the cleaner and purer, the higher
the cost. And present cost will move upward
where there are ill-advised, indiscriminate
watershed developments
In other words, while there are limits to
what can be accepted as technological prog-
ress, there are also limits to how far such
progress must, or will, yield to desirable but
less than critical aspirations The difficulty
always lies in identifying limits Certainly
these cannot be generalized—necessarily they
will vary, from area to area, and from stream
to stream, depending on the state of develop-
ment and other realities This emphasizes
the need for development of truly compre-
hensive water use programs—basin by basin
—with some means of assuring strict adher-
ence to the agreed-upon plans and objectives
With a few exceptions—this we now do not
have.
In these times we must learn to run faster
and faster to stay in the same place An-
nual construction should be $600 million—
up 50 percent over the current rate—to iake
care of the backlog, the increasing sewered
population, and obsolescence—the latter will
increase substantially in the sixties Assum-
ing the industrial waste load as equal that
of municipalities—and certainly it is no
less—this means a construction rate of more
than a billion dollars pel year on into the
future There is no substitute—we might as
well face it.
In the backwash of all these tidal waves,
at least five factors need to be underscored
1. There is less and less justification for
any city or industry to discharge untreated
sewage and waste to the waters of the United
States—especially in the inland waters.
2 For most cities and industries, the
treatment requirements will shade upward
from primary treatment to at least second-
ary treatment
3 It is important promptly to accelerate
the rate of constructing treatment works 10
the level required to erase backlog and to
keep up with growing needs and obsoles-
cence
4. We need a substantial program of re-
search with three primary objectives:
(a) To assess the public health signifi-
cance of the growing array of new type con-
taminants.
(b) To develop practical methods for
measuring and for removing dissolved pol-
lutants—for application where wastes have
serious toxic potentials.
(c) To develop practical supplemental
treatment methods to stabilize further Lhe
effluents from conventional treatment. This
is for application in those areas where stream
use justifies almost completely stabilized
organic discharges
5 Considering pollution from all sources—
there is real need to update the national sys-
tem of monitoring streams.
In water pollution we all have much in
common and much at stake Water pollu-
tion control is now big business—it's impor-
tant business and it's urgent business On
a tonnage basis, waste treatment is, by far,
the biggest business in the United States
In far too many areas it has been a neglected
business—out of sight, out of mind The
only way to control pollution is to treat
wastes, and this costs money—lots of money
[p. 12483]
With few exceptions, this money is not will-
ingly spent. Hence, public understanding is
essential And this must be backed up by
effective regulatory controls
This points up the great need for public
understanding and public awareness We
have a challenge and an opportunity Lo speak
out on this pollution situation Our objec-
tive should be to alert, not alarm—to clarify,
not confuse As we move ahead, let's keep
Mr Citizen in mind—because so much de-
pends on what he thinks, and wants, and is
willing to pay for.
THE LEGISLATOR LOOKS AT WATER POLLUTION
Presiding' Dr Leroy E Burney.
Master of ceremonies' John Charles Daly,
member, Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board.
Speakers-
Hon ROBERT S KERE, U S Senator
Hon FRANCIS CASE, U.S Senator,
Hon JOHN A BLATNIK, U S Representa-
tive
Hon WILLIAM C. CRAMER, U S. Representa-
tive.
Senator ROBERT S KERR, of Oklahoma,
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
National Water Resources'
"We must no longer endanger the national
health or survival by permitting a price tag
to prevent action We must do what is re-
quired I believe this will be the attitude of
the new Congress and the new administra-
tion.
"The time for just talk has long since
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
505
passed, and I am sure that everybody here
is fully aware of that Vigoious action at
every level of government has long been an
urgent necessity, and becomes more so daily
But, for whatever reason this Conference was
called, it can, and will, accomplish some-
thing real, by spurring the necessary action
We in Congress need your support to get
this job done Why isn't this the time and
place to start an organized campaign1'
NEW POLLUTION BILL
"On the opening day of the 87th Congress
I will introduce another pollution bill with
the added feature of a stepped-up program
of research
[EDITOR'S NOTE—Senator KERR has intro-
duced the new legislation which includes an
increase from $50 to $75 million annually
for the Federal matching funds to help con-
struct municipal sewage disposal plants The
10-year total authorization would be $750
million 1
"Thus far, research has been so inade-
quate that the question of pollution ele-
ments, not yet identified, may be as .serious
as the problem of neutralizing and handling
the pollution already known to exist There-
fore, greater research is an absolute neces-
sity, not as a vehicle for passing the buck.
or as a justification for delay. It is a neces-
sity as a means to find ways to better abate
pollution, and to do it more rapidly at less
cost
"I quote conservative sanitary authorities
who say that $600 million annually for the
next 8 years is the minimum required foi
the construction of disposal facilities of hu-
man sewage alone. Added to this is the cost
of handling industrial and natural pollu-
tion, plus the maintenance of a steady flow
of water for waste dilution
"The problem of water pollution, like that
of municipal water, is primarily a local
responsibility Both Federal and State Gov-
ernments must provide leadership and assist-
ance At the Federal level, I intend to do
all I can to help pass the necessary legis-
lation to provide both incentive and enforce-
ment "
I EDITOR'S NOTE —Senator KERR , pointing
out the need to dramatize the menace of
water pollution, suggested facetiously a
"mermaid with a broorn" as a popular sym-
bol necessary to awaken the Nation to the
need to clean up its streams Such a symbol,
he said, "would do what 'Smokey Bear' and
the 'Litterbug1 label have done to alert the
public to the need to combat forest fires and
to prevent littering of streets and high-
ways "]
Senator FRANCIS CASE, of South Dakota,
ranking minority member of the Senate Pub-
lic Works Committee
"In addition to the millions of cubic miles
of ocean water, how much more salt and
otherwise minerally polluted water exists in
underground pools and streams, I lack the
imagination to estimate But our knowledge
of artesian supplies and shallow wells that
are heavily saline in character indicates that
a tremendous reserve does exist when man
achieves the conquest of desalination and
demmerahzation
"We are at work on this job In 1952,
Congress passed a bill which authorized a
program of research contracts with private
and public institutions in the desalination
of water It attracted little general attention
at the time We had difficulty getting ap-
propriations I recall once when a Boston
scientist was being badgered by questions as
to what he would do with the money, he
asked 'If I knew what we would find out/
he replied, 'we wouldn't need the research '
"But we did get some funds and in 1953 re-
search contracts were made with some of the
organizations or institutions which had shown
some interest in the field
"First thoughts were of sea water because
of its abundance California Congressmen
Fletcher, McDonough, Phillips, and Engle,
the latter now Senator, had all pushed bills
on the subject in the House Senatois An-
derson of New Mexico, O'Mahoney of Wyo-
ming, Cordon of Oregon, Hayden of Arizona,
Wiley of Wisconsin, and Johnson of Texas,
were among those most active in the Senate.
My special interest stemmed from a fairly
intimate acquaintance with alkali water and
its brackish cousins in the and and semiand
regions of the West.
"The initial program was organized in the
Interior Department by David Jenkins of
Ohio Subsequently, Secretary Seaton cre-
ated a fullfledged Office of Saline Waters and
placed former Nebraska Congressman Dr. A.
L. Miller in charge His professional knowl-
edge and energetic direction have done much
to bring the program to where it now is—
one of the most promising and construc-
tive activities of the Federal Government
in the whole field of water conservation and
utilization
"Research contracts on various processes
have been carried on with both oceanic and
inland waters In 1955 we extended and
expanded the original authorization By 1957
a number of processes showed real promise
Senate committee hearings developed testi-
mony which supported the belief that results
warranted practical, full-size demonstration
plants In 1958 Congress passed and Presi-
dent Eisenhower approved a bill to authorize
five practical-size demonstration plants—
three to deal with sea water, two to treat
inland brackish waters.
"PROGRAM NOW UNDERWAY
"This program is now underway The lo-
cation and the processes of each one are
-------
506
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
revealing as to the nature of this water pollu-
tion problem and the range of solutions.
"Plant No 1 is now 40 percent complete at
Freeport, Tex. It will convert 1 million gal-
lons per day of gulf waters into potable
drinking water at an estimated cost of 97
cents per 1,000 gallons. If increased to a 10
or 15 million gallon capacity, the cost can be
cut in half, it is believed This plant will
use what is known as the long-tube vertical
distillation process.
"WATER FROM PACIFIC OCEAN
"Plant No 2 will be at Point Loma, San
Diego, Calif Ground-breaking ceremonies
are being held December 19, 1960 It, loo,
will produce 1 million gallons per day, using
water from the Pacific Ocean in a multiple-
erTect evaporation process.
"Plant No 3 will be at Webster, S. Dak.
Contracts for it have recently been signed
and construction will start in the spring
This plant, using electrodialysis with water
passing through membrane stacks, will treat
waters that are about 2,200 parts per million
in solids. Many towns of the West have a
constant battle with such waters that eat out
or clog water pipes and sewerlmes with a
variety of effects upon the human system Its
capacity will be 250,000 gallons per day and
the cost is expected to be in the vicinity of
50 cents per 1,000 gallons.
"Plant No. 4 will be at Roswell, N. Mex.
There, water will be used that has a hard-
ness of 24,000 parts per million A process
will be used of forced vapor circulation with
drop condensation.
"Plant No. 5 will be located somewhere on
the east coast of the United States to work
on waters of the Atlantic Ocean The
process will probably be an adaptation of
natural freezing similar to one that has re-
ceived considerable publicity for use by the
new State of Israel.
"Dr. Miller envisions an eventual cost of
water recovery by these methods approxi-
mating 30 to 35 cents per thousand gallons
This can be put alongside of an average dis-
tribution cost for American cities of 35 cents
as estimated by the American Water Works
Association.
"The contaminated waters of the Potomac
River flow into the Atlantic Ocean. And
even the longest of rivers winds at last into
the sea. The very processes of distillation
and recovery which are being developed in
the saline water program may offer the an-
swer to many local water pollution problems
with which your conference will deal.
"DISPOSAL OF ATOMIC WASTES
"And may I remind you that the disposal
of atomic wastes probably carries the ulti-
mate threat in water pollution Radioactive
raindrops disturb not only water supplies
but milk and growing crops. Even lead-
lined boxes deposited at sea offer cause for
concern—especially since bathysphere div-
ers last summer discovered that fish living
at the bottom of the ocean's deepest trench
depend upon oxygen carried to them by
deep-sea currents.
"One of the staunchest supporters of the
desalination program has been Senator
ANDERSON, for many years chairman of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy His
interest springs, in part, from his belief that
what is developed in this program may be
important to man's survival in an atomic age.
"This program of desalting or demineraliz-
ing the gieat, ultimate reserves and store-
houses of the world's water in the oceans and
the underground reservoirs may seem so vast
as to be discouraging as are some of the
profit-protecting practices employed by in-
dustry and the topsy-grown habits of mod-
ern life which pollute our streams But
progress is being made "
Representative JOHN A. BLATNIK of Min-
nesota, chairman of Subcommittee on Rivers
and Harbors of the House Public Works
Committee:
"I plan to introduce extensive amend-
ments to the Water Pollution Control Act
when Congress convenes in January.
"These proposed amendments will call
for (a) greater Federal research, (b) ex-
panded Federal enforcement jurisdiction,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
507
Florida, third-ranking minority member of
the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of
the House Public Works Committee.
"The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1956 is a step in the right direction but I
plan to strengthen the act by introducing
amending legislation in the 87th Congress.
"Amendments to the 1956 act will have
four principal objectives:
"1 To strengthen State and interstate
water pollution control programs.
"2. To make more effective assistance to
municipalities in the construction of neces-
sary sewage treatment works
"3 To provide for more effective preven-
tion and control of water pollution caused
by Federal Government installations.
"4. To strengthen the role of the Federal
Government in abating pollution of inter-
state waters.
"I intend to introduce legislation which
would extend the provision for Federal grants
to State and interstate water pollution con-
trol agencies for administration of Iheir pro-
grams.
"This legislation, if passed, would make it
possible for several communities to get in-
dividual Federal grants and use these funds
in the construction of a single sewage treat-
ment facility.
"I would make all interstate navigable wa-
ters and coastal waters subject to Federal
abatement enforcement authority whether
or not there is a showing of interstate pollu-
tion, if abatement action is requested by a
State or municipality with the concurrence
of the State, and I would also authorize the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
to issue orders in enforcement actions
"Discharges from Federal installations
should be subject to administrative findings
and recommendations in Federal water pol-
lution abatement actions conducted by the
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
"I believe that these proposed amend-
ments will provide an improved statutory
base for the Federal-State water pollution
control and abatement program
"With the shift of people from farm to
city as the mechanization of farm operations
has reduced the need for farm labor, it is
almost trite to point out that we have be-
come an urban nation What is of greater
significance is that we are rapidly becoming
a metropolitan nation. Between 1950 and
I960, over 85 percent of the net increases in
population occurred m metropolitan areas,
and it is estimated that by the end of the
century only about 5 percent, or perhaps
17 million people out of about 330 million,
will live on farms.
"With the area from Washington-Norfolk
to Boston, Mass , becoming largely a met-
ropolitan area, it is obvious that even
metropolitan water problems have become
interstate problems, as have many other
natural resources problems This fact has
recemly given rise to numerous requests by
States for interstate compact ratification leg-
islation by Congress. Such compacts ob-
viously are essential and can serve useful
purposes in many instances
"Constitutionally the Federal Govern-
ment's authority has traditionally been mere
ratification, thus permitting the States to
act under such interstate compact authority.
Recently, legislation with the northeast com-
pact bills as an example, proposed a drastic
deviation from established policies by pro-
viding for actual voting participation on such
compact commissions by the Federal Gov-
ernment representatives, including the right
of veto. This involves a very serious State-
Federal relationship as well as constitutional
questions which resulted in the Justice
Department's opposing this approach last
session
"Concurrently, with this growth of the
metropolis, a rapid increase in personal in-
come and in general living standards has
taken place which has provided people with
both far greater leisure time and means with
which to enjoy it The resulting trek to
sun, sand, and sea has resulted in a boom
in my own home State of Florida which
today is not only stimulating enterprise to
provide for all of these people who seek
recreation and relaxation in a benevolent
climate, but has induced efforts to develop
new types of industry and commerce to pro-
vide economic opportunity on a year-round
basis for our tremendous increase m popula-
tion which this boom has brought about.
"But these situations have brought about
a most important bearing on our national
water resources picture. Huge quantities of
water of acceptable quality must, in the fu-
ture, be provided for these areas And of
even greater significance, the waste products
of these great congregations of people must
be properly disposed of in such a way as not
to foul our rivers, lakes and oceans, if they
are to continue to supply not only water for
municipal and industrial use, but for the
support of fish and for the creation of en-
vironmental factors required if we are to en-
joy our increasing leisure time "
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
(By Hon. Thomas A. McCann)
Neither the extent nor the effects of water
pollution are sufficiently known to permit
precise agreement at this Conference on the
topic assigned to panel I, "Water Pollution
and Our Changing Times- Effects of Pollu-
tion on the National Health, Welfare, and
Economy " But an analysis of the papers
and discussion indicates that the future
quality of our water resource and the range
of human needs the resource can serve can
be as high or as low as we wish it to be,
-------
508
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
depending on the values we wish to protect
and the price we are willing to pay.
Known threats to human health from
water pollution under existing treatment
levels are not seen as catastrophic by public
health officials, but better knowledge of the
short- and long-term effects of pollutants
may show dangers where none are now
anticipated.
Certain minimum steps are indicated to
minimize threats to public health from pol-
lution: investigation of potential health
hazards as an integral part of development
of processes and products producing pollu-
tants, and preservation of uncontaminated
water supplies and regulation of waste
disposal
The information needed to protect pub-
lic health can be obtained only by the com-
bined efforts of public and private interests,
inspired by a keen sense of responsibility for
water quality. Government responsibility
in factflndmg should be exercised in a strong
and foresighted manner in order to provide
sound bases for action programs Examina-
tion of the public health consequences of
technical and industrial processes must be a
regular and necessary part of research and
development. The eventual cost to our so-
ciety of achieving hygienic security will be
much less than the potential cost of dealing
with the effects of pollution.
Effects on recreation and esthetic values
are difficult to measure because the judg-
ments on use of water for such purposes are
subjective.
Impacts of pollution on fish and wildlife
are extensive. The U S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has stated that the area of habitat
rendered unproductive each year by pollu-
tion is greater than the habitat established
by all public agencies conducting wildlife
restoration programs.
INDUSTRY'S WATER NEEDS VARY
Impacts of water pollution on industry are
difficult to generalize upon because of the
almost infinite variety of industrial uses.
The largest industrial use is for cooling,
where a wide tolerance in quality is per-
missible. In food and pharmaceutical man-
ufacture, on the other hand, standards well
above those for drinking water may be
necessary.
Industrial management does not often
seek public action to protect its water sup-
ply; it is reported as inclined to accept the
burden of treating the water it needs for its
processes Industrial management, for the
most part, believes that pollution of indus-
trial water supplies will not increase to more
critical levels in the near future "Water
quantity and quality are important in plant
location decisions; so is the extent and cost
of pollution abatement which is likely to be
required of industry.
The problem of evaluating pollution—of
finding acceptable ways of comparing costs
and benefits—is very difficult, but must be
resolved if specifics are to supplant generali-
ties as a basis for the establishment of sound
public policy. Documentation of pertinent
kinds of water quality deterioration is neces-
sary The prime difficulties are that various
pollutants cause varying kinds of water sup-
ply deterioration, and measures of pollution
effects vary with the values being considered
A pollutant damaging to recreation may be
harmless to industrial users.
A precise definition of the different kinds
of values with which we are concerned is
essential. At least three kinds of values
must be considered—health values, recrea-
tion values including esthetic values, and
market values. The relative importance of
these values will vary with changing de-
mands
Measurement of physical and biological
relationships—to relate water quality to vol-
ume, temperature, etc , as well as to the
usual problems of waste disposal—is essen-
tial
In consideration of the impacts of water
pollution on our changing times, the sub-
committee members assigned to panel I have
prepared a series of recommendations de-
signed to protect and enhance the values of
the water resource. The subcommittee be-
lieves that the following recommendations
are reasonable and warrant vigorous imple-
mentation"
1 We recommend that the Conference ex-
press its conviction that the goal of pollu-
tion abatement is to protect and enhance
the capacity of the water resource to serve
the widest possible range of human needs,
and that this goal can be approached only
by accepting the positive policy of keeping
waters as clean as possible, as opposed to the
negative policy of attempting to use the full
capacity of water for waste assimilation.
2 There is need for a more systematic ap-
proach to the evaluation of water pollution
problems, to include health, esthetic, and
market values. A framework for analysis
must be developed which will provide a rela-
tively precise understanding of benefit-cost
and which will form the basis for the design
of public policies and programs for effective
water quality management.
[p. 12485]
3 States should develop water monitoring
programs for bacteriological, biological,
chemical, physical, and radiological quality.
This work should be coordinated with the
efforts of an expanded national water qual-
ity network of the Public Health Service.
More data should be collected on the condi-
tion of streams both before and after water-
pollution abatement.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
509
4 The construction of municipal waste
treatment facilities should be expanded im-
mediately with continued increases to keep
up with population growth and to abate the
backlog of pollution by 1970 A similar pro-
gram expansion should be applied to che
wastes from industry
5, Each Federal installation should be re-
quired by Congiess to tieat its wastes in ac-
cordance with the standards for cities and
industries in the area, with 1964 set as the
target date for providing minimum treat-
ment.
6, It is recommended that improved meth-
ods be developed for measuring pollution
abatement progress New engineering pa-
rameters which encompass all pollution
components, as well as yardsticks for meas-
urement of stream quality, are critically
needed
7 The administrative level of the water
supply and water pollution control activi-
ties in the Public Health Service and in the
States should be commensurate with the im-
portance of this problem
8. We recommend that public policy for-
mally recognize the recreation value of our
water resources as a full partner with do-
mestic, industrial, and agricultural values in
water quality management policies and pro-
grams.
9 We recommend that appropriate public
and private agencies mount and sustain an
expanded program of public information to
the end that enlightened public opinion can
be brought to bear on the accomplishments,
costs, needs, opportunities, and problems
involved in water quality management, not-
ing that this Conference should provide a
dramatic opportunity to launch such a pro-
gram.
10 It is recommended that the Public
Health Service assume leadership, in collab-
oration with other public and private agen-
cies, in collecting, compiling, and publishing
pertinent data on the toxicity of water con-
taminants. This should include criteria,
standards, methods of testing, and safe allow-
able concentrations for human consumption,
also that efforts be made to stimulate toxico-
logical and epidemiological studies to be
made to determine long- and short-range
effects
11 In order to facilitate assessment of the
total pollution problem, it is recommended
that particular attention be given to accel-
erating the collection of information on in-
dustrial waste loading The Public Health
Service should coordinate collection of this
information on the national level
12 The Conference feels that financial in-
centive should be provided to encourage
industry to install needed waste treatment
facilities This may be accomplished by
permitting industry, for corporate income j
tax purposes, to charge the cost of non-
productive waste water tieatment facilities
as an expense
( NOTE —During the discussion period fol-
lowing this report, there were a number of
comments made with reference to recom-
mendation No 1, especially referring to the
policy of keeping waters as clean as possible
as opposed to using the full capacity of water
for waste assimilation The recommenda-
tion as written received general agreement in
panels I, II, III, although in panel III two
changes were suggested These changes are
indicated at the conclusion of the panel III
report)
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
(Dr E A Ackerman)
The members of panel II legard their
assignment as one of the more difficult at
this conference An analysis of pollution
control as a means of mci easing water sup-
plies requires a grea^ deal of the informa-
tion and expert knowledge which came forth
in panels other than this Our panel's ques-
tion is complex because we not only must
know what the present dangers are but also
what impacts various types of pollution will
have in the future upon the Nation's water
supplies We must know what the future
needs for water will be for specific purposes
and total demands as they extend into the
future We must know how pollution control
measures are to be handled, and how they
will fit into our legal and administrative
systems This job of analysis is not one
which we have taken lightly
Participating with us in our panel sessions
and deliberations have been representatives
from all major regions of the country We
have listened to lawyers, legislators, engi-
neers, administrators, geologists, biologists,
and chemists Included in these have been
Federal Government officials, State govern-
ment officials, municipal officials, and men
from private industry, private foundations,
and trade associations Speaking for the
panel subcommittee, I should like to state
its consensus in comments on three broad
questions (1) How much do we know about
water pollution'-1 <,2) What can we see for
the future1' and {31 In areas where other
water needs exist, or may be reasonably an-
ticipated, what should be done to minimize
waste disposal demands upon water re-
sources^
We already know moie about pollution
and pollution control than we put to prac-
tical use As Mr Powers observed in our
session, there are many water quality in-
telligence programs in this country These
include those of the U S Geological Sur-
vey, the newly established National Water
Quality Network under Public Health Serv-
ice supervision, regional projects like the
-------
510
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commis-
sion, and numerous others of a local informa-
tion gathering nature by private industry
and municipalities Through these means
we have a reasonably broad picture of stream
contamination by microbiotic organisms as
indicated by the cohform bacteria, and much
specific knowledge of the inorganic and or-
ganic contaminants of industrial origin
usually found in urban areas or in densely
settled regions.
We have a reasonably good picture of the
control of pollution from natural causes
Indeed the reduction of sediment in streams,
and the control of undesirable dissolved
solids in streams may offer major opportuni-
ties for water improvements
Carl B Brown of the Soil Conservation
Service stated, "Silt pollution is a major de-
terrent to the effective development of the
water resources of most drainage basins in
the United States " He further estimated
that annual losses from silt pollution may
be on the order of $350 million a year for the
country as a whole Mr. Brown also pointed
out that substantial amounts of our reser-
voir capacity are lost every year from silt
or sedimentation. He further noted that
about 2 trillion gallons of water must be fil-
tered annually to remove suspended silt We
know the sources of much of this sediment,
and even the type of erosion which causes
it Within recent years even metropolitan
areas have been adding their increment to
the sediment load of streams, as suburban
development has soared
Yet there are many things which we do
not know. According to Mr Klassen, for
example, adequate analytical methods do not
exist to determine the quantitative presence
in water of 400 new substances for washing
clothes, cleaning cars, killing weeds, con-
trolling insects, and other uses According
to Mr Klassen and Mr Cunningham, we
need to accelerate research on viruses and
means of their control as an additional safe-
guard to potable water supplies Dr. Cot-
tarn pointed out that we do not even know
the total consumption or production of all
pesticides. Mr Klassen observed that pres-
ent laboratory methods for determining
water quality compliance are, in most in-
stances, giving us nothing more than a his-
tory of conditions that existed one or more
days previously. Methods are needed to de-
termine what conditions are at a given mo-
ment so that better knowledge of hazards to
water can be ascertained.
MORE EFFICIENT TREATMENT NEEDED
Finally, treatment processes presently
available for use in urban waste disposal are
less than 90 percent efficient For that rea-
son, treated wastes cannot be discharged to
receiving streams without deterioration of
quality Economically feasible "totally com-
plete" treatment has not been developed
yet.
If there are gaps in our knowledge of the
present, it can be expected that the gaps are
even larger as we look at the future, the
contours of which we need to appraise in
answering the questions put to this panel.
Surprisingly, however, we do have some im-
portant information in this respect Recent
inventories of the relation of water resources
to future demands indicate that on 22 major
watersheds of the Nation 5 will show a de-
ficiency of supply as compared to projected
needs in 1980. This means that for these
five basins there will be a demand for water
which can be produced through the tech-
niques of reuse or pollution control Already
some such water is in use in these basins.
The greatest prospective deficiency occurs in
the Southwestern States, and it is there that
quality control to permit water reuse becomes
essential for future economic development.
Before the end of the century, three more
basins, the western gulf, the upper Arkansas-
Red River Basins, and the Western Great
Lakes area, are expected also to become
deficient areas On the other hand, most
drainage basins east of the Mississippi and
those on the lower Missouri, the lower Ar-
kansas-White-Red, and the Columbia show
adequate supplies, with proper conservation
and normal control measures, even at the
end of this century.
This situation does not describe many dif-
ficult subregional and local situations The
general outline is such that Mr Banks stated,
"We have reached the point where any use
of water that does not give optimum eco-
nomic and social return is wasteful Maxi-
mum use with minimum quality deterioration
must be our goal if we are to so budget our
water expenditures that the available supply
will be adequate to meet our growing neeas "
Probably for this reason several endorse-
ments of comprehensive development were
made Descriptions were given of the proc-
ess of comprehensive planning as it is now
being carried on for the southeastern river
basins by the U S Study Commission, South-
east River Basins. Such development has
progressed systematically within a few river
basins, like the Columbia, the Colorado, the
Central Valley, and the Missouri Com-
pleted planning studies for comprehensive
development have been made in additional
basins as for the New England-New York
basins, and those of the Arkansas-White
River Basins In addition to the southeast-
ern river basins, studies are in progress for
Texas rivers and in the Delaware Basin
The progress of comprehensive develop-
ment is of substantial interest to those in-
[p. 12486]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
511
terested in pollution control It is basic to
any knowledge of the extent to which pollu-
tion control will be needed as a source oJ
water. Only through comprehensive plan-
ning can we obtain an estimate of tota
needs over a reasonable future period Only
through comprehensive planning can we ob-
tain an intelligent picture of alternative
sources to meet these needs At least two
speakers defined comprehensive develop-
ment in terms of plans which aim at ihe
maximum benefits for all purposes One
suggested that this be in terms of the
maximum contribution to gross national
product
There is more to comprehensive develop-
ment as it has been conceived by the
speakers than engineering and technical or-
ganization. A legal and administrative
structure which will permit the progress of
such development and management is a
question requiring serious attention Even
though comprehensive plans may be pro-
ceeding or have been finished for a number
of important river basins, the legal support
necessary to carry out comprehensive water
management to the fullest needs study and
attention. Our legal stiucture may or may
not be compatible with the needs of com-
prehensive development Thus the concept
of water quality rights was introduced by Ml"
Banks as almost certain to be a needed part
of the legal structure of the future In
many of our States we now have water
quantity rights, although not m all, but
water quality rights need denning and leg-
islative sanction
It appears inevitable that as water quality
deteriorates and interferes with established
uses of water, litigation regarding water qual-
ity will increase in frequency and magnitude
Water quality rights therefore will achieve
greater recognition and more precise defini-
tion.
In connection with these rights the ques-
tion of water quality standards arose Some
speakers stated quite emphatically that no
standards of water use could be applied to
the entire country, indeed, that each com-
munity, or each river reach, presents an in-
dividual problem in water quality standards
Others felt that this may be a somewhat
narrow interpretation of water quality cri-
teria. There are certain standards which can
be nationwide, indeed, universal Thus, our
knowledge of pathogens can tell us what will
make people ill anywhere, and permissible
levels of radioactivity will be the same any-
where. However, there are a number of
criteria which can be only locally or re-
gionally
Out of these and many other interesting
and significant statements which were made
in the course of Panel II sessions, the sub-
committee has developed a few recommen-
dations which it offeis to the Conference.
The Panel recommends the following
measures to facilitate the control of pollution
in the Nation's streams and underground
waters-
1 Comprehensive development
Planning for the comprehensive develop-
ment ot each major basin or water resource
area should be established as a fixed national
policy. By comprehensive development we
mean the application of integrated multiple-
purpose design, planning, and management
which include the joint consideration of
ground and surface waters, systematic con-
servation by water users, and the treatment,
and management of waters having substand-
ard quality. Consideration of every appio-
priate technique would be a routine part of
planning for such development.
Such planning, insofar as feasible, should
include consideiation of all important indus-
trial plant sites An early and important
objective should be a systematic program of
flow regulation State initiative toward com-
prehensive planning should be encouraged,
and participation by all major interests
should be encouraged The objective should
be one of eventually producing maximum
total benefits from all economic and social
uses.
2 Reservoir site acquisition1
Provision should be made, legally and
financially, for the identification and acqui-
sition at an early date of reservoir sites
needed in the execution of comprehensive
plans The mounting population, the spread
of settlement, and general intensification of
valley land use otherwise may make many
good sites totally unavailable or prohibitively
costly.
3 Water quality criteria:
Provision should be made within the Pub-
lic Health Service for developing the water
quality criteria which are suited to applica-
tion on a national basis However, many
water quality criteria are not uniformly ap-
plicable because of the effects of area usage
differences, stream characteristics, and other
factors State and local determinations of
some criteria also will have to be made. It is
recognized that periodic revision of these
criteria not only will be in order, but should
be sought, as new data are made available.
4 Water quality monitoring:
Enlargement and extension should be made
of the water quality monitoring programs
now in effect, so as to reveal more adequately
conditions, existing and future, in rivers and
streams We believe that the protection of
the public health and the preservation of
water supply sources for accepted beneficial
uses require such extension and enlargement
5. A national credo'
We recommend the adoption of a national
credo, to be given as wide and consistent
-------
512
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
publicity as is feasible The content of the
credo would be.
(a) Users of water do not have an inherent
right to pollute; (b) users of public waters
have a responsibility for returning them as
nearly clean as is technically possible, and
(c) prevention is just as important as con-
trol of pollution.
6 Basic research:
It should be regarded as an obligation on
the part of industry to undertake basic re-
search which will determine the biotic and
other effects influencing the public welfare
of the products they distribute This should
apply to detergents, insecticides, pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers, and other microchemi-
cals and microbiologicals, and to the effects
of metallic wastes such as compounds of
chromium and cyanide. Where the effects of
these or other health hazards or potential pub-
lic nuisances are not adequately treated
within industry, the Federal Government or
the States must provide for and budget such
research. Additional research of peculiar
public responsibility includes the effect and
interpretation of reducing anaerobes, nitrify-
ing bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and other biota,
and radiation hazards
7. Sediment and salinity control
The value of soil conservation, sediment
control, and salinity control as pollution
abatement measures should be recognized
through planning and budget in our National,
State, and local resource development pro-
grams. They should be considered as tools
to be applied in water development and man-
agement Pollution abatement is a problem
with roots in rural land use and agronomy, as
well as in urban congestion and industrial
growth.
(NOTE.—During the discussion following
the presentation of this report, questions were
raised concerning the implications of some
of these recommendations Although no
changes were made in the report by the
chairman, he explained the intent of the
recommendations in some detail. This ex-
planation will be included in the proceed-
ings of the conference )
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
(By Dr. Abel Wolman)
Panel III has as its principal objective a
comprehensive study of the various prob-
lems involved with "keeping water clean "
This broad subject included the responsibili-
ties of Government, industry, and the public
in controlling the rising volume of pollution
in the Nation's rivers and streams
In opening the session on the not-so-in-
nocent theme of "keeping water clean," the
panel chairman posed several questions as a
framework upon which the discussion might
evolve These questions were not intended to
cover all of the problems, but they were
designed to point up some of the issues which
are associated with the subject of keeping
water clean They are listed as follows
1 How clean should the Nation maintain
its rivers and streams, for what purpose, and
at what price9
2 What are the responsibilities of private
industry, as well as the local. State, and
Federal Governments in keeping water clean?
3 How can public sentiment be created
and maintained as part of the continuing
fight against water pollution1'
4 Who is to pay for the stepped-up pro-
gram against water pollution'
5. What are the inadequacies of various
water pollution control laws, and what
should be done to strengthen these laws'
The subcommittee, following the formal
panel session, pursued these questions at
considerable length in order to arrive at a
set of recommendations which would be ac-
ceptable to the varying points of view rep-
resented at the session.
Panel III developed a set of six broad
recommendations which spelled out the re-
sponsibilities of Government, industry, and
the public in keeping the Nation's rivers
and streams clean. These are as follows-
1 We recommend that the conference ex-
press its conviction that the goal of pollution
abatement is to protect and enhance the
capacity of the water resource to serve the
widest possible range of human needs, and
that this goal can be approached only by
accepting the positive policy of keeping
waters as clean as possible as opposed to
the negative policy of attempting to use the
full capacity of water for waste assimilation
2 Administration of water pollution con-
trol programs on State and interstate streams
should continue to be the responsibility of
the State agencies which therefore must be
supported by adequate budgets and staffed
by competent directors, engineers, scientists,
and related professional personnel. It is
essential that State legislatures appraise
more realistically their opportunities and
responsibilities in carrying out the principle
herein stated and are urged to take appro-
priate action where necessary.
3 The Federal Government has clear re-
sponsibilities in its working relationship
with State and local governments with re-
spect to research, leadership in personnel
training, regulatory procedures, water re-
sources inventories and investigations, and
standards of water quality.
No agreement was reached among the con-
ferees as to the extension of authority of
the Federal Government in the area of water
pollution control.
4. The Federal grants-in-aid program has
provided a valuable stimulus to the control of
stream pollution. Other methods of financing
construction of sewage and. waste treatment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
513
works deserve thorough study and investiga-
tion to determine the most appropriate means
available or which might.be made available
for sound and equitable
[p. 12487]
allocation of costs. Several other means of
financing were suggested in one or two
papers presented at the conference The
view of the Panel subcommittee was that
these should be listed and appraised without
any commitment on the part of the subcom-
mittee as to which, if any, should be recom-
mended. It did suggest that these and others
unnamed should be explored at some subse-
quent time:
(a) Incentive grants from Federal and
State appropriations;
(b) Guaranteed bonds;
(c) Revenue bonds;
(d) Marketing long-term revenue bonds
under a Federal system of guarantees such
as FHA-guaranteed mortgages or loans for
defense production purposes,
(e) The creation of a Water RFC or such
Federal finance agency to discount, purchase,
or collaterahze such bonds for loan pur-
poses; and
(f) The earmarking of specific taxes, no-
tably from Federal licensing of pleasure boats
and sale of fuel to all waterborne craft, for
water-pollution control purposes.
5 The Panel agreed that State statutes and
organizational structures for water-pollution
control should be reviewed and strengthened
or revised where necessary. The following
revisions were proposed in the suggested 1950
State Water Pollution Control Act as a guide
for State legislation in this field. The pro-
posals were, (a) Vast comprehensive author-
ity in the State water-pollution control
agency, which -would be given independent
status in its organizational placement in State
government; (b) insure construction of mu-
nicipal treatment facilities ordered by the
State agency by authorizing courts to direct
all necessary steps, including bond issues, tax
levies, and revenue charges, if required, (c)
authorize the establishment of sanitary dis-
tricts to deal with local pollution-control
problems beyond municipal limits
The Panel did not arrive at an agreement
on these proposals
6 There was general agreement that the
public needs more information on pollution
and its abatement Government agencies
and other informed individuals should make
every effort to present the facts in under-
standable form for use by individuals.
organizations, and the general media of com-
munication. Such material should include
factual information and suggested methods of
attack as have been discussed by the Con-
ference.
In making his report, the Chairman of
Panel III indicated that some members of
his Panel subcommittee suggested the rec-
ommendation No 1 originally proposed by
Panel III should be deleted, and that recom-
mendation No. 1 made by Panel I on this
same subject be substituted in its place. The
recommendation suggested for deletion read
as follows- "The national goal with respect u>
stream protection should be the safeguarding
of water quality Every stream should be
made to provide for the fullest range of uses
for the type of society served and consistent
with the variabilities within and among dif-
ferent basins "
It was suggested that Panel I's recom-
mendation should be amended to include the
concept of economic feasibility. The sub-
committee reported that although there was
no objection to including this concept in the
reccmmendation, the limited time available
did not permit agreement on the exact
phraseology and recommended returning to
the original proposal to delete Panel Ill's
version of recommendation No. 1 and to sub-
stitute that of Panel I.
The National Technical Task Committee
on Industrial Wastes further suggested that
recommendation No. 1 should be modified
to express the conviction of the Conference
that the control of pollution is intended:
(a) To protect and enhance the capacity
of the water resources to serve the widest
possible range of human needs, and
(b) That this goal can be approached only
by accepting the policy of keeping water
clean, consistent with the variabilities within
and among different river basins.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
(Dr. Gordon M. Fair)
The awareness of American public authori-
ties to water pollution reaches back no more
than the Biblical span of man's life Then
toward the end of the 19th century, as to-
day also, it was the growing urbanization and
industrialization of the Nation that forced
the attention of the public to the need "for
protecting the purity of inland waters "
Then, as today again, it was recognized that
the problems of water pollution were so com-
plex, so varied, and so many that existing
knowledge was not enough for their solution,
that existing knowledge would have to be ex-
panded in pace with the quickening water
requirements of the country, and that only
by the synthesis of a great variety of subjects
"requiring for its achievement the organic
cooperation of specialists under inspiring
leadership," would satisfactory progress be
attained Then, as today, therefore, it was
realized that investigators were wanted to
carry on the necessary research, that money
and facilities weie essential to the success
of a research program, and that men were
wanted, too, for leadership in reducing the
-------
514
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
discoveries of the laboratory to practice.
First, the State and, later, the Federal
Government were asked to conduct funda-
mental and applied research in laboratory
and field on the relation of water pollution
to the development of water resources for
municipal and industrial uses, and on the
sanitation of water supplies for the preven-
tion of enteric disease.
The achievements of the generation that
accepted that challenge were magnificent;
so great were they, indeed, that by the end
of the first third of the 20th century, the
machinery of public water control could set-
tle down into the grooves of, more or less,
complacent routine. Then came "the great
leap forward" in population, and in science
and industry. Faster than seemed believ-
able, the industrial revolution of our age in-
tensified the competition for water and, at
the same time, its degradation by ever-
growing and ever-varying pollutants, rang-
ing from thermal factors through inorganic
substances to organics of such construction
that they cannot be metabolized by the
scavenging hosts of micro-organisms.
Parenthetically, it is these biological work-
men to which we look for returning our
lakes, streams, and tidal estuaries to natural
cleanliness by themselves, or for removing
even the most fractious substances com-
mitted to water by household or factory, in
treatment works constructed so as to provide
the most favorable environment for the oper-
ations of these beneficent micro-organisms.
MORE SPECIALISTS NEEDED
Once again, therefore, we are confronted
by great changes; changes that demand of us
the concurrent creation in adequate num-
bers of specialists and leaders and stimula-
tion of research, that through analysis,
synthesis, and reduction to practice will de-
velop the technological support of pollution
control that is promising of success today.
To provide the sophistication necessary for
a successful discussion of resources, research,
and training for water pollution control in
our times, the roster of specialists that was
attached to Panel IV included not only engi-
neers, but biologists and chemists, physiolo-
gists and toxicologists and economists and
political scientists and, according to Dr Gil-
bert White, we may have missed the boat
by not including geographers and anthro-
pologists—not only figures from universities
and Government agencies, but also leaders
in industry and men of affairs.
It follows that a very wide spectrum of
talent considered the problems that we face
in research and training for water pollution
control and brings its report to this meeting
The outlook for research is most promising
because there has been a revolution in sci-
ence as well as a scientific revolution. To
draw a distinction between these two con-
cepts that, otherwise, would seem to be
identities, it should be explained that the
scientific revolution has brought us new prod-
ucts and capabilities that are changing our
mode of life and our environment, whereas
the revolution in science is unifying the sci-
entific disciplines and making it possible for
scientists to understand one another's prob-
lems and to cooperate in their solution in
radically new ways.
A striking example of the scientific revolu-
tion, as Prof. A. E. Kennelly, whose name is
attached to the Kennelly-Heaviside layer,
now generally called the ionosphere, used to
suggest, is the fact that we can send a mes-
sage around the globe in the time it took for
the cry "land ahead" of the lookout on Co-
lumbus' ship the Ptnta to reach the helms-
man's ear.
BEVOIAJTION IN SCIENCE
To exemplify the revolution in science,
we need merely to attempt to define the
boundaries between the formerly well es-
tablished compartments of science, labeled
physics, chemistry, and biology. Today we
find it largely impossible to answer a ques-
tion such as, "Where does physics stop and
chemical physics begin?" Or, to continue,
where shall we draw the line between chemi-
cal physics and physical chemistry; be-
tween physical chemistry and chemistry;
between chemistry and biological chemistry;
between biological chemistry and chemical
biology; between chemical biology and
biology; between biology and physical biol-
ogy; between physical biology and biological
physics; and, to come full circle, between
biological physics and physics?
The destruction of the barriers between
the sciences, not by interdisciplinary or
cross-disciplinary cooperation, but by the
fusion of the disciplines themselves, is illus-
trated by the report that a Nobel Prize winner
in physics plans to direct his future work
into biology. Such indeed is the nature of
the revolution that is taking place in science
itself. In a sense, therefore, we have become,
as a group, like medieval man who as a nat-
ural philosopher aimed at the mastery of all
human knowledge.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
Because of this great change in science,
we can look forward with assurance to the
solution of almost any problem. Among
our least realized capabilities, it should be
noted, is the utilization of developing
mathematical concepts. Whereas the time-
lag between the discovery of scientific
principles and their utilization has been nar-
rowed progressively, the backlog of mathe-
matical ideas has continued to mount. The
promise of progress, therefore, remains
great.
But let me turn to the specific report of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
515
the findings and recommendations of Pane
IV.
The Panel, as you will see from the re
port itself, brings in certain recommenda^
tions and supports these by certain factua
material. Since I do not have the time to
read the entire report, I shall confine myself
to reading the recommendations of the Pane
and indicating, insofar as time allows, the
nature of some of the supporting statements
Our first recommendation is related to
the flow of engineers and scientists.
1. The flow of engineers and scientists
who are competent to advance and admin-
ister the scientific, technological, and eco-
nomic conservation of our water resources,
including, in particular, the control of water
[p. 12488]
pollution, must be increased promptly by
recruitment and training of basically quali-
fied personnel at two levels: (a) the profes-
sional or predoctorate level; and (b) the
postdoctorate level.
Now, the reasons for this are that we do
not have enough engineers. We do not have
enough men in the chemical, physical, and
biological sciences to deal with the problems
that we face. We must reach over into al-
ready established scientific disciplines and
entice individuals to come over into our
field; very much as Dr. Glazer is being en-
ticed by his own interests into the field of
biology, we need to bring people from chem-
istry and biology and the social sciences and
mathematics into our particular area.
There are about 5,500 practicing sanitary
engineers of whom about two-thirds (3,700)
are engaged in the development and control
of water resources. It is estimated that
about 280 newly trained men are needed
yearly to maintain present strength. This
estimate is based on an assumed 5-percent
loss per annum by retirement, death, or
defection. About 100 additional men are
needed annually to keep pace with the re-
quirements of population growth, and 350
are wanted as soon as possible to insure the
accomplishment of urgently required tech-
nological advances. This implies doubling
the professional population in 12 years and
doing this in the face of growing competi-
tion for prospective scientific talent.
Work in this field demands, for the most
part, training to the masters and doctorate
levels. The current annual output of sani-
tay engineers is about 300, of whom only
about 130 have earned a master's degree and
fewer than 10 a doctorate. About 25 per-
cent of these advanced students are trainees
from foreign countries, leaving about 100
with significant education in depth for em-
ployment in the sanitary engineering fields
in the United States. Obviously, this is i.oo
few even for current operations.
The universities of the Nation award 60,000
master's degrees per year. Of these, 5,400
are in engineering and 17,000 in the physical
and biological sciences. Sanitary engineer-
ing is losing out badly in competition for
professional talent, therefore. At the doc-
torate level the situation is even more dis-
turbing. Of the 300-odd doctorates awarded
annually in science and engineering, less
than 10 percent have been in sanitary engi-
neering.
Data are lacking on the existing numbers
of qualified chemists, biologists, economists,
and political scientists in the area of water
resource development and conservation.
However, both quantitative and qualitative
estimates point to deficiencies that are at
least proportional to, if not greater than,
those in the engineering group.
The manpower needs for research are par-
ticularly acute. If research is expanded to
an estimated requirement of $20 million by
1970 and if $20,000 will sustain 1 investigator
for 1 year, about 1,000 investigators will have
to work in this field. If 40 percent of these
are to be engineers and 60 percent basic
scientists, educational institutions will have to
produce 400 sanitary engineers and 600 basic
scientists with academic training that quali-
fies them for research. The current output
of only 6 to 10 doctorates in all branches of
sanitary engineering is far short of meeting
the need, and the competition for basic .scien-
tists is so great that a determined effort must
be made to recruit needed numbers of re-
search leaders in the respective fields related
to water quality control.
2. The capability of graduate schools or
university departments of engineering and
public health to produce a sufficient number
of engineers and scientists who are able to
deal effectively with the mounting problems
of water resource control must be enlarged
by support of staff, student body, and teach-
ing and research facilities, as well as by
grants-in-aid of research Interdisciplinary
research should be encouraged in particular.
Because the use of personnel and the appli-
cation of research lie in the public domain,
the Federal Government must be expected to
assume a substantial portion of the required
financial burden.
A solid look at our graduate schools shows
that they are not too well prepared for such
a load The capacity of 45 schools surveyed
at different times including a series of
direct interviews at 23 institutions shows
-he following" 68 schools report the avail-
ability of graduate training in sanitary engi-
neering. Of these, 36 offer training beyond
he M S degree Only 15 have averaged 3
r more M S and Ph D. degrees per year
inee 1954 An additional 17 have averaged at
east 1 but less than 3 per year. Eighteen of
he schools have not granted any such degrees
-------
516
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
during this entire period. This is neither a
balanced nor an efficient organization in a
nationally vital area.
The following deficiencies in capacity for
research and training are estimated to exist-
(a) A 38-percent increase in teaching
staff, and operation at optimum level of en-
rollment, will provide less than half the ex-
pected annual requirements for personnel
trained at the graduate level.
(b) The expectations of an increased re-
quirement of nearly twice the present re-
search activity is dependent upon acquiring
both the added personnel for teaching and
the full-time research staff, or a total staff
of 144.
(c) To provide the desired capacity for
training and research will necessitate the
addition of nearly 500 qualified persons for
teaching and research.
Corresponding increases in research funds
and facilities are required to sustain needed
investigators and to provide them with tech-
nical support and equipment. Only a small
fraction of the Public Health Service funds
devoted to medical research is going into re-
search for water supply and water pollution
control—currently less than 1 percent A
committee of Congress has estimated that
the national support of needed research
could and should increase to about $3 billion
by 1970, and that the Federal Government
should expect to contribute about two-thirds
of this amount. If we apply the same
growth factor to research in water supply
and water pollution control, we arrive at a
natiinal research budget of about $15 mil-
lion, a major part of which would have to be
financed by the Federal Government.
3. The flow of research findings on the
water environment must be increased and
intensified in depth as well as breadth.
Fundamental research is needed in many
aspects of water pollution control includ-
ing determination of the limits to which re-
ceiving bodies of water and biological as well
as other treatment units can be safely loaded
for the disposal of increasingly complex
waste materials; identification of the role
of water as a carrier of viral diseases, such as
infectious hepatitis; and studies of long-
range chronic effects of trace contaminants
in water.
We need to increase our research effort on
the behavior and fate of newly introduced
organic contaminants; and newly recognized
viruses. We need to develop more effective
means of removing pollutants from water in
municipal and industrial water treatment
plants, more effective process controls of in-
dustrial waste discharges; better recovery or
utilization of industrial process wastes, and
more sophisticated industrial waste treatment
processes.
Water supply and pollution trends show
that one of the most pressing problems in
water quality management is the develop-
ment of new treatment processes that will
remove more of the contamination from
municipal waste waters than present meth-
ods are able to do. Currently, large quanti-
ties of water must be made available to
dilute and transport the residual wastes
after treatment. When this water is not
available, serious pollution hazards may re-
sult.
To discover and develop the required tech-
nologies will demand a major coordinated re-
search program utilizing the best minds in
the country and attracting physicists, physi-
cal, organic and biochemists, toxicologists,
hydrologists, economists, geographers, and
anthropologists who have not up to now been
seriously engaged in water pollution research.
4. The flow of treatment-plant operating
personnel as well as engineers and scientists
working the wider field of water supply and
water pollution control must be increased
and their training broadened.
Two types of training are generally avail-
able' First, in-plant training of operating
personnel for water and waste-water treat-
ment works This should be a requirement
of all municipal sewage treatment works,
particularly of those benefiting from Fed-
eral aid. Second, academic training of such
personnel This is available largely through
short-course programs and conferences in
universities and colleges. This training is
most desirable. However, the means and re-
sources are quite limited in comparison with
the number of technicians that will be re-
quired within the next 15 years for pollu-
tion control purposes.
5. The field of water supply and pollution
control has become so complex that we must
think more generally than in the past, of a
multidisciplinary approach to the solution
of developing problems This implies the
introduction of representatives of many dis-
ciplines including economists and political
scientists, as well as applied mathematicians
and physicists to this field and the creation
of requisite institutes or centers for environ-
mental health research at which needed per-
sonnel can be brought together.
Rapid changes and increasing complexity
characterize our social and industrial growth.
Research for the solution of today's prob-
lems calls for the group attention of scien-
tists from the physical and biological
sciences, sanitary engineering, applied math-
ematics and physics, and economics and po-
litical science The making of headway is
hampered by lack of communication with
representatives of these areas Unless a
challenging program can be developed to
encourage increased multidisciplinary atten-
tion to research in this area, we must be
apprehensive of our ability to cope with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
517
environmental health problems that the
technological advancements of the next sev-
eral decades promise to bring
Sample problems are: operations research
or systems analysis of water resources de-
velopments including water quality control,
integration of water purification and waste-
treatment processes for maximum efficiency
and economy, instrumentation for in situ,
wide-scale, and longitudinal identification
of pollution hazards and their control or
prevention; automation of sampling and
analysis of data, automatic computei con-
trol of treatment operations and warning
systems for special hazards; and advanced
methods of separation or destruction of
solids in water There are many others of
like complexity and challenge that can be
envisaged as lying before both in the im-
mediate and more distant future
6. The total national support for research
in water supply and water pollution control
should be increased substantially.
In research, funds and facilities are needed
to sustain investigators and to provide them
with technical support and equipment
Only a small fraction of the Public Health
Service funds devoted to medical research is
being applied to research in water supply
and water pollution control—currently less
[p. 12489]
than 1 percent. A committee of Congress
has estimated that the national support of
needed research in all fields of science and
engineering could and should increase to
about $3 billion by 1970. and that the Fed-
eral Government should expect to contrib-
ute about two-thirds of this amount If we
apply the same growth factor to water supply
and pollution control, we arrive at a national
research budget of about $15 million, a major
part of which will have to be provided by the
Federal Government
(NOTE—During the discussion that fol-
lowed this report, it was suggested that a
statement be included favoring the estab-
lishment of four Public Health Service re-
gional laboratories for stream monitoring
and applied research work As an alterna-
tive it was suggested that laboratories be
established at carefully selected universities
The chairman concurred in this suggestion )
FEDERAL ROLE IN POLLUTION CONTROL
(By Hon Arthur S. Flemming. Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare)
I am happy to have the opportunity of
participating in the first National Conference
of Water Pollution
I am delighted that through this confer-
ence those who are interested in the ad-
vancement of fundamental and practical
knowledge in this area and those who are
interested in promoting action programs
have had the opportunity of getting together
under the auspices of the Federal Govern-
ment
As a result of the short but intensive edu-
cation that I have had in this area over a
period of the last 2'2 years, I am convinced
that action on many fronts is one of our
Nation's most pressing needs
I can assure you, however, that I will con-
sider all of the conference recommendations
addressed to the Federal Government, and
if it is possible for me to take future action
designed to strengthen the role of the Federal
Government in this area I will do so.
In addition, I believe that as a result of
the privilege I have had of serving in this
office, I will have an obligation as a private
citizen to do everything I can to urge support
for programs that are designed to strengthen
the role of the Federal Government in this
area.
In this closing address, therefore, I am
going to identify the steps that, if taken, will
enable the Federal Government to play the
role it should play in dealing with the major
national problem of water pollution
Before, however, identifying some things
that I believe should be done, I want to speak
first of all about some of the things that
should not be done, I refer to the proposal
that some have made to transfer responsibil-
ity for the Federal Government's programs in
the water pollution area from the U S Public
Health Service
I believe that such a move would result
in progress in this area being retarded rather
than accelerated Here are my reasons'
The Public Health Service over the years
has recruited and trained for service in this
area a group of unusually competent and
dedicated public servants.
The work of these men in the water pollu-
tion area has been integrated with the total
program of the Public Health Service in such
a manner as to enable them to draw on re-
sources that could not possibly be duplicated
at any other point in the Federal Government.
The men who have moved to top leadership
in the Public Health Service recognize that
crusading for clean streams is one of their
major responsibilities. This is reflected in
the way in which they press both within the
executive branch and on Capitol Hill for ad-
ditional resources to discharge this responsi-
bility more effectively.
The career civil servants who play such an
important role in the conduct of all of Lhe
programs for which the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare has responsibility
lecognize that the water pollution control area
provides the Department with a unique op-
portunity for constructive service
There is no question in my mind but that
future officials who are placed in top political
positions in the Department will also propose
-------
518
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and support programs of action in this area
Now I want to identify what I am going to
work for in an effort to make the Federal
Government a more effective partner with
the States, municipalities, and private organi-
zations in the crusade to clean up the streams
of the Nation.
I believe that the Federal Government
should continue to make available additional
resources to the Public Health Service for Lhe
collection and dissemination of such informa-
tion. The Federal Government's opportunity
for leadership in this area is virtually un-
bounded. This leadership will rest on a solid
foundation only if the Public Health Service
is provided with the resources that it needs
to bring together the facts on which action
by government at all levels and by private
groups can be based.
I believe that the Federal Government
should continue to make available additional
resources for the conduct of research pro-
grams by its own personnel and for making
grants for research and training projects and
demonstrations to public and private agencies
The investment that has been made to date
in this area has produced significant results.
It is impossible to develop sound action pro-
grams to deal with many of the problems in
this area because we have not yet, through
research, identified the type of action pro-
gram that will produce results. It is clear,
therefore, that unless we do increase the re-
sources that are available for research in this
area, we are being pennywise and pound
foolish.
I believe that the Federal Government can
very appropriately make additional resources
available for giving technical assistance to
State and interstate agencies In transmitting
a communication to the Congress last spring,
I included in it this statement:
"With the improved State programs that
have been strengthened by Federal program
grants, it has been possible for the Public
Health Service to put more of its resources
into the larger problems requiring assistance."
This statement, it seems to me, points up
the fact that if we are willing to do more than
pay lipservice to the idea of State participa-
tion in these programs, we can get results.
I believe that the authority which expires
on June 30, 1961, to make grants to State and
interstate agencies to assist them in meeting
costs of establishing and maintaining ade-
quate water pollution prevention and control
programs should be extended for another 5
years. Furthermore, I believe that the annual
appropriation authorization should be in-
creased from $3 million to' $5 million. Here
again the Federal Government is provided
with the opportunity of stimulating action at
the State and interstate level which, if suc-
cessful, will make unnecessary Federal in-
volvement in direct operating programs in
this area.
I believe that the program under which the
Federal Government has made grants avail-
able to localities to pay part 01 me cosi of
constructing municipal sewage treatment
works has been a very successful program.
I am impressed with the fact that during the
period that this program has been operating,
for every Federal dollar that has been spent,
our municipalities have spent almost five.
I believe that there should be an expansion
of the activities of the Public Health Service
in the area of developing comprehensive plans
for water pollution control by major water
drainage basins. These plans must, of course,
be developed in cooperation with State
and interstate agencies, municipalities, and
industry.
I firmly believe in the role of the interstate
compact in dealing with this problem. I be-
lieve the Federal Government should con-
tinue to encourage and to lend assistance in
the development of these compacts.
I believe that steps should be taken to pro-
vide for more effective prevention and con-
trol of water pollution caused by Federal
installations. A step can be taken in this di-
rection by amending the enforcement section
of the Water Pollution Control Act so as to
provide that findings and recommendations of
the hearing boards set up under the act shall
include specific recommendations relative to
discharges from Federal property.
I believe that the role of the Federal Gov-
ernment in abating pollution of interstate
waters should be strengthened.
The enforcement procedures now included
in the Water Pollution Control Act provide
a mechanism for bringing into play the com-
bined strengths of State water pollution con-
trol agencies, interstate agencies, and the
Federal Government.
These procedures, however, are now au-
thorized only for cases of pollution which
are damaging to health or welfare of persons
in a state other than a state or origin. I be-
lieve that these procedures should be made
available also whenever there is pollution
affecting legitimate uses of the waters of any
navigable interstate stream, whether or not
there is interstate pollution.
I also believe that the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act should provide a mechanism for Lhe
initiation of enforcement procedures by a
municipality adversely affected by water pol-
lution I also believe, however, that this ave-
nue for remedial action should be limited to
situations in which the Governor or State
water pollution control agency has concurred
in the municipality's request.
Likewise on the basis of my experience, I
believe the Congress should clarify and
strengthen the role of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare in the enforcement
process by providing that the findings and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
519
recommendations of the hearing boards shall
be the Secretary's findings and recommenda-
tions except to the extent modified by him
and providing for issuance of an order (in-
stead of a notice) by him for abatement of
any pollution found to exist. Parties of in-
terest should be provided with the opportu-
nity of appealing the order of the secretary to
the U S court of appeals
Finally, I believe that the definition of "in-
terstate waters" in the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act should be amended so as to include
all waters which flow across or form a part
of State boundaries Coastal waters would
be specifically included within this definition
In conclusion, I have been tremendously
impressed by the team spirit that has been
and is being displayed by all who are related
to this major national problem I do not
think that there is any real argument over
objectives From time to time disputes arise
as to the factual situation that confronts us
and as to the best methods to follow in order
to achieve our objectives.
My experience with the enforcement pro-
visions of the Water Pollution Control Act
convinces me that once a competent and re-
spected body has provided interested parties
with findings of fact and recommendations
based on these facts, they are willing to go
ahead and carry out the recommendations
INDUSTRY IS COMPLYING
As far as I can recall, there is not a single
instance where industry has failed to move
[p. 12490]
in the direction of complying with the rec-
ommendations of these hearing boards
Likewise, governmental bodies have shown
a willingness to comply with these recom-
mendations.
There is one exception to this generaliza-
tion, namely, St. Joseph, Mo , which is now
being followed up in the courts
Contrasted with this one situation, however,
is the fact that voters went to the polls in
November and approved bond issues totaling
over $100 million for the construction of
facilities which are needed in order to carry
out the recommendations of these hearing
boards.
The response that we have received as a
result of action taken under the enforcement
section is, in my judgment, a reflection of
an increasing determination on the part of
the people of this Nation to clean up our
streams and waterways.
By your presence and by your participa-
tion in the conference, you have made a ma-
jor contribution to the achievement of this
objective.
I look forward to the opportunity of con-
tinuing to work with you I am confident
that, working together, we are going to get
results.
CONFERENCE SUMMARIZATION
(By Stuart Finley, documentary film
producer)
During this conference you have received
about 250,000 words of prepared texts. They
have been thrown at you in the individual
panel sessions, and here in the main hall.
When you get home, your associates, of
course, are going to walk up to you and ask,
"What happened?"
And I wonder how many of you have one
succinct sentence that will describe what ihe
lead story here is I daresay that most of
you have not analyzed it that thoroughly yet,
and the process of assimilation certainly is
going to take a while.
Permit me to summarize what I have seen
and heard and read here. The measure of
success of this conference, as I see it, will be
the degree to which what was said here influ-
ences your work in the coming years I might
add parenthetically that the Air Pollution
Conference of a couple of years ago was talky,
inconclusive, nonspecific, and yet many con-
crete activities of great value, stimulated by
the public concern generated there, can be
traced directly back to that meeting
This National Conference on Water Pollu-
tion has developed 30 recommendations
Many of these were predictable in advance.
As you came here, you expected unani-
mous consent that pollution is bad and pre-
cisely this happened Dr Burney called it
"a national disgrace" Mr. Lynch, of the
Milwaukee Journal, called it a "galloping
national disease " Mr. Fox, of Resources for
the Future, Inc , put it realistically, when he
said, "The word 'pollution' connotes evil;
therefore it must be opposed "
But disagreement comes on this point.
How bad is bad' How evil is evil' or, as Mr.
Gill put it, "How clean is clean?"
On this question there is a tremendous range
of opinion, some of which was audible in
quotations like these, for example from
Panel II:
"We recommend the adoption of a national
credo, to be given as wide and consistent pub-
licity as is feasible The content of the credo
would be: (1) users of water do not have an
inherent right to pollute; (2) users of public
waters have a responsibility for returning
them as nearly as clean as is technically pos-
sible; and (3) prevention is just as important
as control of pollution."
Panels I and II came up with another, even
more positive synthesis. "We recommend
that the Conference express its conviction that
the goal of pollution abatement is to protect
and enhance the capacity of the water re-
source to serve the widest possible range of
human needs, and that this goal can be ap-
proached only by accepting the positive pol-
icy of keeping waters as clean as possible, as
opposed to the negative policy of attempting
-------
520
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to use the full capacity of water for waste
assimilation."
In sum, then, it would seem that we must
amend our first area of agreement somewhat.
The National Conference on Water Pollution
is not unanimously against all pollution But
the accent should be on the positive—keep
streams as clean as possible, rather than
working them to death digesting wastes.
There was, of course, another view as ex-
pressed by Leonard Pasek: "To a very sub-
stantial extent, American industry—and
thereby our economy—has been built upon
the base of that valuable asset, the ability
of our great waterways to dilute, assimilate,
and carry away industrial wastes."
Another question considered is "How well
are we doing?" The answers brought out an-
other range of opinion—"Corrective action is
not keeping pace with the problem," and,
"In the last few decades industry for the most
part has not only assumed its responsibility
in the conservation and safekeeping of water
supplies, but has done so at a faster rate than
municipalities."
At the banquet on the evening of the first
day's session you heard each of the four
Members of Congress outline their proposals
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act.
With all of the words uttered at this con-
ference, it is important to understand that
the recommendations drawn up must neces-
sarily be tentative. This is a political fact
of life at the beginning of a new administra-
tion It is also an economic fact of life in
a society in which the equations are con-
stantly changing, being rebalanced
While there are sharp divergent views on
the methodology for accomplishing water-
pollution control, you stand agreed that it
is a matter of vast and urgent concern. You
stand agreed that the Federal Government,
interstate agencies, municipalities, industries,
and the general public must augment their
present efforts, separately and jointly. You
stand agreed, I think, that there is work
enough for all and glory enough for all.
As you go back to your jobs, I hope it will
be with a sense of urgency, and perhaps with
a desire to change the question "Who's in
charge?" to "How can we work together?"
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONFERENCE
1 That the Conference express its convic-
tion that the goal of pollution abatement is
to protect and enhance the capacity of the
water resource to serve the widest possible
range of human needs, and that this goal
can be approached only by accepting the
positive policy of keeping waters as clean as
possible, as opposed to the negative policy
of attempting to use the full capacity of
water for waste assimilation.
2. The adoption of a national credo, to be
given as wide and consistent publicity as is
feasible. The content of the credo would be:
(a) Users of water do not have an inherent
right to pollute; (b) users of public waters
have a responsibility for returning them as
nearly clean as is technically possible; and
(c) prevention is just as important as control
of pollution.
3 There is need for a more systematic ap-
proach to the evaluation of the water pollu-
tion problems, to include health, esthetic, and
market values. A framework for analysis
must be developed which will provide a rela-
tively precise understanding of benefit-cost
and which will form the basis for the design
of public policies and programs for effective
water quality management.
4 Planning for the comprehensive devel-
opment of each major basin or water resource
area should be established as a fixed national
policy. By comprehensive development we
mean the application of integrated multiple-
purpose design, planning, and management
which include the joint consideration of
ground and surface waters, systematic con-
servation by water users, and the treatment
and management of waters having substand-
ard quality. Consideration of every appro-
priate technique would be a routine part of
planning for such development.
Such planning, insofar as feasible, should
include consideration of all important indus-
trial plant sites. An early and important ob-
jective should be a systematic program of
flow regulation. State initiative toward com-
prehensive planning should be encouraged,
and participation by all major interests
should be encouraged. The objective should
be one of eventually producing maximum
total benefits from all economic and social
uses.
5 Provision should be made, legally and
financially, for the identification and acqui-
sition at an early date of leservoir sites
needed in the execution of comprehensive
plans The mounting population, the spread
of settlement, and general intensification of
valley land use otherwise may make many
good sites totally unavailable or prohibitively
costly
6. The value of soil conservation, sedi-
ment control, and salinity control as pollution
abatement measures should be recognized
through planning and budget in our National,
State, and local resource development pro-
grams. They should be considered as tools
to be applied in water development and man-
agement. Pollution abatement is a problem
with roots in rural land use and agronomy, as
well as in urban congestion and industrial
growth.
7 That public policy formally recognize
the recreation value of our water resources
as a full partner with domestic, industrial,
and agricultural values in water quality,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
521
management policies and programs
8. Administration of water pollution con-
trol programs on State and interstate streams
should continue to be the responsibility of
the State agencies which therefoie must be
supported by adequate budgets and staffed
by competent directors, engineers, scientists,
and related professional personnel It is es-
sential that State legislatures appiaise more
realistically their opportunities and responsi-
bilities in carrying out the principle herein
stated and are urged to take appropriate ac-
tion where necessary.
9 The administrative level of the water
supply and water pollution control activities
in the Public Health Service and in the States
should be commensurate with the importance
of thjs problem
10 That State statutes and oiganizational
structuies. for water pollution control should
be reviewed and strengthened 01 revised
where necessary The following revisions
were proposed in the suggested 1950 State
Water Pollution Control Act as a guide for
State legislation in this field The pioposals
weie:
(a) Vest comprehensive authority in the
State water pollution control agency, which
would be given independent status in its or-
ganizational placement in State government;
(b) Insure construction of municipal treat-
ment facilities ordered by the State agency
by authorizing courts to direct all necessary
steps, including bond issues, tax levies, and
revenue charges if required,
(c) Authoiize the establishment of sanitary
districts to deal with local pollution control
problems beyond municipal limits
Panel III did not amve at an agreement on
these proposals
11 The Federal Government has clear re-
sponsibilities in its working relationships
with State and local governments with re-
spect to research, leadership in personnel
[p. 12491]
training, regulatory procedures, water re-
sources inventories and investigations, and
standards of water quality.
No agreement was reached among the con-
ferees as to extension of authority of the
Federal Government in the area of water
pollution control
12 That appropriate public and private
agencies mount and sustain an expanded pio-
gram of public information to the end that
enlightened public opinion can be brought
to bear on the accomplishments, costs, needs,
opportunities, and problems involved in water
quality management, noting that this confer-
ence should provide a dramatic opportunity
to launch such a program. '
13. There was general agreement that the
public needs more information on pollution i
and its abatement. Government agencies '
and other informed individuals should make
every effort to present the facts m under-
standable form foi use by individuals, or-
ganizations, and the general media of com-
munication. Such material should include
factual information and suggested methods
of attack as have been discussed by the
Conference
14 The Federal grants-in-aid program has
provided a valuable stimulus to the control
of stream pollution Other methods of
financing construction of sewage and waste
treatment works deserve thorough study and
investigation to determine the most appro-
priate means available or which might be
made available for sound and equitable allo-
cation of costs Several other means of
financing were suggested in one 01 two papers
presented at the conference The view of the
Panel Subcommittee was that these should
be listed and appraised without any commit-
ment on the part of the subcommittee as to
which, if any, should be recommended It
did suggest that these and others unnamed
should be explored at some subsequent time
(a) Incentive grants from Federal and
State appropriations;
(b) Guaranteed bonds;
(c) Revenue bonds;
< d) Marketing long-term revenue bonds
under a Federal system of guarantees such
as FHA-guaranteed mortgages or loans for
defense production purposes;
(e) The creation of "Water RFC" or such
Federal finance agency to discount, purchase,
or collateralize such bonds for loan purposes,
and
(f) The earmarking of specific taxes, nota-
bly from Federal licensing of pleasure boats
and sale of fuel to all water-borne craft, for
water pollution control purposes.
15 The cons tiuct ion of municipal waste
treatment facilities should be expanded im-
mediately with continued increases to keep
up with population growth and to abate the
backlog of pollution by 1970 A similar pro-
gram expansion should be applied to the
wastes from industry
16. That financial incentive should be pro-
vided to encourage industry to install needed
waste treatment facilities This may be ac-
complished by peirmtting industiy, for cor-
porate income tax purposes, to charge the
cost of nonproductive waste water treatment
facilities as expense
17 Each Federal installation should be re-
quired by Congress to treat its wastes in ac-
cordance with the standards for cities and
industries in the area, with 1964 set as the
target date for providing minimum treatment.
18 Enlargement and extension should be
made of the water quality monitoring pro-
:rams now in effect, so as to reveal more
adequately conditions, existing and future,
in rivers and streams. We believe that the
-------
522
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
protection of the public health and the pres-
ervation of water supply sources for ac-
cepted beneficial uses require such extension
and enlargement
19. In order to facilitate assessment of the
total pollution problem, it is recommended
that particular attention be given to acceler-
ating the collection of information on indus-
trial waste loading The Public Health
Service should coordinate collection of this
information on the national level.
20 States should develop water monitoring
programs for bacteriological, biological, chem-
ical, physical, and radiological quality. This
work should be coordinated with the efforts
of an expanded National Water Quality Net-
work of the Public Health Service. More
data should be collected on the condition of
streams both before and after water pollution
abatement
21. Provision should be made within the
Public Health Service for developing the
water quality criteria which are suited to
application on a national basis. However,
many water quality criteria are not uniformly
applicable because of the effects of area usage
differences, stream characteristics and other
factors. State and local determinations of
some criteria also will have to be made It
is recognized that periodic revision of these
criteria not only will be in order, but should
be sought, as new data are made available
22 That the Public Health Service assume
leadership, in collaboration with other public
and private agencies, in collecting, compiling,
and publshing pertinent data on the toxicity
of water contaminants. This should include
criteria, standards, methods of testing, and
safe allowable concentrations for human con-
sumption, also that efforts be made to stimu-
late toxicological and epidemiological studies
to be made to determine long- and short-
range effects.
23. The total national support for research
in water supply and water pollution control
should be increased substantially
24. The flow of research findings on the
water environment must be increased and
intensified in depth as well as breadth.
25. That improved methods be developed
for measuring pollution abatement progress
New engineering parameters which encom-
pass all pollution components, as well as
yardsticks for measurement of stream quality,
are critically needed
26. It should be regarded as an obligation
on the part of industry to undertake basic
research which will determine the biotic and
other effects influencing the public welfare
of the products they distribute. This should
apply to detergents, insecticides, pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers, and other microchem-
cals and microbiologicals, and to the effects
of metallic wastes such as compounds of
chromium and cyanide. Where the effects of
these or other health hazards or potential
public nuisances are not adequately treated
within industry, the Federal Government or
the States must provide for and budget such
research Additional research of peculiar
public responsibility includes the effect and
interpretation of reducing anaerobes, nitri-
fying bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and other
biota, and radiation hazards
27 The flow of engineers and scientists
who are competent to advance and administer
the scientific, technological, and economic
conservation of our water resources, includ-
ing, in particular, the control of water pollu-
tion, must be increased promptly by recruit-
ment and training of basically qualified per-
sonnel at two levels (a) the professional or
predoctorate level, and (b) the postdoctorate
level
28 The field of water supply and pollution
control has become so complex that we must
think more generally than in the past of a
multidisciplmary approach to the solution
of developing problems This implies the
introducton of representatives of many dis-
ciplines including economists and political
scientists, as well as applied mathematicians
and physicists to this field and the creation
of requisite institutes or centers for environ-
mental health research at which needed per-
sonnel can be brought together.
29. The capability of graduate schools or
university departments of engineering and
public health to produce a sufficient number
of engineers and scientists who are able to
deal effectively with the mounting problems
of ~\valer resource control must be enlarged
by support of staff, student body, and teach-
ing and resource facilities, as well as by
grants-in-aid of research Interdisciplinary
research should be encouraged in particular.
Because the use of personnel and the appli-
cation of research lie in the public domain,
the Federal Government must be expected
to assume a substantial portion of the re-
quired financial burden.
30 The flow of treatment-plant operating
personnel as well as engineers and scientists
working in the wider field of water supply
and water pollution control must be in-
creased and their training broadened.
CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE
This group was composed of highly quali-
fied individuals representing municipal, State,
interstate, industrial, civic, labor and women's
organizations, and other citizens' groups hav-
ing an interest in the water pollution prob-
lem
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, to-
day we are considering H.R. 6441, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
523
Control Act to provide for a more effec-
tive program of water pollution control.
That title to this act is appropriate
and if it actually would do what the title
indicates no one could really conscien-
tiously oppose this bill, if he really
served the public interest.
But I, as a Congressman, would be re-
miss in my duty if I did not take the
time to point out some shortcomings
that seem very evident to me and to
many others who have a vital interest in
this question.
In House Report No. 306, 87th Con-
gress, 1st session, a report of the Com-
mittee on Public Works in the House of
Representatives, page 2, under the title
"Purpose of the Bill," it reads:
The purpose of H R 6441 is to extend and
strengthen the Federal water pollution con-
trol program and to assist the States and
local communities in providing for more ef-
fective programs of water pollution control
at all levels of government.
Here again, if this were a true state-
ment and could be sustained by actual
facts, one could not conscientiously op-
pose this bill. But the facts, when con-
sidered in the light of reason and
commonsense, do not bear out what the
objective states is or will be attained.
First of all, as has been pointed out
many times by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER], the bill completely
bypasses the States which the sponsors
of the bill claim they want to assist. If
bypassing States is assisting them, then
I totally misunderstand the meaning of
assist.
Also, I can assure the membership of
the House, as I have assured the mem-
bers of the committee, that there is much
talent in the State health departments,
conservation commissions, and other
groups that could be harnessed if we
would provide the proper atmosphere
and leadership.
In addition to this, there are virtually
thousands of people in our educational
institutions and in industry who have
dealt with municipalities and institu-
tions that have pollution problems who
would be very glad to help by giving
public bodies valuable assistance based
upon experience and study in solving
these problems. But in this bill they do
not have the opportunity to help as much
as they could if given a chance.
In this instance, I believe it should be
a committee at the national level com-
posed of representatives of various mu-
nicipalities, States, and businesses who
would have authority to coordinate these
studies, and to promote cooperative re-
search projects and to make recommen-
dations to the Federal Government, the
States, municipalities, industries, and all
who have a vual interest in resolving
this terrible pollution problem that needs
abatement at a very early date if we are
to preserve the great natural resources
that relate to the proper handling of
water in this country.
[p. 12494]
Mr. Speaker, as we consider this im-
portant legislation and the total problem
of pollution, it is my very deep convic-
tion that the goal of pollution abatement
is and should be first of all to protect and
enhance the capacity of the water re-
sources so that they may serve the widest
possible range of human needs.
I am convinced, too, that this goal can
be approached and achieved only by ac-
cepting the positive policy of keeping
waters as clean as it is possible to keep
them. I am convinced, too, that we
should oppose the negative policy of at-
tempting to use our waters anywhere to
the full capacity of water for waste
assimilation.
In addition, we here in Congress and
those who are interested in water con-
servation, should adopt some kind of a
national credo that is consistent with
the goals we want to attain for ourselves
and for posterity. In my opinion, that
credo should embody the following
thoughts:
First. That users of water have no
inherent right to pollute our public
streams or waters anywhere.
Second. That users of public waters—
-------
524
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
waters which belong to all of us—have
a responsibility for returning them as
clean as it is technically possible to do so.
Third. The credo should include pre-
vention programs for in most instances
prevention is just as important as is the
control of pollution.
Mr. Speaker, there is need for a more
systematic and intelligent approach to
the evaluation of the water pollution
problem. That approach should include
the consideration of the health, esthetic,
and market values. A framework for
analysis must be developed which will
provide a relatively precise understand-
ing of benefit cost and which will form
the basis for the design of public policies
and programs for effective water quality
management.
Planning for the comprehensive devel-
opment of each major basin or water re-
source area should be established as a
fixed national policy. By comprehen-
sive development we mean the applica-
tion of integrated multiple-purpose de-
sign, planning, and management which
include the joint consideration of ground
and surface waters, systematic conserva-
tion by water users, and the treatment
and management of waters having sub-
standard quality. Consideration of
every appropriate technique would be a
routine part of planning for such devel-
opment.
Such planning, insofar as feasible,
should include consideration of all im-
portant industrial plant sites. An early
and important objective should be a sys-
tematic program of flow regulation.
State initiative toward comprehensive
planning should be encouraged, and par-
ticipation by all major interest should
be encouraged. The objective should be
one of eventually producing maximum
total benefits from all economic and so-
cial uses.
Provision should be made, legally and
financially, for the identification and
acquisition at an early date of reservoir
sites needed in the execution of compre-
hensive plans. The mounting popula-
tion, the spread of settlement, and
general intensification of valley land use
otherwise may make many good sites
totally unavailable or prohibitively
costly.
The value of soil conservation, sedi-
ment control, and salinity control as
pollution abatement measures should
be recognized through planning and
budget in our National, State, and local
resource development programs. They
should be considered as tools to be ap-
plied in water development and man-
agement. Pollution abatement is a
problem with roots in rural land use and
agronomy, as well as in urban conges-
tion and industrial growth.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that pub-
lic policy formally recognize the recrea-
tion value of our water resources as a
full partner with domestic, industrial,
and agricultural values in water quality
management policies and programs.
Administration of water pollution con-
trol programs on State and interstate
streams should continue to be the re-
sponsibility of the State agencies which
therefore must be supported by adequate
budgets and staffed by competent di-
rectors, engineers, scientists, and related
professional personnel. It is essential
that State legislatures appraise more
realistically their opportunities and re-
sponsibilities in carrying out the prin-
ciple herein stated and are urged to take
appropriate action where necessary.
Mr. Speaker, if the Congress would
make it their business to create a com-
mittee with proper authority to make
an appeal to and enlist the help of Gov-
ernors, State legislators, directors of
conservation and health programs in
the State, and representatives of vari-
ous interest groups with authority to
institute cooperative research and study
programs, they would get much more
support from the people everywhere,
from the municipalities and from the
States where the need for increased in-
terest is greatest.
We in this body have an experience
that we can point to with pride and
which can serve as a model for this type
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
525
of thing in this area. It is the ASSHO
tests that we have conducted for the
past several years and which have been
so very successful in finding answers to
the many problems that have presented
themselves in the general area of build-
ing roads and highways. •
The administrative level of the water
supply and water pollution control ac-
tivities in the Public Health Service and
in the States should be commensurate
with the importance of this problem.
That State statutes and organiza-
tional structures for water pollution con-
trol should be reviewed and strength-
ened or revised where necessary. The
following revisions were proposed in the
suggested 1950 State Water Pollution
Control Act as a guide for State legis-
lation in this field.
These recommendations, too, would be
easier if we had a program as I have
already mentioned. Also, the follow-
ing recommendations which are con-
sistent with the recommendations of
the conference to which I have already
referred, would be much easier to insti-
tute and become effective. They are:
First. Vest comprehensive authoiity
in the State water pollution control
agency, which would be given independ-
ent status m its organizational place-
ment in State government;
Second. Insure construction of mu-
nicipal treatment facilities ordered by
the State agency by authorizing courts
to direct all necessary steps, including
bond issues, tax levies, and revenue
charges if required;
Third. Authorize the establishment of
sanitary districts to deal with local pol-
lution control problems beyond munici-
pal limits.
I reiterate, the Federal Government
has clear responsibilities in its working
relationship with State and local gov-
ernments with respect to: research, lead-
ership in personnel training, regulatory
procedures, water resources inventories
and investigations, and standards of
water quality.
No agreement was reached among the
conferees as to extension of authority of
the Federal Government in the area of
water pollution control.
That appropriate public and private
agencies mount and sustain an expanded
program of public information to the
end that enlightened public opinion can
be brought to bear on the accomplish-
ments, costs, needs, opportunities, and
problems involved in water quality man-
agement, noting that this Conference
should provide a dramatic opportunity
to launch such a program.
There was general agreement that the
public needs more information on pollu-
tion and its abatement. Government
agencies and other informed individuals
should make every effort to present the
facts in understandable form for use by
individuals, organizations, and the gen-
eral media of communication. Such ma-
terial should include factual information
and suggested methods of attack as have
been discussed by the Conference.
The Federal grants-in-aid program
has provided a valuable stimulus to the
control of stream pollution. Other
methods of financing construction of
sewage and waste treatment works de-
serve thorough study and investigation
to determine the most appropriate means
available or which might be made avail-
able for sound and equitable allocation
of costs. Several other means of financ-
ing were suggested in one or two papers
presented at the Conference. The view
of the panel subcommittee was that these
should be listed and appraised without
any commitment on the part of the sub-
committee as to which, if any, should be
recommended. It did suggest that these
and others unnamed should be explored
at some subsequent time:
First Incentive grants from Federal
and State appropriations;
Second Guaranteed bonds;
Third. Revenue bonds;
Fourth. Marketing long-term revenue
bonds under a Federal system of guaran-
tees such as FHA-guaranteed mortgages
or loans for defense production purposes;
Fifth. The creation of "Water RFC"
-------
526
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or such Federal finance agency to dis-
count, purchase, or collateralize such
bonds for loan purposes; and
Sixth. The earmarking of specific
taxes, notably from Federal licensing of
pleasure boats and sale of fuel to all
[p. 12495]
water-borne craft, for water pollution
control purposes.
The construction of municipal waste
treatment facilities should be expanded
immediately with continued increases to
keep up with population growth and to
abate the backlog of pollution by 1970.
A similar program expansion should be
applied to the wastes from industry.
That financial incentive should be pro-
vided to encourage industry to install
needed waste treatment facilities. This
may be accomplished by permitting in-
dustry, for corporate income tax pur-
poses, to charge the cost of nonproduc-
tive waste water treatment facilities as
expense.
Each Federal installation should be re-
quired by Congress to treat its wastes in
accordance with the standards for cities
and industries in the area, with 1964
set as the target date for providing min-
imum treatment.
Enlargement and extension should be
made of the water quality monitoring
programs now in effect, so as to reveal
more adequately conditions, existing and
future, in rivers and streams. We be-
lieve that the protection of the public
health and the preservation of water
supply sources for accepted beneficial
uses require such extension and en-
largement.
In order to facilitate assessment of the
total pollution problem, it is recom-
mended that particular attention be
given to accelerating the collection of in-
formation on industrial waste loading.
The Public Health Service should co-
ordinate collection of this information
on the national level.
States should develop water monitor-
ing programs for bacteriological, biolog-
ical, chemical, physical, and radiological
quality. This work should be coordi-
nated with the efforts of an expanded
National Water Quality Network of the
Public Health Service. More data should
be collected on the condition of streams,
both before and after water pollution
abatement.
Provision should be made within the
Public Health Service for developing the
water quality criteria which are suited to
application on a national basis. How-
ever, many water quality criteria are not
uniformly applicable because of the ef-
fects of area usage differences, stream
characteristics, and other factors. State
and local determinations of some cri-
teria also will have to be made. It is
recognized that periodic revision of these
criteria not only will be in order, but
should be sought, as new data are made
available.
That the Public Health Service assume
leadership, in collaboration with other
public and private agencies, in collecting,
compiling, and publishing pertinent data
on the toxicity of water contaminants.
This should include criteria, standards,
methods of testing, and safe allowable
concentrations for human consumption;
also that efforts be made to stimulate
toxicological and epidemiological studies
to be made to determine long- and short-
range effects.
The total national support for research
in water supply and water pollution con-
trol should be increased substantially.
The flow of research findings on the
water environment must be increased
and intensified in depth as well as
breadth.
That improved methods be developed
for measuring pollution abatement prog-
ress. New engineering parameters which
encompass all pollution components, as
well as yardsticks for measurement of
stream quality, are critically needed.
It should be regarded as an obligation
on the part of industry to undertake
basic research which will determine the
biotic and other effects influencing the
public welfare of the products they dis-
tribute. This should apply to detergents,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
527
insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, ferti-
lizers, and other microchemicals and
microbiologicals, and to the effects of
metallic wastes such as compounds
of chromium and cyanide. Where the
effects of these or other health hazards
or potential public nuisances are not
adequately treated within industry, the
Federal Government or the States must
provide for and budget such research.
Additional research of peculiar public
responsibility includes the effect and in-
terpretation of reducing anaerobes,
nitrifying bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and
other biota, and radiation hazards.
The flow of engineers and scientists
who are competent to advance and ad-
minister the scientific, technological,
and economic conservation of our water
resources, including, in particular, the
control of water pollution, must be in-
creased promptly by recruitment and
training of basically qualified personnel
at two levels: First, the professional or
predoctorate level; and second, the post-
doctorate level.
The field of water supply and pollu-
tion control has become so complex that
we must think more generally than in
the past of a multidisciplmary approach
to the solution of developing problems
This implies the introduction of repre-
sentatives of many disciplines including
economists and political scientists, as
well as applied mathematicians and
physicists to this field and the creation
of requisite institutes or centers for en-
vironmental health research at which
needed personnel can be brought to-
gether.
The capability of graduate schools or
university departments of engineering
and public health to produce a sufficient
number of engineers and scientists who
are able to deal effectively with the
mounting problems of water resource
control must be enlarged by support of
staff, student body, and teaching and
research facilities, as well as by grants-
in-aid of research Interdisciplinary re-
search should be encouraged in particu-
lar. Because the use of personnel and
the application of research lie in the
public domain, the Federal Government
must be expected to assume a substan-
tial portion of the required financial
burden.
The flow of treatment-plant operating
personnel, as well as engineers and sci-
entists working in the wider field of
water-supply and water-pollution con-
trol, must be increased and their tram-
ing broadened.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legis-
lation, but with the understanding that
it is insufficient, inadequate, and incom-
plete, and in the hope that we will con-
sider it only a beginning in working
toward the solution of the grave problem
that presents itself.
It is my hope that the Members of the
Congress and people outside of Congress
who are interested will watch closely the
results of this program and continue to
make their recommendations and in
various ways have their influence felt to
bring about an early reconsideration of
this total problem so that we can finally
come to grips with it in a more intel-
ligent, realistic, and practical manner.
Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill
but with the realization that it is not
adequate and that it has many short-
comings that a thorough study and con-
sideration of this matter would bring
out. In my opinion, it is not a com-
pletely intelligent approach to the solu-
tion of the problem of pollution, but I
hope that it will do some good while we
are learning front experience and we
will benefit from the mistakes that will
become evident, I think, as time goes on.
Mr EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, this
bill represents a great forward step by
the Congress in one of the most impor-
tant fields on which we will legislate this
year—the field of water pollution con-
trol.
I want to compliment the distinguished
chairman of our subcommittee, the gen-
tleman from Minnesota, Congressman
JOHN BLATNIK, for his great leadership in
connection with this legislation.
I strongly urge the adoption of the
-------
528
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
conference report.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 12496]
1.2g(4)(e) July 13: Conference report submitted to Senate and
agreed to, pp. 12565-12567
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 6441) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide for a more effective program of
water pollution control. I ask unani-
mous consent for the present considera-
tion of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of July 13, 1961, pp. 12471-
12475, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
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. KERR. Mr. President, I request
the adoption of the report.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed at this point in the RECORD a
brief statement in explanation of the
action taken by the conference com-
mittee.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR KERR
The report is signed by a majority of the
conferees on the part of the House and the
Senate, and the report has been accepted
by the House of Representatives
The Senate amendment strikes out all of
the House bill after the enacting clause and
inserts a substitute. The House receded from
its disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate, with an amendment which is a sub-
stitute for both the House bill and the Sen-
ate amendment The major differences
between the House bill and the substitute
agreed to in conference are noted in the fol-
lowing statement.
FIHST SECTION
The House bill amended subsection (b) of
the first section of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to strike out the specific
reference to boundary waters of States and
added a clause stating that nothing in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act should
be construed as impairing or affecting the
power authority and jurisdiction of the
States to enforce State water pollution con-
trol laws and regulations The Senate bill
made no such amendment.
The conference substitute does not make
these amendments to existing law.
SECTION 2
The Senate amendment amended section
2 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to add a new subsection (b) which
would grant authority to Federal agencies to
include capacity in reservoirs for water
quality control This capacity is not to be
a substitute for adequate treatment of sew-
age A determination would be made of the
benefits of such capacity and an appropriate
share of the cost allocated to this purpose
Beneficiaries would be determined and if the
benefits are widespread or national in scope,
the costs of such capacity would be nonre-
imbursable
The House bill did not contain such a pro-
vision
The conference substitute adopts the
amendment of the Senate
SECTION 3 (a)
The House bill amended section 4 ("a) (4)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to remove the limitation that not more than
$100,000 could be used to establish and main-
tain research fellowships.
The Senate amendment did not remove
this limitation
The conference substitute would remove
this dollar limitation but would require an
annual report by the Secretary to the appro-
priate committees of Congress on his opera-
tions under that provision of law
SECTION 3(b)
The Senate amendment added a new sub-
section (d) to section 4 of the Federal Water
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
529
Pollution Control Act This new subsection
would require the development and dem-
onstration by the Secretary of (1) practi-
cable means of treating sewage and other
wastes to remove trie maximum amounts
of pollutants in order to maintain the Na-
tion's water at a quality suitable for re-
peated reuse, (2) improved methods of
identifying and measuring pollutants, and
(3) methods for evaluating the effects of
augmented streamflows to control pollution
not otherwise susceptible to abatement
An authorization for these purposes of not
to exceed $5 million per fiscal year with a
total limitation of $25 million is also pro-
vided by the amendment
The House bill contained no such provi-
sion.
The conference substitute is identical to
the Senate amendment
The Senate bill amended section 4 (a) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by
providing for the establishment of research
and field demonstration facilities with an
authorization for the appropriation of not
more than $10 million This amendment
was deleted because it was concluded that
sufficient authority for such facilities were
contained in subsection (e) of section 4 of
the Senate bill and subsection (d) of sec-
tion 4 of the House bill These subsections
would authorize the establishment and
maintenance of field laboratory and research
facilities, including, but not limited to, one
in the Northeast area, one in the Middle
Atlantic area, one in the Southeast area, one
in the Midwest area, one in the Southwest
area, one in the Pacific Northwest, and one
in Alaska.
The House bill amended section 4 by add-
ing a subsection calling for research and
technical development work, and make
studies, with respect to the quality of wa-
ters of the Great Lakes, including an
analysis of water quality under varying con-
ditions of waste treatment and disposal
The Senate bill contained no such provi-
sion The conference substitute is iden-
tical to the House amendment.
SECTION 4
The House bill increased grants to States
and interstate water pollution control
agencies for the operation of their programs
from $3 million to S5 million and extended
the authorizations through June 30, 1971.
The Senate amendment is the same as the
House bill in this respect except that the
authorization is extended only through
June 30, 1966
The conference substitute is the same as
the House bill except that the authorization
is extended only through June 30, 1368
SECTION 5
The House bill amended subsection (b)
of section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide that no construction
grant shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding whichever of the following
is smaller (1) $800,000, or (2) the total of 30
percent of the first $1 million of the reason-
able cost of the project as determined by the
Secretary, plus 15 percent ot the next $2 mil-
lion of such cost, plus 10 percent of the re-
mainder of such cost.
The Senate bill amended the same pro-
vision of law as the House bill to provide
that no grant shall be made for any project
in an amount exceeding 30 percent of the
estimated reasonable cost thereof, or in an
amount exceeding $500,000, whichever is
smaller
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment with exception that
the amount of $500,000 is increased to
$600,000, and the multiproject limitation of
$2,400,000, as contained in the House bill, was
retained.
SECTION 5(b)
The House bill amended subsection (b) of
section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act to provide that no grant should be
made for any project under that section in
an amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant
had been made for each project (1) for which
an application was filed with the appropriate
State water pollution control agency prior
to the date of enactment of amendment and
(2) which meets the requirements of the
section and regulations thereunder as in
eitect prior to such date of enactment The
Senate bill contained a similar provision.
The confeience substitute is the same as
the House bill with the exception that the
priority given by this amendment has been
extended to all those smaller projects for
which applications are filed before 1 year
after the date ol enactment of this amend-
ment
[p. 12565]
SECTION 5fc)
The House bill amends subsection (c) of
section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide that if an allotment
to a State is not obligated within 6 months
after the end of the fiscal year for which it
was made because of a lack of approved
projects then the Secretary can reallocate
those unobligated amounts on a reasonable
and equitable basis These icallocated
amounts are to be available for projects
approved for grants before the end of the
fiscal year following the fiscal year for which
the original allotment was made
The Senate amendment provides for the
-------
530
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
reallocation of sums allotted to a State not
obligated at the end of the fiscal year fol-
lowing the fiscal year for which they were
allotted because of a lack of approved proj-
ects The reallocation shall be to those
States having approved projects for which
grants have not been made because of a
lack of funds with the exception that when-
ever the Surgeon General finds tha'. the
need for a project in a community in the
State is due in part to Federal institutions
or Federal construction activity, he may,
before making any reallotment, make an ad-
ditional allocation to the project which will
reflect an equitable contribution for the need
caused by the Federal activity
The conference substitute is essentially
the same as the Senate amendment with the
exception that the States are given 18
months to obligate their allotment as pro-
vided in the House bill, rather than 24
months provided in the Senate amendment
In addition, the conference substitute makes
it clear that an additional grant may be
made to a project in a State by the Secretary
because of a Federal activity in that State
only from funds allotted to that State which
are subject to reallotment because of a lack
of approved projects in that Slate.
SECTION 5(d)
The House bill amended subsection (d) of
section 6 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act to increase the amount authorized
for grants from $50 million to $100 million
per fiscal year. The aggregate authorization
of such sums is also increased from $500
million to $1 billion.
The Senate amendment amended the sub-
section to provide an authorization of $70
million for the fiscal year 1962, $80 million
for the fiscal year 1963, $90 million for the
fiscal year 1964, $100 million for the fiscal
year 1965, and $100 million for the fiscal year
1966. In addition the Senate amendment
repealed the restriction in existing law ihat
at least 50 percent of funds appropriated
must be granted for treatment works serv-
icing municipalities of 125,000 population or
less.
The conference substitute provides au-
thorization of $80 million for the fiscal year
1962, $90 million for the fiscal year 1983, and
$100 million for each of the fiscal years 1964
through and including 1967. In addition the
conference substitute retains the restriction
requiring the use of at least half of the funds
appropriated for projects in cities of 125,000
population or less which was repealed by ihe
Senate amendment.
SECTION 7 (a), (b), and (d)
The House bill provided that pollution of
navigable waters would be subject to abate-
ment under the act.
The Senate amendment provided that in-
terstate or navigable "waters shall be subject
to abatement under the act
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment.
SECTION 7(c)
The House bill provides that a conference,
initiating Federal enforcement procedures,
must be called on the request of (1) the
Governor, (2) the State water pollution
control agency, or (3) with the concurrence
of the State agency governing, the governing
body of any municipality, whenever the
pollution endangers the health or welfare
of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge originates (interstate
pollution) The Secretary on his own ini-
tiative may call such a conference when he
has reason to believe that such interstate
pollution is occurring Such a conference
must be called whenever requested by the
Governor, the State water pollution control
agency, or, with the concurrence of such
agency, the governing body of any munici-
pality when pollution is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the
State lequesting the conference (intrastate
pollution), unless the Secretary determines
that the effect of the pollution is not signif-
icant enough to warrant the exercise of Fed-
eral jurisdiction.
The Senate amendment differs from the
House bill in that a conference could be
called because of intrastate pollution only
upon the request of the Governor of a State
The conference substitute provides that a
conference could be called in the case of
interstate pollution upon the request of the
Governor, the State water pollution control
agency, or, "with the concurrence of both
the Governor and the State agency, the
governing body of any municipality The
Secretary may call such a conference on his
own initiative in the case of interstate pol-
lution The conference substitute provides
in the case of intrastate pollution that a
conference may be called only when re-
quested by the Governor of a State where
the pollution is occurring In cases involv-
ing intrastate pollution the Secretary may
refuse to exercise Federal jurisdiction if in
his judgment the pollution is not of such
significance to warrant the exercise of Federal
jurisdiction
SECTION 7(e)
The House bill amends subsection (e) of
section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide that the board which
under present law conducts the public hear-
ing to make findings whether pollution is
occurring and whether effective progress to-
ward abatement is being made shall be for-
mally known as a hearing board. The House
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
531
bill further amends section 8(e) of existing
law to provide that findings and recom-
mendations of the hearing board shall be
those of the Secretary except to the extent
the Secretary believes other findings or rec-
ommendations are warranted The House
bill also authorizes the Secretary to make
an order requiring the abatement of pollu-
tion, which order shall become final 60 days
after its issuance unless an appeal is taken
The Senate amendment made no changes in
the existing law
The only change in existing law which
the conference substitute would make
would be to formally designate the board
holding the public hearing as a hearing
board.
The House bill amends subsection (f) of
section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide a detailed method
for appealing an order of the Secretary is-
sued under subsection (e) of section 8 as
proposed to be amended by the House bill
The Senate amendment made no change
in existing law.
The conference substitute provides that
if pollution is not abated within the time
specified in the notice following the public
hearing the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare may request the Attorney Gen-
eral to bring a suit on behalf of the United
States to secure abatement in the case of
interstate pollution, however, in the case of
intrastate pollution he may request the in-
stitution of such a suit in the name of die
United States only with the written consent
of the Governor of the State
The House bill amends subsections (^
and (h) of section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide for the ju-
risdiction of the court with respect to or-
ders issued by the Secretary under sub-
section (e) of such section 8 as proposed to
be amended by the House bill
The Senate amendment made no changes
in the existing law
The conference substitute makes no changes
in the existing law in this respect since Ihe
conference substitute does not provide au-
thority for the Secretary to issue ordeis as
was the case in the House bill.
SECTION 10
The Senate amendment amends the Water
Supply Act of 1958. The House bill con-
tained no such amendment The present
Water Supply Act of 1958 provides authority
for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau
of Reclamation to include municipal and
industrial water supply capacity in reservoirs
under their jurisdiction The present law
provides that not to exceed 30 percent of
the total cost of any project may be allo-
cated to anticipated future demands if State
or local interests give reasonable assuiances
that they will contract for the use of stor-
age for anticipated future demands within
a period of time which will permit paying
out the cost allocated to water supply
within the life of the project The Senate
amendment will permit the Federal agency
concerned to make its own determination of
future water supply needs and, on the basis
of such determination, to include capacity
in a project without definite contractual
commitments from State or local interests.
The conference substitute adopts the pro-
visions of the Senate amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I should
like to ask the distinguished Senator
from Oklahoma two questions, for the
purpose of interpretation.
The conference report extends—in my
judgment—the jurisdiction of the Sur-
geon General. At present, the Surgeon
General has enforcement powers over
interstate waters. The conference re-
port will extend that definition, so as to
apply to navigable waters, as well.
I should like to ask the distinguished
Senator from Oklahoma this question:
In the event it should be determined that
navigable waters include a navigable
lake which is wholly within a State, if
the Surgeon General instituted an ac-
tion, would it be necessary for him to
secure approval by the Governor of the
.ate, before the Surgeon General could
institute an enforcement action in
court?
Mr. KERR. Under the bill, the an-
swer is "Yes." Under the law existing
prior to this bill, enforcement author-
ity has been limited to interstate waters;
and the procedures of enforcement are
very clearly set forth in the present law.
Under the bill as it came from the
House, the authority of the Surgeon
General—and that has been changed, by
the way, to the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare—to initiate en-
forcement proceedings was expanded to
include navigable waters. Under the
language as it came from the House, an
order of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare would be effective
unless appealed from in the U.S. Court
of Appeals.
The Senate amended that provision
-------
532
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
quite drastically limiting the expansion
of the enforcement jurisdiction to a sit-
uation described as interstate or navi-
gable waters, and provided that, with
reference to intrastate waters—such as a
[p.12566]
navigable lake wholly within a State, as
described by the Senator from Ken-
tucky—action by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare could
be taken only upon the request of the
Governor of the State in which the
intrastate waters were located. Then
the procedure would be before a U.S.
Federal court.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, will the Senator yield at that
point?
Mr. KERR. I yield to the Senator
from South Dakota on this point.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I merely
want to state for the record that was the
clear understanding on the part of the
conferees—that if action were sought
by anyone with respect to pollution
abatement of waters that are wholly
within a State, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare's notices or rec-
ommendations could be effective only if
he had been requested to come into the
picture by the Governor. The Gover-
nor's request would be necessary before
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare could enter into pollution abate-
ment actions where waters are wholly
intrastate, including the calling of a
conference.
Mr. KERR. Then the procedure
would be to seek relief in a court.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That is
correct.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. KERR. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. I know the conference
report expresses this, but I think it is
worth while to ask this question for the
record and the information of the Sen-
ate. As the bill came from the House,
it provided that after the Surgeon Gen-
eral—or, now, the Secretary—had made
a decision upon an issue, the case made
would be a prima facie case and the ap-
peal would have to be to a circuit court.
Is it correct to state that, as the con-
ference report comes before the Senate,
any action by the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare would be insti-
tuted in a U.S. district court?
Mr. KERR. The Senator is correct.
The language which the Senator from
Kentucky has referred to as being in the
bill as it passed the House was deleted
by the Senate, and was left out by the
conferees.
Mr. COOPER. These matters caused
me some concern in the committee. I
am glad the Senator has taken good care
of them, as he always does.
I am very strongly in support of the
bill.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERR. I yield to the Senator
from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The
adoption of the conference report will
mark the enactment, so far as passage
of the bill by Congress is concerned, of
an expanded new Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. The purposes of the
bill are known to all, and its features
will be stressed in various ways by vari-
ous people.
Some comment has been made in the
press that the bill does not go as far in
the direction of providing funds for large
projects as some people feel it should.
On the other hand, it should be noted
that the conferees, in reaching their
agreement, provided greater amounts
for large projects than does the present
law when those projects had been taken
care of that are under $250,000 and for
which applications have been filed prior
to 1 year after the date of enactment
of this bill.
We sought by this device not only to
accommodate the needs of the larger
cities, but also to protect the interests
of the smaller communities where 30
percent of the project cost would not
exceed $250,000.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
533
Under that protection, I feel the con-
ference report provides aid to the larger
cities as well as protects the smaller
communities, and thereby preserves the
purposes of the act.
The bill as finally agreed to in con-
ference does not provide as much over-
all money as some persons had talked
about, but on an annual basis the pro-
gram is very substantial and is consider-
ably larger than it has been in the past.
Yet it does respect the situation of the
Treasury Department to a certain extent.
The conference agreement was one I
felt I could support in view of the many
points of view that had to be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the conference
report was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I move to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I wish to
say a word in tribute to the members of
the Committee on Public Works for the
job they did in handling the legislation
in committee and on the floor, and to
their representatives in conference. The
final report is due to the efforts of all
members of the committee.
Again I wish to make the record clear
that the distinguished Senator from
South Dakota [Mr. CASE], the ranking
Republican on the committee, lived up
to his fine reputation of constructive
statesmanship, purposes, and ability to
cooperate in handling and improving
legislation on a bipartisan basis, and,
along with his colleagues, did a fine job.
He especially did a great job in the lead-
ership he manifested and in the work he
performed.
The distinguished Senator from Utah
[Mr. Moss] had an amendment which
was accepted and then retained by the
Senate conferees in the conference with
the House.
Other Senators on the Democratic side,
including the distinguished Presiding
Officer at this moment [Mr. METCALF],
made a fine contribution to the develop-
ment of this legislation, which, in the
judgment of the Senator from Oklahoma,
is going to make a tremendous contribu-
tion to water conservation, development,
pollution abatement, and water quality
control in the United States.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, will the Senator yield before he
takes his seat?
Mr. KERR. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I wish
to join in what the Senator has said
about the bipartisan way in which the
bill was handled, and to commend the
Senator from Oklahoma for his leader-
ship in this field, which is so closely
related to the work of the Select Com-
mittee on Water Resources which he
headed so ably.
[p. 1256]
1.2h THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
October 2, 1965, P.L. 89-234, 79 Stat. 903
AN ACT To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, to provide grants for research and
development, to increase grants for construction of sewage treatment works, to
require establishment of water quality criteria, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) (1) section
1 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466) is
-------
534 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
amended by inserting after the words "SECTION 1." a new subsection
(a) as follows:
" (a) The purpose of this Act is to enhance the quality and value
of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the
prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution."
(2) Such section is further amended by redesignating subsections
(a) and (b) thereof as (b) and (c), respectively.
(3) Subsection (b) of such section (as redesignated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection) is amended by striking out the last sentence
thereof and inserting in lieu of such sentence the following: "The
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called 'Secretary') shall administer this Act through the Administra-
tion created by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated
by him, shall supervise and direct (1) the head of such Administra-
tion in administering this Act and (2) the administration of all other
functions of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
related to water pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall perform
such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe."
(b) There shall be in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, in addition to the Assistant Secretaries now provided for
by law, one additional Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The provisions of section 2 of
Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631) shall be
applicable to such additional Assistant Secretary to the same extent
as they are applicable to the Assistant Secretaries authorized by that
section. Paragraph (17) of section 303 (d) of the Federal Executive
Salary Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 418) is amended by striking out " (5)"
before the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
"(6)."
SEC. 2. (a) Such Act is further amended by redesignating sections
2 through 4, and references thereto, as sections 3 through 5, respec-
tively, sections 5 through 14, as sections 7 through 16, respectively, by
inserting after section 1 the following new section:
"FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
"SEC. 2. Effective ninety days after the date of enactment of this
section there is created within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 'Administration'). The
head of the Administration shall be appointed, and his compensation
fixed, by the Secretary. The head of the Administration may, in addi-
tion to regular staff of the Administration, which shall be initially
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 535
provided from the personnel of the Department, obtain, from within
the Department or otherwise as authorized by law, such professional,
technical, and clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the
Administration's functions and may for that purpose use funds avail-
able for carrying out such functions; and he may delegate any of his
[p. 903]
functions to, or otherwise authorize their performance by, any officer
or employee of, or assigned or detailed to, the Administration."
(b) Subject to such requirements as the Civil Service Commission
may prescribe, any commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
who, on the day before the effective date of the establishment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, was, as such officer,
performing functions relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act may acquire competitive civil service status and be transferred to
a classified position in the Administration if he so transfers within six
months (or such further period as the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare may find necessary in individual cases) after such effec-
tive date. No commissioned officer of the Public Health Service may
be transferred to the Administration under this section if he does not
consent to such transfer. As used in this section, the term "trans-
ferring officer" means an officer transferred in accordance with this
subsection.
(c) (1) The Secretary shall deposit in the Treasury of the United
States to the credit of the civil service retirement and disability fund,
on behalf of and to the credit of each transferring officer, an amount
equal to that which such individual would be required to deposit in
such fund to cover the years of service credited to him for purposes of
his retirement as a commissioned officer of the Public Health Service
to the date of his transfer as provided in subsection (b), but only to
the extent that such service is otherwise creditable under the Civil
Service Retirement Act. The amount so required to be deposited
with respect to any transferring officer shall be computed on the basis
of the sum of his basic pay, allowance for quarters, and allowance for
subsistence and, in the case of a medical officer, his special pay, dur-
ing the years of service so creditable, including all such years after
June 30, 1960.
(2) The deposits which the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare is required to make under this subsection with respect to
any transferring officer shall be made within two years after the date
of his transfer as provided in subsection (b), and the amounts due
under this subsection shall include interest computed from the period
of service credited to the date of payment in accordance with section
4 (e) of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C. 2254 (e)).
-------
536 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(d) All past service of a transferring officer as a commissioned
officer of the Public Health Service shall be considered as civilian
service for all purposes under the Civil Service Retirement Act, effec-
tive as of the date any such transferring officer acquires civil service
status as an employee of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration; however, no transferring officer may become entitled to
benefits under both the Civil Service Retirement Act and title II of
the Social Security Act based on service as such a commissioned offi-
cer performed after 1956, but the individual (or his survivors) may
irrevocably elect to waive benefit credit for the service under one Act
to secure credit under the other.
(e) A transferring officer on whose behalf a deposit is required to
be made by subsection (c) and who, after transfer to a classified posi-
tion in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration under
subsection (b), is separated from Federal service or transfers to a
position not covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act, shall not be
entitled, nor shall his survivors be entitled, to a refund of any amount
deposited on his behalf in accordance with this section. In the event
he transfers, after transfer under subsection (b), to a position covered
by another Government staff retirement system under which credit is
allowable for service with respect to which a deposit is required under
subsection (c), no credit shall be allowed under the Civil Service
Retirement Act with respect to such service.
[p. 904]
(f) Each transferring officer who prior to January 1, 1957, was
insured pursuant to the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance
Act of 1954, and who subsequently waived such insurance, shall be
entitled to become insured under such Act upon his transfer to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration regardless of age
and insurability.
(g) Any commissioned officer of the Public Health Service who,
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, is transferred to a position
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which is sub-
ject to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, shall receive a
salary rate of the General Schedule grade of such position which is
nearest to but not less than the sum of (1) basic pay, quarters and
subsistence allowances, and, in the case of a medical officer, special
pay, to which he was entitled as a commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service on the day immediately preceding his transfer, and
(2) an amount equal to the equalization factor (as defined in this
subsection); but in no event shall the rate so established exceed the
maximum rate of such grade. As used in this section, the term
"equalization factor" means an amount determined by the Secretary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 537
to be equal to the sum of (A) 6J/2 per centum of such basic pay and
(B) the amount of Federal income tax which the transferring officer,
had he remained a commissioned officer, would have been required
to pay on such allowances for quarters and subsistence for the
taxable year then current if they had not been tax free.
(h) A transferring officer who has had one or more years of com-
missioned service in the Public Health Service immediately prior to
his transfer under subsection (b) shall, on the date of such transfer,
be credited with thirteen days of sick leave.
(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, any commis-
sioned officer of the United States Public Health Service with twenty-
five or more years of service who has held the temporary rank of
Assistant Surgeon General in the Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control of the United States Public Health Service for
three or more years and whose position and duties are affected by this
Act, may, with the approval of the President, voluntarily retire from
the United States Public Health Service with the same retirement
benefits that would accrue to him if he had held the rank of Assistant
Surgeon General for a period of four years or more if he so retires
within ninety days of the date of the establishment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
(j) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to restrict
or in any way limit the head of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration in matters of organization or in otherwise carrying
out his duties under section 2 of this Act as he deems appropriate
to the discharge of the functions of such Administration.
(k) The Surgeon General shall be consulted by the head of the
Administration on the public health aspects relating to water pollu-
tion over which the head of such Administration has administrative
responsibility.
SEC. 3. Such Act is further amended by inserting after the section
redesignated as section 5 a new section as follows:
"GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
"SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and
[p. 905]
sewage or other wastes, and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith. The Secretary is authorized
-------
538 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to provide for the conduct of research and demonstrations relating to
new or improved methods of controlling the discharge into any waters
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from
sewers which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or
other wastes, by contract with public or private agencies and institu-
tions and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709
of the Revised Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 per centum of
the total amount appropriated under authority of this section for any
fiscal year may be expended under authority of this sentence during
such fiscal year.
" (b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the
following limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project
pursuant to this section unless such project shall have been approved
by an appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies
and by the Secretary; (2) no grant shall be made for any project in
an amount exceeding 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no grant shall bs made
for any project under this section unless the Secretary determines
that such project will serve as a useful demonstration of a new or
improved method of controlling the discharge into any water of un-
treated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other
wastes.
" (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the next three succeeding
fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purposes of
this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until
expended. No grant or contract shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized by
this section in any one fiscal year."
SEC. 4. (a) Clause (2) of subsection (b) of the section of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section
8 is amended by striking out "$600,000," and inserting in lieu thereof
"$1,200,000,".
(b) The second proviso in clause (2) of subsection (b) of such
redesignated section 8 is amended by striking out "$2,400,000," and
inserting in lieu thereof "$4,800,000,".
(c) Subsection (b) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following: "The limitations of $1,200,-
000 and $4,800,000 imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall not
apply in the case of grants made under this section from funds allo-
cated under the third sentence of subsection (c) of this section if the
State agrees to match equally all Federal grants made from such
allocation for projects in such State."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 539
(d) (1) The second sentence of subsection (c) of such redesig-
nated section 8 is amended by striking out "for any fiscal year" and
inserting in lieu thereof "for each fiscal year ending on or before
June 30, 1965, and the first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to
subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1,1965,".
(2) Subsection (c) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
inserting immediately after the period at the end of the second sen-
tence thereof the following: "All sums in excess of $100,000,000
appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year begin-
ning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from
time to time, in accordance with regulations, in the ratio that the
population of each State bears to the population of all States."
[p. 906]
(3) The third sentence of subsection (c) of such redesignated
section 8 is amended by striking out "the preceding sentence" and
inserting in lieu thereof "the two preceding sentences".
(4) The next to the last sentence of subsection (c) of such redesig-
nated section 8 is amended by striking out "and third" and inserting
in lieu thereof ", third, and fourth".
(e) The last sentence of subsection (d) of such redesignated sec-
tion 8 is amended to read as follows: "Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds
so appropriated for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965,
and at least 50 per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appropriated
for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used
for grants for the construction of treatment works servicing munici-
palities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or
under."
(f) Subsection (d) of such redesignated section 8 is amended by
striking out "$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
and $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967." and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967."
(g) Subsection (f) of such redesignated section 8 is redesignated
as subsection (g) thereof and is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new sentence: "The Secretary of Labor shall have, with
respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection, the author-
ity and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of
1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. 133z—15) and section 2
of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C.
276c)."
(h) Such redesignated section 8 is further amended by inserting
therein, immediately after subsection (e) thereof, the following new
-------
540 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
subsection:
" (f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Sec-
retary may increase the amount of a grant made under subsection
(b) of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the amount of
such grant for any project which has been certified to him by an offi-
cial State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered
under State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metropol-
itan or regional planning for a metropolitan area within which the
assistance is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality designated
for such purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case of inter-
state planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan
developed or in process of development for such metropolitan area.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'metropolitan area'
means either (1) a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined
by the Bureau of the Budget, except as may be determined by the
President as not being appropriate for the purposes hereof, or (2)
any urban area, including those surrounding areas that form an eco-
nomic and socially related region, taking into consideration such
factors as present and future population trends and patterns of urban
growth, location of transportation facilities and systems, and distribu-
tion of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institu-
tional, and other activities, which in the opinion of the President
lends itself as being appropriate for the purposes hereof."
SEC. 5. (a) Redesignated section 10 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act is amended by redesignating subsections (c)
through (i) as subsections (d) through (j), and by inserting after
subsection (b) the following new subsection:
" (c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution con-
trol agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, a letter of intent that such State, after public hearings,
will before ,
[p. 907]
June 30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to inter-
state waters or portions thereof within such State, and (B) a
plan for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality
criteria adopted, and if such criteria and plan are established in
accordance with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines
that such State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3)
of this subsection, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter be
the water quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or
portions thereof.
" (2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B) establish
water quality standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 541
subsection, or if the Secretary or the Governor of any State affected
by water quality standards established pursuant to this subssction
desires a revision in such standards, the Secretary may, after reason-
able notice and a conference of representatives of appropriate Fed-
eral departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States, munici-
palities and industries involved, prepare regulations setting forth
standards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or
portions thereof. If, within six months from the date the Secretary
publishes such regulations, the State has not adopted water quality
standards found by the Secretary to be consistent with paragraph (3)
of this subsection, or a petition for public hearing has not been filed
under paragraph (4) of this subsection, the Secretary shall promul-
gate such standards.
" (3) Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection
shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing
such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appropriate
State authority shall take into consideration their use and value for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.
" (4) If at any time prior to 30 days after standards have been
promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Governor of
any State affected by such standards petitions the Secretary for a
hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or
near one or more of the places where the water quality standards will
take effect, before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed
by the Secretary. Each State which would be affected by such stand-
ards shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the Hear-
ing Board. The Department of Commerce and other affected
Federal departments and agencies shall each be given an opportunity
to select a member of the Hearing Board and not less than a majority
of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employ-
ees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The mem-
bers of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United
States, while participating in the hearing conducted by such Hearing
Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Hearing Board, shall
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary,
but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while
away from their homes or regular places of business they may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently. Notice of such hearing shall be
published in the Federal Register and given to the State water pol-
lution control agencies, interstate agencies and municipalities
-------
542 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
involved at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing. On the
basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board
shall make findings as to whether the standards published or promul-
gated by the Secretary should be approved or modified and transmit
its findings to the Secretary. If the Hearing Board approves the
standards as published or promul-
[p. 908]
gated by the Secretary, the standards shall take effect on receipt by
the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recommendations. If the Hear-
ing Board recommends modifications in the standards as published
or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall promulgate re-
vised regulations setting forth standards of water quality in ac-
cordance with the Hearing Board's recommendations which will
become effective immediately upon promulgation.
" (5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or por-
tions thereof, which reduces the quality of such waters below the
water quality standards established under this subsection (whether
the matter causing or contributing to such reduction is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into
tributaries of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this
section, except that at least 180 days before any abatement action
is initiated under either paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) as
authorized by this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators
and other interested parties of the violation of such standards. In
any suit brought under the provisions of this subsection the court
shall receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings of the con-
ference and hearing provided for in this subsection, together with
the recommendations of the conference and Hearing Board and the
recommendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary, and
such additional evidence, including that relating to the alleged viola-
tion of the standards, as it deems necessary to a complete review of
the standards and to a determination of all other issues relating to the
alleged violation. The court, giving due consideration to the prac-
ticability and to the physical and economic feasibility of complying
with such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment
and orders enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the
equities of the case may require.
" (6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A) prevent the application
of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section
would otherwise be applicable, or (B) extend Federal jurisdiction
over water not otherwise authorized by this Act.
" (7) In connection with any hearings under this section no witness
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 543
or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or
secret processes."
(b) Paragraph (1) of subsection (d) of the section of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act herein redesignated as section 10 is
amended by striking out the final period after the third sentence of
such subsection and inserting the following in lieu thereof: "; or he
finds that substantial economic injury results from the inability to
market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because
of pollution referred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State,
or local authorities."
SEC. 6. The section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
hereinbefore redesignated as section 12 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new subsections:
" (d) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which
fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the
proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the project or undertak-
ing in connection with which such assistance is given or used, and the
amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking sup-
plied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an
effective audit.
"(e) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit
and
[p. 909]
examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the
recipients that are pertinent to the grants received under this Act."
SEC. 7. (a) Section 7 (f) (6) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by
striking out "section 6 (b) (4)." as contained therein and inserting in
lieu thereof "section 8 (b) (4).".
(b) Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as that
section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out "sec-
tion 5" as contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof "section 7".
(c) Section 10 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out
"subsection (g)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (h)".
(d) Section 10 (i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
that section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out
"subsection (e)" and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (f)".
(e) Section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as that
section is redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking out "sec-
-------
544 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion 8 (c) (3)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 10 (d) (3)" and
by striking out "section 8 (e)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section
10 (f)".
SEC. 8. This Act may be cited as the "Water Quality Act of 1965".
Approved October 2, 1965.
[p. 910]
1.2h(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 215,89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
MARCH 31, 1965.—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 S. 4]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 4) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, to establish the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, to provide grants for research and development, to increase
grants for construction of municipal sewage treatment works, to
authorize the establishment of standards of water quality to aid in
preventing, controlling, and abating pollution of interstate waters,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended
do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment to the text strikes all after the enacting clause and
inserts a complete new text which is printed in italic type in the
reported bill.
The amendment to the title is as follows:
Amend the title so as to read:
An Act to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
establish a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to
provide grants for research and development, to increase grants
for construction of sewage treatment works, to require estab-
lishment of water quality criteria, and for other purposes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 545
GENERAL STATEMENT
No more important single problem faces this country today than
the problem of "good water." Water is our greatest single natural
resource. The issue of pure water must be settled now for the benefit
not only of this generation but for untold generations to come. The
[p. 1]
need for good quality water for all of our Nation's uses—public and
private—is a paramount one.
The Committee on Public Works has been fully aware of this basic
problem and from this committee came the first legislation that
brought into full focus this problem of water pollution control and
water quality.
It has been nearly 9 years since the Congress, with the enactment
of Public Law 660, 84th Congress, established the first permanent
national program for a comprehensive attack on water pollution.
The Federal role was fixed as one of support for the activities of the
States, interstate agencies, and localities. The Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act authorized financial assistance for construction of
municipal waste-treatment works, comprehensive river basin pro-
grams for water pollution control, research, and enforcement. It
provided, too, for technical assistance, the encouragement of inter-
state compacts and uniform State laws, grants for State programs,
the appointment of a Federal Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board, and a cooperative program for the control of pollution from
Federal installations.
With the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1961, Public Law 87-88, the program was strength-
ened in several important respects. The appropriations authorization
for waste-treatment works construction grants was increased, joint
projects to serve two or more communities were encouraged, the dol-
lar ceiling for a single project was raised from $250,000 to $600,000,
and was set for a joint project at $2.4 million. The research function
was strengthened, the appropriations authorization for State program
grants increased, the principle of low-flow augmentation for water
quality control was established in law, the administration of the pro-
gram was vested in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
(rather than the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service), and
the enforcement authority was extended to navigable as well as
interstate waters.
The impact of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act has been
impressive. It has taken us in less than 9 years from a situation in
which untrammeled pollution threatened to foul the Nation's water-
ways beyond hope of restoration, to a point where we are holding our
-------
546 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
own. But that is not enough. The unprecedented and continuing
population and economic growth are imposing ever-increasing de-
mands upon our available water supplies. The accompanying trends
toward increased urbanization and marked rapid technological
change create new and complex water quality problems further
diminishing the available supplies. The committee is fully cognizant
of this problem and S. 4 is, the committee believes, a further and
necessary step in continuing efforts to bring about proper water pol-
lution control and a full upgrading of the water quality of our
streams, rivers, and lakes.
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Hearings were held by the Committee on Public Works on S. 4,
H.R. 3988, and similar bills on February 18, 19, and 23, 1965. The
committee heard from all interested parties on a Federal, State, and
local official level, as well as private interests.
These hearings were in addition to hearings which the committee
held during the 88th Congress on similar legislation. The hearings
[p. 2]
covered 12 days. Full consideration has been given by the committee
to the question of further changes in Public Law 660 of the 84th
Congress, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
1. S. 4, as reported, statutorily asserts the purpose of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to be to enhance the
quality and value of our water resources and to set a national policy
for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
2. S. 4, as reported, provides for the creation of a Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration through which the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare is to administer the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and creates the position of an Assistant Secre-
tary to assist him in supervising and directing the head of the new
Administration as well as the administration of all other of the De-
partment's functions in water pollution control. Provisions to per-
mit voluntary changeover of civil service status to Public Health
Service commissioned corps personnel to facilitate the necessary
staffing of the new Administration are included in the bill.
3. S. 4, as reported, authorizes a 4-year program commencing with
the current fiscal year at an annual level of $20 million for grants to
develop projects which will demonstrate new or improved methods of
controlling waste discharges from storm sewers or combined storm
and sanitary sewers and additionally provides contract authority for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 547
these purposes. Federal grant participation is limited to 50 percent
of the estimated reasonable project cost and not to exceed 5 percent
of the total authorized annual amount may be granted to any one
project. Not to exceed 25 percent of the total appropriation for this
section in a fiscal year may be expended by contract during such
fiscal year.
4. This bill, as reported, doubles the dollar ceiling limitations on
grants for construction of waste treatment works from $600,000 to
$1.2 million for an individual project and from $2.4 million to $4.8
million for a joint project in which two or more communities par-
ticipate. The existing limitation that construction grants are not
to exceed 30 percent of the cost of the project remains unchanged.
Annual appropriations for fiscal years 1966 and 1967, the 2 remaining
years authorized, are authorized to be increased from $100 to $150
million, of which $100 million is to be allotted to the States under the
existing formula and all amounts appropriated in excess of $100 mil-
lion are to be allotted on the basis of population. Project grants
above the new dollar ceiling limitations up to a full 30 percent are
authorized from the latter allotment if the State matches the full
Federal contribution made to all projects from this allotment.
The bill also permits the Secretary to increase the basic grant by an
additional 10 percent of the amount of the grant if the project
conforms to a comprehensive plan for a metropolitan area as an
incentive to obtain conformity of projects with metropolitan area
development plans.
5. S. 4, as reported, provides that each State in order to receive
funds under the act must file within 90 days after the date of enact-
ment of the bill a letter of intent with the Secretary that the State
will establish water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters
on or before June 30, 1967.
6. The bill also requires the Secretary in certain circumstances to
apply enforcement procedures to abate pollution which results in
[p. 3]
substantial economic injury from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products in interstate commerce.
7. S. 4, as reported, empowers the Secretary or his designee, at the
public hearing stage of the enforcement procedures, to administer
oaths and to subpena witnesses and testimony and to require the
production of evidence that relates to any matter under investigation
at the public hearing. Trade secrets or secret processes are excluded
from this subpena power and jurisdiction for obtaining compliance
with subpenas is vested in the U.S. district courts.
8. The bill clarifies the authority and functions of the Secretary
-------
548 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of Labor with respect to labor standards applicable to the act and
requires accountability for financial assistance furnished under the
act in accordance with acceptable audit and examination practices.
VIEWS OF THE COMMITTEE
The views of the committee are given on each one of the major
provisions of the bill S. 4, as reported, in the following paragraphs:
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
The bill provides for the establishment of a Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration within the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare through which the Secretary is to administer the
existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the amendments
made thereto by the provisions of this bill. Upgrading of the Federal
water pollution control program in this form has long been urged by
the committee as necessary to provide appropriate identity to the
importance of this program and to provide for its more effective
administration.
The committee intended in 1961, as it had indicated back in 1956
when hearings were held on the initial water pollution control legis-
lation, that the administration of this most important program should
be upgraded within the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. The committee now feels that the need for this upgrading
is so imperative that there should be no further delay in the estab-
lishment of this new Administration within the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. It considers this section a major
provision of the bill and a long step in the direction of bringing about
a proper implementation of existing law.
The new Administration created by this bill will afford identity to
the program commensurate with its importance as an integral part of
the total water resources problem. The enforcement features of the
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, which are already on the
books, can be carried out in proper fashion by being placed com-
pletely under the jurisdiction of an Administration that will devote
its full time to seeing that every step possible will be taken to clean up
our Nation's waters.
In connection with the creation of this new Administration the
committee wishes to emphasize that the overall jurisdiction and
control of the program will rest where it properly belongs—in the
hands of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under the
Secretary there will be created a new Assistant Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, who, along with the Administrator created
under this program, will be directly responsible to the Secretary.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 549
The chain of command under this Administration will be the Secre-
tary, the Assist-
[p. 4]
ant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in charge of this
program who will be responsible to the Secretary himself, and below
the Assistant Secretary, the Administrator.
The salary of the new Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare will be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sec-
tion 303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. The Admin-
istrator of this program will be in a civil service status and his
compensation will be fixed in accordance with his respective respon-
sibilities and on an appropriate level of the general schedule of the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
The committee wishes to point out that there will be transferred
to this new Administration only those functions of the Surgeon
General relating to the water pollution control program. All of the
other functions that are now under the jurisdiction of the Surgeon
General will remain under his supervision. To further clarify this
the committee added language to the legislation which provides that
in the case of public health aspects of water pollution the Surgeon
General shall be consulted by the head of the new Administration.
S. 4, as reported, provides for the voluntary transfer of those com-
missioned officers of the Public Health Service under the jurisdiction
of the Surgeon General who are presently engaged in the water pol-
lution program to the new Administration created by this bill. The
committee wishes to point out there is no requirement that any of
these officers transfer to the new Administration. The language in
S. 4 gives them the right to do so if they so desire. The Surgeon
General himself will be fully consulted in connection with any of
these transfers and these officers will be fully advised of their rights
under this program and what their status will be if they transfer to
the new Administration.
There are at the present time some 4,900 commissioned officers
under the jurisdiction of the Surgeon General. The total number of
officers who would be eligible for transfer under S. 4 is 373.
This section will provide full and complete protection of the rights
and benefits of these commissioned officers.
The Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission were
consulted before this amendment was adopted by the committee.
A letter of March 16, 1965, addressed to the Honorable George
H. Fallon, chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Admin-
istration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, follows:
-------
550 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., March 16, 1965.
Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to an inquiry of the
chief counsel of your committee regarding the status of amendments
to section 2 of H.R. 3988 which would facilitate the transfer of Public
Health Service commissioned officers to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, proposed by the bill, and their conversion to
civil service status.
We had previously been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that
there was no objection from the standpoint of the administration's
[p. 5]
program to the submission of a proposed amendment. We also
understand from the Budget Bureau that the Civil Service Com-
mission is agreeable to the amendment.
We estimate that the maximum cost of this amendment, assuming
that all eligible officers would take advantage of it, is $1,850,000.
Sincerely yours,
RUFUS E. MILES, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Under this legislation the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare will pay up to $1,850,000 into the civil service pension fund
on behalf of the officers who transfer to insure their pension rights.
This is the maximum figure that will be paid under this section if all
373 commissioned officers elect to so transfer.
In conjunction with the creation of this new Administration, this
committee wishes to commend the dedicated staff of the Federal
water pollution control program in the Public Health Service which
since 1956 has contributed mightily to the creation and development
of a national program of water pollution control. Their efforts are
fully recognized by the fact that as a result of their work such sig-
nificance has been given to the program that there is now to be
created this new Administration.
Grants for research and development—Combined sewer systems
Approximately 60 million people in some 2,000 communities
throughout the Nation are served by combined sewers and combina-
tions of combined and separate sewer systems. Storm water and
combined sewer overflows are responsible for significant amounts of
polluting material in the Nation's waters and represent one of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 551
most difficult pollution problems confronting our urban areas today.
Major expenditures will be required to develop and demonstrate
effective means of providing for separation of sewers or otherwise
controlling such pollution. The cost of separating existing sewer
systems is staggering. It is in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 billion.
The solution appears to lie primarily in adequate treatment of dis-
charges from these combined sewers so as to make the end result
safer insofar as the ultimate discharge of the systems is concerned.
The committee believes that an authorization for grants to demon-
strate new or improved methods to point the way toward a more
economically feasible solution of the problem justifies the expendi-
ture of up to $20 million annually for the 4 years beginning with the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, to be used on a 50-50 Federal-local
matching basis. In order to avoid a disproportionate grant or grants
to a relatively few projects, the amount of any single grant is limited
to 5 percent of the total amount authorized for any one fiscal year.
Additionally, grant funds should be distributed to projects among as
many States as possible to obtain wide national application.
The committee believes that this along with the many other cur-
rent problems can be solved by the application of available tech-
nology. While this is true, the committee recognizes that a more
intensive research and demonstration program must be carried out
now utilizing all of these available resources,
It is the intention of the committee that full utilization to the
maximum extent possible be made of individuals, private enterprise,
and research institutions as well as public agencies in demonstrating
new or improved methods of controlling discharges from storm and
[p. 6]
sanitary sewers. For this reason, the committee has provided to the
Secretary contract authority. This is limited to 25 percent of the
total annual appropriation made under authority of this section, in
order that contributions to the solution of this problem within the
capability of university and engineering research may be directly
obtained by the Secretary.
Municipal sewage treatment works
Under existing law an amount of 30 percent or $600,000, whichever
is the lesser, may be contributed by the Federal Government toward
the construction of sewage treatment works, subject to approval and
certification by the State of the request of the community seeking
the grant. Provision is also made in existing law for the combining
of two or more community applications for a grant which, however,
may not exceed 30 percent of the project cost or $2,400,000, which-
ever is the lesser. The present bill would increase the amount for
-------
552 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
single grant from $600,000 to $1.2 million and the total for a combined
grants to four times that amount, or $4.8 million. The increased
ceilings are provided to afford a more commensurate degree of
inducement for communities with larger populations and, therefore,
larger costs to undertake construction of needed sewage treatment
works.
Appropriations of $100 million annually are authorized in the
existing law for fiscal years 1966 and 1967. The bill provides an
increased authorization of $50 million per year for these 2 years
for a total of $150 million annually. Allotment of the $100 million
among the various States on the basis of a formula that takes into
account population and per capita income is retained in existing law
as is the provision that at least 50 percent of such $100 million is to be
used for grants to projects servicing municipalities of 125,000 popula-
tion or under. The committee has specifically taken care to see that
the first $100 million to be appropriated for both fiscal year 1966 and
1956 will remain under the existing formula so that full and proper
consideration will be given to the pressing needs of the smaller
communities.
The committee would like to point out that in the case of the larger
communities an increase in grants to these communities will not only
provide further participation of these communities in the program
but will as well provide pure water for a larger group of our popula-
tion. This is clearly demonstrated by the follow tables relating to the
operation of the construction grant program to date:
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITIES UNDER 10,000 POPULATION
Needs Grants
Number of projects 5,284 4,629
Population to be served 8,318,490 9,064,414
Estimated cost of projects $1,004,952,000 $1,008,961,507
Grant offers $319,782,803
PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITIES OVER 10,000 POPULATION
Number of projects 363 1,365
Population to be served 27,465,729 39,935,586
Estimated cost of projects $866,699,000 $1,503,400,396
Grant offers $316,119,670
[P-7]
The bill provides that the additional authorized $50 million, or
whatever portion of such amount in excess of $100 million is actu-
ally appropriated, shall be allotted among the States on a population
basis without regard to per capita income.
The dollar ceiling limitations of $1.2 and $4.8 million may be waived
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 553
and a full 30-percent grant made to projects from this population-
basis allotment if a State equally matches the Federal contribution
to all project grants made from this allotment.
The committee intends that the requirement that a State "equally
match" the Federal contribution for the purpose of waiving the dollar
ceiling limitations not as requiring strictly a dollar-for-dollar actual
cash matching but rather as permitting indirect but nevertheless
actual matching as, for example, the payment by a State of a portion
of a bond issue of a local municipality for construction of a sewage
treatment plant.
The committee is hopeful that the States will assume full partner-
ship in assisting municipalities to provide for their necessary treat-
ment works by sharing the financial burden which these cities are
often unable to shoulder even with the Federal assistance otherwise
available. This is a most important and forward-looking step toward
the solution of our vast water pollution problems. For if there is
State participation there will be for the first time on a nationwide
basis a joining together of the Federal, State, and local communities
to solve this problem. The participation of all will insure a swifter
cleanup of our Nation's waters and at the same time will lighten the
financial load on all governments.
This bill also amends existing law to permit the basic grant made
under this section of the act to be increased an additional 10 percent
of the amount of such grant by the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare when the project is certified to him by an official State,
metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered under State or
local laws or interstate compact to perform metropolitan or regional
planning for a metropolitan area within which the assistance is to be
used, or other agency or instrumentality designated for such purposes
by the Governor (or Governors in the case of interstate planning) as
being in conformity with the comprehensive plan developed or in
process of development for such metropolitan area. "Metropolitan
area" is one which has been so defined by the Bureau of the Budget,
except as may be determined by the President as not being appro-
priate for the purposes hereof, or it may be any urban area, including
those surrounding areas that form an economic and socially related
region, taking into consideration such factors as present and future
population trends and patterns of urban growth, location of trans-
portation facilities and systems, and distribution of industrial, com-
mercial, residential, governmental, institutional, and other activities,
which in the opinion of the President lends itself as being appropriate
for the purposes hereof. The amount of the increase is 10 percent of
the basic grant for project.
-------
554 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Improving water quality
This committee considers the question of adequate water quality
standards throughout the country to be of prime importance.
Whether or not these standards should be established and promul-
gated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or whether
they
[p. 8]
should be set up by the States has been given long and thoughtful
deliberation by the committee.
The committee has no doubt that there is an urgent need for stand-
ards of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof. These standards are required to insure water of a quality
for the maximum number of uses which a growing population or
industry will demand.
As a result of extensive hearings held both in this and the last ses-
sion of Congress, the committee has amended S. 4 to allow the States
the time for implementing their responsibility in protecting interstate
waters. Under the definition of "interstate waters" in the act those
waters that arise entirely within a State and do not flow from that
State into another State, and do not form a part of the State bounda-
ries, are not considered to be interstate waters and therefore would
not be subject to any requirements with respect to water quality
criteria.
Each State, within 90 days after enactment of this legislation, is to
file with the Secretary a letter of intent that the State will establish
water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof within its jurisdiction on or before June 30, 1967. Failure to
file such a letter of intent will preclude the State from receiving any
funds under the act until such a letter is filed.
The committee earnestly hopes that the States will do a thorough
and complete job in this program. It should bs pointed out that in
the not too distant future further water pollution legislation will be
considered by this committee since important provisions of the present
act will expire June 30, 1967. If the States have done their job as
intended, the information they will ba able to supply will be a tre-
mendous help in resolving our water pollution problem.
Subpoena power in enforcement actions
The subpoena power as originally considered by the committee
would have been available at all stages of the present enforcement
procedures. The committee modified this section bscause it believed
that the first formal stage of the enforcement procedures under
existing law arises at the public hearing. This is a quasi-judicial
proceeding and it is at that time that the subpoena authority should
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 555
be authorized to be used. At the public hearing stage of the enforce-
ment proceedings necessary information may be required. The
committee further modified the bill so as to specifically spell out that
no person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes.
The committee hopes that this subpoena power will seldom have to
be used and that in most cases information will be supplied on a
voluntary basis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The committee recommends the enactment of S. 4.
This bill is another forward step in our national effort to solve our
water pollution problem and to bring about proper water quality.
It upgrades the existing program; provides incentives for the par-
ticipation of our several States in assisting local governments to
finance the construction of necessary waste treatment works; and
requires the establishment of water quality criteria by the States.
[p. 9]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS IN SUPPORT OF S. 4
The critical and growing problem of pollution of the waters of our
Nation has been of steadily increasing concern to us, and it has
become obvious that a solution can be found only through the con-
certed action of all levels of government.
Since early in this session of the Congress, the Committee on
Public Works has had for consideration H.R. 3988, S. 4, and related
bills, on the subject of water pollution control. Despite our convic-
tion that action to solve our water pollution problems is urgently
needed, it was our sincere belief that all of these bills contained un-
wise, undesirable, and unacceptable provisions.
Public hearings were held on these bills during the month of Feb-
ruary, and in March the committee met in executive session to
decide what legislation should be reported to the House. The lengthy
deliberations of the committee were conducted in a gratifyingly
bipartisan atmosphere. As a result of these deliberations, the com-
mittee has reported an amended bill which we can and do support,
even though we have considerable reservations as to some parts of
the bill, such as the establishment of an additional Assistant Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare position, and the establishment of a
separate Water Pollution Control Administration within the
Department.
We believe that two commendable aspects of the reported bill
should be brought to the specific attention of our colleagues.
Both H.R. 3988 and S. 4, as referred to the committee, would have
authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to pre-
-------
556 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pare regulations setting forth standards of water quality to be appli-
cable to interstate waters or portions thereof. These standards would
have been promulgated and would have been mandatory if, within a
reasonable time after being requested by the Secretary to do so, the
appropriate States and interstate agencies had not developed stand-
ards found by the Secretary to be consistent with the stated purpose
of the bill.
We are strongly opposed to such a provision. Standards of water
quality are concededly badly needed, but should be established by the
State and local agencies, which are most familiar with all aspects of
the matter in a given locality, including the economic impact of
establishing and enforcing stringent standards of water quality. Au-
thorizing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
promulgate and enforce such standards to the exclusion of the States
would obviously discourage the States and local agencies from
developing their own plans and standards for water quality and
purity. And it would place in the hands of a single Federal official the
power to establish zoning measures over—to control the use of—
land within watershed areas in all parts of the United States. Such
power over local affairs has never been vested in a Federal official,
and we are opposed to doing it now.
[P-10]
After exhaustive consideration of this proposal, the committee
approved a substitute provision which is a vast improvement. The
part of the bill authorizing the promulgation of mandatory standards
was stricken entirely, and instead a provision was inserted to require
that each State file with the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare a letter of intent that the State will establish on or before
June 30, 1967, water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters
and portions thereof within such State. No State shall receive any
funds under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act after 90 days
following the date of enactment of the provision until such a letter
is filed with the Secretary.
This will require the States themselves to take the necessary initial
steps toward solving water pollution problems. Development of
water quality criteria, and classification of waters as to their most
desirable, beneficial, and practicable use is an essential step which
most certainly should precede the promulgation of mandatory stand-
ards of water quality. We commend the committee for making this
change in the bill.
The bill was also amended by inserting a provision increasing the
annual authorizations for grants for waste treatment works from
$100 to $150 million for fiscal years 1966 and 1967. We were op-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 557
posed to merely an increase in Federal funds for this purpose with-
out an inducement that the States participate, since it has long
been our contention that efforts to solve our water pollution problems
can be successful only if the States, with their own funds and authori-
ties, join the battle, rather than leaving the matter solely to Federal
and municipal efforts. In 1961, the views of the minority were
expressed as follows (H. Kept. 306, 87th Cong., 1st sess., p. 22):
We believe that, rather than compounding the increasing
decline in construction of treatment works independent of
Federal subsidy which will result from a mere doubling of
the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for Federal
grants, as now provided in H.R. 6441, if there is to be any
increase in the amount of funds appropriated for Federal grants
it should be directed toward providing an effective incentive to
accelerate needed construction by offering an inducement to the
States to respond to their responsibilities and participate in the
cost of treatment plants.
This can be accomplished, without reducing the level of the
present construction grant program under existing law, by
requiring that State funds match any sums authorized to be
appropriated, by H.R. 6441, which are in excess of the $50 million
annual authorization provided in existing law. If enlargement of
the Federal grant program to construct local sewage treatment
works is inescapable, then it is high time that the States face
up to their responsibilities and assist in defraying the costs of
such facilities.
After extended debate, the committee did couple the increase in
annual authorizations with provisions designed to induce the States
to respond to their responsibilities and participate in the cost of treat-
ment plants, as we have long advocated.
[p.11]
Under the amendment finally adopted by the committee, Federal
funds allocated out of the additional $50 million authorized are avail-
able for grants up to 30 percent of the cost of waste treatment works,
without regard to dollar limitations otherwise applicable, in any State
which agrees to match, dollar for dollar, all funds from any allocation
out of the additional $50 million. This is a step, albeit a small step,
toward encouraging the States to take up their rightful responsibili-
ties, as we have long advocated. Since the increase in Federal
authorization is coupled with this incentive to the States, which we
have advocated, we can support it.
There have been and are points of some disagreement concerning
-------
558 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
S. 4, as reported to the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, we
view the reported bill as the product of careful, bipartisan delibera-
tion. We commend the reported bill to our colleagues, and recom-
mend its passage.
WILLIAM C. CRAMER.
JOHN F. BALDWIN.
WILLIAM H. HARSHA.
JOHN C, KUNKEL.
JAMES R. GROVER, Jr.
JAMES C. CLEVELAND.
DON H. CLAUSEN.
CHARLES A. HALLECK.
CHARLOTTE T. REID.
ROBERT C. McEwEN.
JAMES D. MARTIN.
[p. 12]
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 italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) The purpose of this Act is to enhance the quality
and value of our water resources and to establish, a national policy
for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
[ (a) ] (b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits result-
ing to the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of
water pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
rights of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to
support and aid technical research relating to the prevention and
control of water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services
and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities
in connection with the prevention and control of water pollution.
[To this end, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (here-
inafter in this Act called the "Secretary") shall administer this Act.]
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this
Act called "Secretary") shall administer this Act through the Ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 559
ministration created by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance
of an Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare de-
signated by him, shall supervise and direct (1) the head of such
Administration in administering this Act and (2) the administration
of all other functions of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare related to water pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall
perform such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe.
[ (b) ] (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or
in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with
respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 2. Effective ninety days after the date of enactment of this
section there is created within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Administration"). The
head of the Administration shall be appointed, and his compensation
fixed, by the Secretary. The head of the administration may, in
addition to regular staff of the
[p. 13]
Administration, which shall be initially provided from the personnel
of the Department, obtain, from within the Department or otherwise
as authorized by law, such professional, technical, and clerical as-
sistance as may be necessary to discharge the Administration's func-
tions a.nd may for that purpose use funds available for carrying out
such functions; and he may delegate any of his functions to, or
otherwise authorize their performance by, any officer or employee
of, or assigned or detailed to, the Administration.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. [2] 3. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and
in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution
control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities
and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface
and underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive
programs due regard shall be given to the improvements which are
necessary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propaga-
tion of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose
of this section, the Secretary is authorized to make joint investiga-
tions with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any
-------
560 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect such waters.
(b) (1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency, con-
sideration shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control, except that any
such storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute
for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the
source.
(2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose shall be
determined by these agencies, with the advice of the Secretary, and
his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or presenta-
tion to the Congress proposing authorization or construction of any
reservoir including such storage.
(3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in deter-
mining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a part,
and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality control
in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equit-
ably in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provision of this
Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the
benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features
shall be nonreimbursable.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. [3] 4. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activi-
ties by the States for the prevention and control of water pollution;
encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable,
uniform State laws relating to the prevention and control of water
[p. 14]
pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention
and control of water pollution.
(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in con-
flict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative
effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of water
pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or other-
wise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agree-
ments and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding
or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has
been approved by the Congress.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 561
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. [4] 5. (a) The Secretary shall conduct in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and encourage, cooperate with, and
render assistance to other appropriate public (whether Federal, State,
interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private
agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and pro-
mote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, control, and
prevention of water pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the
Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare with such stipends and
allowances, including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he
may deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most promis-
ing research fellowships: Provided, That the Secretary shall
report annually to the appropriate committees of Congress on his
operations under this paragraph; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel of
public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
(b) The Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollution
control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations and re-
search and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water
pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community,
municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a
solution of such problem.
[p.15]
(c) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with other Federal, State,
-------
562 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and dissemi-
nate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water quality
and other information insofar as such data or other information relate
to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) (1) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary
shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including
conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments
as may be necessary):
(A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure
the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants
created by new technological developments; and
(C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(2) For the purposes of this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any fiscal year, and the
total sum appropriated for such purposes shall not exceed
$25,000,000.
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field labora-
tory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to bs
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the mid-
western area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific North-
west, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research,
investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and studies, and
training relating to the prevention and control of water pollution.
Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near institu-
tions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research
might be carried out.
(f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the
waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and
projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying
conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water
quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal prac-
tices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of
solving water pollution problems (including additional waste treat-
ment measures) with respect to such waters.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 563
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other
waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water
and sewage or other wastes, and for the purpose of reports, plans, and
specifications in connection therewith. The Secretary is authorized
to provide for the conduct of
[p. 16]
research and demonstrations relating to new or improved methods
of controlling the discharge into any waters of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers which carry
storm water or both storm water and sewage or other wastes, by
contract with public or private agencies and institutions and with
individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised
Statutes, except that not to exceed 25 per centum of the total amount
appropriated under authority of this section for any fiscal year may
be expended under authority of this sentence during such fiscal year.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the
following limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project
pursuant to this section unless such project shall have been approved
by an appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies
and by the Secretary; (2) no grant shall be made for any project in an
amount exceeding 50 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost
thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no grant shall be made
for any project under this section unless the Secretary determines
that such project will serve as a useful demonstration of a new or
improved method of controlling the discharge into any water of un-
treated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm water and sewage or other
wastes.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1965, and for each of the next three succeeding
fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of
making grants under this section. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended. No grant shall be made for any project in
an amount exceeding 5 per centum of the total amount authorized
by this section in any one fiscal year.
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. [5] 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
-------
564 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal
year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000,
and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate
agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and
maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control of
water pollution.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to the several States,
in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the population,
(2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the financial
need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
fiscal year the Secretary shall pay to such State an amount equal
to its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of the cost
of carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f), in-
cluding the cost of training personnel for State and local water
pollution control work and including the cost of administering the
State plan.
[p. 17]
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies,
in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Secretary finds
reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time pay to each
such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such portion
of the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection (f)
as may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the
cost of training personnel for water pollution control work and
including the cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The
regulations relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the
interstate agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States
shall be designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a
basis similar to that of the States.
(f) The Secretary shall approve any plan for the prevention and
control of water pollution which is submitted by the State water
pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency, by
such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 565
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Secretary may
from time to time reasonably require to carry out his functions
under this Act;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its
administration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan; fand]
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section [6 (b) (4).] 8(b) (4);
and
(7) provides that the State will file with the Secretary a letter
of intent that such State will establish on or before June 30,
1967, water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters and
portions thereof within such State, and no State shall receive any
funds under this Act after ninety days following the date of
enactment oj this clause until such a letter is filed with the
Secretary.
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
(g) (1) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and op-
portunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or
interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so charged that it no longer complies with a
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement,
the Secretary shall notify such agency that no further payments
will be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may
[P-18]
be, under this section (or in his discretion that further payments will
not be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects
under or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied
that there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
-------
566 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Secretary shall make no further payments to such State, or to
such interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section (or
shall limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan in which
there is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Secretary's action with respect to it under this subsection, it may
appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which
such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an inter-
state agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may
be served at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by
the Secretary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall
be conclusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand
the case to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary
may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may
modify his previous action. Such new or modified findings of fact
shall likewise be conclusive unless contrary to the weight of the
evidence. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action
of the Secretary or to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment
of the court shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the
United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in title
28, United States Code, section 1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the continental United States (excluding Alaska), except that (A)
the Federal share shall in no case be more than 66% per centum or
less than 33 % per centum, and (B) the Federal share for Hawaii and
Alaska shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands shall be 66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on
the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of
the continental United States for the three most recent consecutive
years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department
of Commerce. Such promulgation shall be conclusive for each of the
two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next succeeding such
promulgation: Provided, That the Federal shares promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to section 4 of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1956, shall be conclusive for the period beginning
July 1, 1956, and ending June 30, 1959.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on the
basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 567
(1) The Secretary shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar
quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be
paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the case of sub-
section (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such period,
such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the inter-
state agency) and information furnished by it, and such other investi-
gation, as the Secretary may find necessary.
[p. 19]
(2) The Secretary shall pay to the State (or to the interstate
agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so esti-
mated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph) by
which he finds that his estimate of the amount to bs paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such sub-
section was greater or less than the amount which would have been
paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing
facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Secretary may determine.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. [6] 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the dis-
charge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste
into any waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifica-
tions in connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Secretary and unless such project is included in a compre-
hensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) except as other-
wise provided in this clause, no grant shall be made for any project
in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable
cost thereof as determined by the Secretary, or in an amount ex-
ceeding [$600,000] $1,200,000, whichever is the smaller; Provided,
That the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost: Provided further,
That, in the case of a project which will serve more than one
municipality (A) the Secretary shall, on such basis as he determines
to be reasonable and equitable, allocate to each municipality to be
served by such project its share of the estimated reasonable cost of
such project, and shall then apply the limitations provided in this
-------
568 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
clause (2) to each such share as if it were a separate project to
determine the maximum amount of any grant which could be made
under this section with respect to each such share, and the total of all
the amounts so determined or [$2,400,000] $4,800,000, whichever is
the smaller, shall be the maximum amount of the grant which may
be made under this section on account of such project, and (B) for
the purpose of the limitation in the last sentence of subsection (d),
the share of each municipality so determined shall be regarded as a
grant for the construction of treatment works; (3) no grant shall be
made for any project under this section until the applicant has made
provision satisfactory to the Secretary for assuring proper and effi-
cient operation and maintenance of the treatment works after com-
pletion of the construction thereof; (4) no grant shall be made for any
project under this section unless such project is in conformity with
the State water pollution control plan submitted pursuant to the
provisions of section [5] 7 and has been certified by the State water
pollution control agency as entitled to priority over other eligible
projects on the basis of financial as well as water pollution control
needs; and (5) no grant shall be made under this section for any
project in any State in an amount exceeding $250,000 until a grant
has been made
[p. 20]
thereunder for each project in such State (A) for which an ap-
plication was filed with the appropriate State water pollution con-
trol agency prior to one year after the date of enactment of this
clause and (B) which the Secretary determines met the require-
ments of this section and regulations thereunder as in effect prior to
the date of enactment of this clause. The limitations of $1,200,000
and $4,800,000 imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall not
apply in the case of grants made under this section from funds
allocated under the third sentence of subsection (c) of this section if
the State agrees to match equally all Federal grants made from such
allocation for projects in such State.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, con-
sideration shall be given by the Secretary to the public benefits to be
derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid in such
construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing and
maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public neces-
sity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or pro-
posed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment
works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 569
preprinted pursuant to subsection (d) [for any fiscal year] for each
fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965, and the first $100,000,000
appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year begin-
ning on or after July 1, 1965, shall bs allotted by the Secretary from
time to time, in accordance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per
centum of such sums in the ratio that the population of each State
bears to the population of all the States, and (2) 50 per centum of
such sums in the ratio that the quotient obtained by dividing the
per capita income of the United States by the per capita income of
each State bears to the sum of such quotients for all the States. All
sums in excess of $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsection
(d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be
allotted by the Secretary from time to time, in accordance with
regulations, in the ratio that the population of each State bears to
the population of all States. Sums allotted to a State under the
[preceding sentence] two preceding sentences which are not obligated
within six months following the end of the fiscal year for which they
were allotted because of a lack of projects which have been approved
by the State water pollution control agency under subsection (b) (1)
of this section and certified as entitled to priority under subsection
(b) (4) of this section, shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on such
basis as he determines to be reasonable and equitable and in ac-
cordance with regulations promulgated by him, to States having
projects approved under this section for which grants have not been
made because of lack of funds: Provided, however, That whenever
a State has funds subject to reallocation and the Secretary finds that
the need for a project in a community in such State is due in part to
any Federal institution or Federal construction activity, he may,
prior to such reallocation, make an additional grant with respect to
such project which will in his judgment reflect an equitable contribu-
tion for the need caused by such Federal institution or activity. Any
sum made available to a State by reallotment under the preceding
sentence shall be in addition to any funds otherwise allotted to such
State under this Act. The allotments of a State under the second
[and third], third, and fourth sentences of this
[P.21]
subsection shall be available, in accordance with the provisions of this
section, for payments with respect to projects in such State which
have been approved under this section. For purposes of this section,
population shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial
census for which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of
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
-------
570 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
capita incomes of the States and of the continental United States for
the three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data
are available from the Department of Commerce.
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the
sum of $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated,
for the purpose of making grants under this section, $80,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, [$100,000-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $100,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. Sums so appropriated shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That at least 50 percent of the
funds so appropriated for each fiscal year shall ba used for grants for
the construction of treatment works servicing municipalities of 125,000
population or under.] $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1966, and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967.
Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended. At least
50 per centum of the funds so appropriated for each fiscal year ending
on or before June 30, 1965, and at least 50 per centum of the first
$100,000,000 so appropriated for each fiscal year beginning on or after
July 1, 1965, shall be used for grants for the construction of treatment
works servicing municipalities of one hundred and twenty-five
thousand population or under.
(e) The Secretary shall make payments under this section through
the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury. Funds
so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construction
of the project for which the amount was paid. As used in this section
the term "construction" includes preliminary planning to determine
the economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works, the
engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations
and studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of treat-
ment works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works; and the
inspection and supervision of the construction of treatment works.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Secre-
tary may increase the amount of a grant made under subsection (b)
of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the amount of such
grant for any project which has been certified to him by an official
State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered under
State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metropolitan or
regional planning for a metropolitan area within which the assistance
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 571
is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality designated for such
purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case of interstate
planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan
developed or in process of development for
[p. 22]
such metropolitan area. For the purposes of this subsection, the
term "metropolitan area" means either (1) a standard metropolitan
statistical area as defined by the Bureau of the Budget, except as may
be determined by the President as not being appropriate for the pur-
poses hereof, or (2) any urban area, including those surrounding
areas that form an economic and socially related region, taking into
consideration such factors as present and future population trends
and patterns of urban growth, location of transportation facilities and
systems, and distribution of industrial, commercial, residential, gov-
ernmental, institutional, and other activities, which in the opinion of
the President lends itself as being appropriate for the purposes hereof.
[ (f) ] (9) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary
to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this sec-
tion shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the
same type of work on similar construction in the immediate locality,
as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Act
of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46
Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5). The Secretary of
Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this
subsection, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization
Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48
Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c).
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. [7] 9. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Ad-
visory Board, composed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall
be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President, none of
whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected
from among representatives of various State, interstate and local gov-
ernmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to,
affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public
and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an
active interest in the field of water pollution prevention and control,
as well as other individuals who are expert in this field.
-------
572 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to
fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which
his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking
office after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, three at the end of two years after such
date, and three at the end of three years after such date, as designated
by the President at the time of appointment, and (iii) the term of any
member under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the
date on which his successor's appointment is effective. None of the
members appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his preceding term, but terms
commencing prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding terms" for
purposes of this sentence.
[p. 23]
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secretary,
shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the
Secretary, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and
while away from their homes or regular places of business they may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to the activities
and functions of the Secretary under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. [8] 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in
or adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or
contributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters
or reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such
waters), which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall
be subject to abatement as provided in this Act.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 573
shall be encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or
pursuant to court order under subsection (g) be displaced by Federal
enforcement action.
(c) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or
a State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of
the Governor and of the State water pollution control agency for
the State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body
of any municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to
pollution of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of
persons in a State other than that in which the discharge or dis-
charges (causing or contributing to such pollution) originates, give
formal notification thereof to the water pollution control agency
and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such
discharge or discharges originate and shall call promptly a con-
ference of such agency or agencies and of the State water pollution
control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the State or States,
if any, which may be adversely affected by such pollution. When-
ever requested by the Governor of any State, the Secretary shall, if
such request refers to pollution of interstate or navigable waters
which is endangering the health or welfare of persons only in the
requesting State in which the discharge or discharges (causing or
contributing to such pollution) originate, give formal notification
thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency,
if any, of such State and shall promptly call a conference of such
agency or agencies, unless, in the judgment of the Secretary, the
effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses of the waters is not
of sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction
under this section. The Secretary shall also call such a conference
[p. 24]
whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason
to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that
in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurringf.]; or he
finds that substantial economic injury results from the inability to
market shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because
of pollution referred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State,
or local authorities.
(2) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. Not less than three weeks'
prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such agencies.
(3) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) oc-
-------
574 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
currence of pollution of interstate or navigable waters subject to
abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
(d) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the con-
ference or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of
such pollution is not being made and that the health or welfare of
any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to the ap-
propriate State water pollution control agency that it take necessary
remedial action. The Secretary shall allow at least six months from
the date he makes such recommendations for the taking of such
recommended action.
(e) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pol-
lution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge
or discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated,
before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the
Secretary. Each State in which any discharge causing or contrib-
uting to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be
adversely affected by such pollution shall be given an opportunity
to select one member of the Hearing Board and at least one member
shall be a representative of the Department of Commerce, and not
less than a majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons other
than officers or employees of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. At least three weeks' prior notice of such hearing
shall be given to the State water pollution control agencies and
interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid hearing
and the alleged polluter or polluters. In connection with any such
hearing, the Secretary or his designee shall have power to administer
oaths and to compel the presence and testimony of witnesses and the
production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investi-
gation at such hearing, by the issuance of subpenas. No person shall
be required under this subsection to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes. Witnesses so subpenaed shall be paid the same fees and
mileage as are paid witnesses in the district courts of the United
States. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena duly
served upon, any person, any district court of the United States for
the judicial district in which such person charged with contumacy or
refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon appli-
cation by the Secretary or the Attorney General, shall have juris-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 575
diction to issue an order requiring such person to appear and give
testimony, or to appear and produce evidence, or both.
[p. 25]
Any jailure to obey such order of the court may be punished by the
court as contempt thereof. On the basis of the evidence presented at
such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether
pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effec-
tive progress toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing
Board finds such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward
abatement thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations
to the Secretary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be
reasonable and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The
Secretary shall send such findings and recommendations to the per-
son or persons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such
pollution, together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not
less than six months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall
also send such findings and recommendations and such notice to the
State water pollution control agency and to the interstate agency,
if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate.
(f) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to
such pollution) originate, may request the Attorney General to
bring a suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement
of pollution, and
(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering
the health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor
of such State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on
behalf of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(g) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a tran-
script of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's
recommendations and shall receive such further evidence as the
court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due con-
sideration to the practicability of complying with such standards as
may be applicable and to the physical and economic feasibility of
securing abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction
to enter such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the
-------
576 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
public interest and the equities of the case may require.
(h) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-
section (e) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but
not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away
from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as author-
ized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
(i) As used in this section the term—
(1) "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
[p. 26]
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to
State law.
COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
SEC. [9] 11. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress
that any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any
building, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within
any available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate
agency or municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which
any matter is discharged from such property, in preventing or con-
trolling the pollution of such waters. In his summary of any confer-
ence pursuant to section [8(c)(3)] 10 (c) (3) of this Act, the
Secretary shall include references to any discharges allegedly con-
tributing to pollution from any Federal property. Notice of any
hearing pursuant to section [8(e)] 10 (e) involving any pollution
alleged to be affected by any such discharges shall also be given to
the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property involved
and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board con-
ducting such hearing shall also include references to any such dis-
charges which are contributing to the pollution found by such
Hearing Board.
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. [10] 12. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 577
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
(b) The Secretary, with the consent of the head of any other
agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out
the purposes of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be neces-
sary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
(d) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which
fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the
proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the project or under-
taking in connection with which such assistance is given or used, and
the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking
supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate
an effective audit.
(e) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly
authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit
and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the
recipients that are pertinent to the grants received under this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. [11] 13. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
[p.27]
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an argeement or compact ap-
proved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of
pollution of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used
in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
-------
578 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and
other waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries,
including coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. [12] 14. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding
or limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon Gen-
eral or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency
of the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or
impairing the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or sections
13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes," approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [13] 15. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances,
and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [14] 16. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act."
[P. 28]
SECTION 2 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NUMBERED 1 OF
1953
SEC. 2. Under Secretary and Assistant Secretaries.—There shall
be in the Department an Under Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare and [two] three Assistant Secretaries of Health, Education,
and Welfare each of whom shall be appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall perform such
functions as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate now or hereafter provided by law for under
secretaries and assistant secretaries, respectively, of executive
departments. The Under Secretary (or, during the absence or dis-
ability of the Under Secretary or in the event of a vacancy in the
office of Under Secretary, an Assistant Secretary determined accord-
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1974 O-469-516 (Vol. I)
-------
-------
------- |